COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Claims Reconciliation

On April 15, 2002, the “Petition Date”, Exide Technologies, together with certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws (“Bankruptcy Code” or “Chapter 11”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (“Bankruptcy Court”). The Debtors continued to operate their businesses and manage their properties as debtors-in-possession throughout the course of the bankruptcy case. The Debtors, along with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, filed a Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) with the Bankruptcy Court on February 27, 2004 and, on April 21, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan.

Under the Plan, holders of general unsecured claims were eligible to receive collectively 2.5 million shares of common stock and warrants to purchase up to approximately 6.7 million shares of common stock at $29.84 per share. Approximately 13.4% of such common stock and warrants were initially reserved for distribution for disputed claims. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, in consultation with the Company, established such reserve to provide for a pro rata distribution of new common stock and warrants to holders of disputed claims as they become allowed. As claims are evaluated and processed, the Company will object to some claims or portions thereof, and upward adjustments (to the extent common stock and warrants not previously distributed remain) or downward adjustments to the reserve will be made pending or following adjudication of such objections. Predictions regarding the allowance and classification of claims are difficult to make. With respect to environmental claims in particular, it is difficult to assess the Company’s potential liability due to the large number of other potentially responsible parties. For example, a demand for the total cleanup costs of a landfill used by many entities may be asserted by the government using joint and several liability theories. Although the Company believes that there is a reasonable basis to believe that it will ultimately be responsible for only its proportional share of these remediation costs, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail on these claims. In addition, the scope of remedial costs, or other environmental injuries, is highly variable and estimating these costs involves complex legal, scientific and technical judgments. Many of the claimants who have filed disputed claims, particularly environmental and personal injury claims, produce little or no proof of fault on which the Company can assess its potential liability. Such claimants often either fail to specify a determinate amount of damages or provide little or no basis for the alleged damages. In some cases, the Company is still seeking additional information needed for a claims assessment and information that is unknown to the Company at the current time may significantly affect the Company’s assessment regarding the adequacy of the reserve amounts in the future.

As general unsecured claims have been allowed in the Bankruptcy Court, the Company has distributed approximately one share of common stock per $383.00 in allowed claim amount and approximately one warrant per $153.00 in allowed claim amount. These rates were established based upon the assumption that the common stock and warrants allocated to holders of general unsecured claims on the effective date, including the reserve established for disputed claims, would be fully distributed so that the recovery rates for all allowed unsecured claims would comply with the Plan without the need for any redistribution or supplemental issuance of securities. Effective May 6, 2011, all outstanding warrants expired and were cancelled. No more warrants will be issued to resolve any remaining pre-petition claims. If the amount of general unsecured claims that is eventually allowed exceeds the amount of claims anticipated in the setting of the reserve, additional common stock may be issued for the excess claim amounts at the same rates as used for the other general unsecured claims. If this were to occur, additional common stock would also be issued to the holders of pre-petition secured claims to maintain the ratio of their distribution in common stock at nine times the amount of common stock distributed for all unsecured claims. Based on the Company’s assessment of remaining claims and the disputed claims reserve, the Company believes that the existing share reserve is sufficient to satisfy the remaining disputed claims. Accordingly, the Company does not expect to issue additional shares in excess of the existing reserve to resolve all of the remaining disputed claims.

Based on information available as of January 28, 2013, approximately 83.6% of common stock and warrants reserved for this purpose has been distributed. The Company also continues to resolve certain non-objected claims.

Private Party Lawsuits and other Legal Proceedings

In 2003, the Company served notices in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to reject certain executory contracts with EnerSys, which the Company contended were executory, including a 1991 Trademark and Trade Name License Agreement (the “Trademark License”), pursuant to which the Company had licensed to EnerSys use of the “Exide” trademark on certain industrial battery products in the United States and 80 foreign countries. EnerSys objected to the rejection of certain of those contracts, including the Trademark License. In 2006, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company’s request to reject certain of the contracts, including the Trademark License. EnerSys appealed those rulings. On June 1, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court ruling, and remanded to the lower courts, holding that certain of the contracts, including the Trademark License, were not executory contracts and, therefore, were not subject to rejection. On August 27, 2010, acting on the Third Circuit’s mandate, the Bankruptcy Court vacated its prior orders and denied the Company’s motion to reject the contracts on the grounds that the agreements are not executory. On September 20, 2010, the Company filed a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that EnerSys does not have enforceable rights under the Trademark License under certain Bankruptcy Code provisions. EnerSys filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which the Bankruptcy Court granted on January 8, 2013.

Environmental Matters

As a result of its multinational manufacturing, distribution and recycling operations, the Company is subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, occupational health, and safety laws and regulations, as well as similar laws and regulations in other countries in which the Company operates (collectively, “EH&S laws”).

