Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Claims Reconciliation On April 15, 2002, the “2002 Petition Date”, Exide Technologies, together with certain of its subsidiaries (the “2002 Debtors”), filed voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Previous Cases" and the "2002 Bankruptcy Court"). The 2002 Debtors, along with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Previous Cases, filed a Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “2002 Plan”) with the Bankruptcy Court on February 27, 2004 and, on April 21, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the 2002 Plan. Under the 2002 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. As general unsecured claims were allowed in the Previous Cases, the Company distributed approximately one share of common stock per $383.00 in allowed claim amount. These rates were established based upon the assumption that the common stock 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 2002 Plan without the need for any redistribution or supplemental issuance of securities. Currently, there is one claim remaining open in the Previous Cases that has not been settled, adjudicated or otherwise resolved. In addition, there is a pending adversary proceeding in which a settlement agreement to allow a general unsecured, non-priority claim has been approved by the 2002 Bankruptcy Court, but is awaiting final approval from a state court to become effective. In the event that the general unsecured claims made against the 2002 Debtors in the Previous Cases were settled, adjudicated or otherwise resolved on a final basis for an aggregate amount so that all of the shares of common stock held in reserve were not distributed, the 2002 Plan required such shares to be redistributed on a pro rata basis to the holders of such allowed general unsecured claims. Because of the filing of In re Exide Technologies, Case No. 13-11482, it is not certain whether any more shares of common stock will be distributed to the few remaining unsecured creditors who have not yet received a distribution in the Previous Cases or whether surplus shares, if any, of common stock, held in the distribution reserve will be distributed to the holders of allowed general unsecured claims in the Previous Cases. 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 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 did not have enforceable rights under the Trademark License under Bankruptcy Code provisions which the Company believed were relevant to non-executory contracts. EnerSys filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which the Bankruptcy Court granted on January 8, 2013. On June 7, 2013, EnerSys Delaware Inc., f/k/a EnerSys, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware seeking an accounting and restitution for alleged benefits received by the Company and alleged losses incurred by EnerSys allegedly as the result of the granting by the Bankruptcy Court in 2006 of an Order which allowed the Company to reject the Trademark License and use the licensed "Exide" trademark for industrial battery products and the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent August 2010 Order - vacating the 2006 Order and denying the Company's request to reject the Trademark License. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the suit filed by EnerSys Delaware Inc. was automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E. Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy. On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly, Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D’Appolonia, David S. Ferguson, John O’Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s senior secured notes during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made by the Company and its officers during these periods were materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss all claims against them on or before February 13, 2014 and briefing on their motion is expected to be complete by March 13, 2014. Discovery is currently stayed pursuant to the discovery-stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company's Netherlands subsidiary received notice from the Dutch antitrust authorities that it was the subject of an investigation of a local trade association's members in the traction/motive power batteries segment. On July 9 and July 16, 2013, the authorities conducted an on-site inspection and has since requested additional information and documentation, which the company has provided. The Company is cooperating with the authorities and is currently unable to assess the ultimate outcome of the investigation, the entity or entities that could be affected or the amount of any fines that may result. 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”). 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 on-site and off-site environmental remediation costs where such costs are probable and reasonably estimable and believes that such liabilities are adequate. As of December 31, 2013 and March 31, 2013, the amount of such liabilities on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets was approximately $26.9 million and $25.4 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. On April 12, 2013, the Company was served with a notification of violation and 60 day intent to sue regarding the Company's Vernon, California facility from the California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT). CCAT alleges the Company violated the warning requirement of the State of California's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, regarding alleged community exposure to the chemical, 1,3-butadiene. On May 28, 2013, the Company was served with a Notice of Intent to Sue by CCAT pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's ("RCRA") citizens suit provision at 42 USC Section 6972, alleging that the Company has created an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in and around the Company's Vernon, California facility. On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the case is stayed. On October 18, 2013, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") filed a petition seeking the suspension of operations at the Vernon facility for alleged violation of an SCAQMD rule and related furnace control equipment permit conditions until compliance is achieved. The Company is contesting the SCAQMD's petition. A hearing on the SCAQMD’s petition commenced on December 14, 2013 and is continuing into calendar 2014. On January 10, 2014, the SCAQMD also adopted an amended rule that contains new emissions criteria and equipment requirements with varying compliance dates, including an April 10, 2014 deadline relating to furnace equipment operations that is the subject of the SCAQMD petition. The Company will file for a limited administrative variance and a judicial legal challenge to the amended rule's April 10, 2014 equipment deadline by February 10, 2014. If the Company is unable to prevail with regard to the SCAQMD’s petition, obtain a variance to certain provisions of the amended rule, or fail in a contest to the amended