On December 7, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreed Order with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ") that includes a penalty of $0.6 million to resolve a notice of enforcement issued by TCEQ for alleged air and waste rule violations at the Company's now closed Frisco, Texas recycling facility.

Effective December 17, 2012, the Company and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into a consent agreement that includes a penalty of $0.2 million to resolve alleged air and waste rule violations at the Frisco, Texas recycling facility.

The Company is exposed to liabilities under such EH&S laws arising from its past handling, release, storage and disposal of materials now designated as hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. The Company previously has received notification from the EPA, equivalent state and local agencies or others alleging or indicating that the Company is or may be responsible for performing and/or investigating environmental remediation, or seeking the repayment of the costs spent by governmental entities or others performing investigations and/or remediation at certain U.S. sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or similar state laws.

The Company monitors and responds to inquiries from the EPA, equivalent state and local agencies and others at approximately 50 federally defined Superfund or state equivalent sites. While the ultimate outcome of the environmental matters described in this paragraph is uncertain due to several factors, including the number of other parties that may also be responsible, the scope of investigation performed at such sites and the remediation alternatives pursued by such federal and equivalent state and local agencies, the Company presently believes any liability for these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

The Company is also involved in the assessment and remediation of various other properties, including certain currently and formerly owned or operating facilities. Such assessment and remedial work is being conducted pursuant to applicable EH&S laws with varying degrees of involvement by appropriate regulatory authorities. In addition, certain environmental matters concerning the Company are pending in various courts or with certain environmental regulatory agencies with respect to these currently or formerly owned or operating locations. While the ultimate outcome of the environmental matters described in this paragraph is uncertain, the Company presently believes the resolution of these known environmental matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

The Company has established liabilities for environmental remediation costs where such costs are probable and reasonably estimable and believes that such liabilities are adequate. As of December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2012, the amount of such liabilities on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet was approximately $25.6 million and $27.7 million, respectively. Because environmental liabilities are not accrued until a liability is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable, not all potential future environmental liabilities have been included in the Company’s environmental liabilities. Therefore, changes in estimates or future findings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

The sites that currently have the largest reserves include the following:

Tampa, Florida

The Tampa site is a former secondary lead recycling plant, lead oxide production facility, and sheet lead-rolling mill that operated from 1943 to 1989. Under a RCRA Part B Closure Permit and a Consent Decree with the State of Florida, Exide is required to investigate and remediate certain historic environmental impacts to the site. Cost estimates for remediation (closure and post-closure) are expected to range from $13.0 million to $20.0 million depending on final State of Florida requirements. The remediation activities are expected to occur over the course of several years.

Columbus, Georgia

The Columbus site is a former secondary lead recycling plant that was taken out of service in 1999, but remains part of a larger facility that includes an operating lead-acid battery manufacturing facility. Groundwater remediation activities began in 1988. Costs for supplemental investigations, remediation and site closure are currently estimated at $6.0 million to $8.5 million.

Guarantees

At December 31, 2012, the Company had outstanding letters of credit with a face value of $48.3 million and surety bonds with a face value of $42.8 million. The majority of the letters of credit and surety bonds have been issued as collateral or financial assurance with respect to certain liabilities the Company has recorded including, but not limited to, environmental remediation obligations and self-insured workers’ compensation reserves. Failure of the Company to satisfy its obligations with respect to the primary obligations secured by the letters of credit or surety bonds could entitle the beneficiary of the related letter of credit or surety bond to demand payments pursuant to such instruments. The letters of credit generally have terms up to one year. Collateral held by the sureties in the form of letters of credit at December 31, 2012, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, totaled approximately $40.6 million.

Certain of the Company’s European and Asia Pacific subsidiaries have issued bank guarantees as collateral or financial assurance in connection with environmental obligations, income tax claims and customer contract requirements. At December 31, 2012, bank guarantees with an aggregate face value of $21.2 million were outstanding.

Sales Returns and Allowances

The Company provides for an allowance for product returns and/or allowances. Based upon product examination in the manufacturing re-work process, the Company believes that the majority of its product returns are not the result of product defects. The Company recognizes the estimated cost of product returns as a reduction of net sales in the period in which the related revenue is recognized. The product return estimates are based upon historical trends and claims experience, and include assessment of the anticipated lag between the date of sale and claim/return date.

Changes in the Company’s sales returns and allowances liability (in thousands) are as follows:




Balance at March 31, 2012	$	36,811

Accrual for sales returns and allowances	28,119
Settlements made (in cash or credit) and currency translation	(29,270		)

Balance at December 31, 2012	$	35,660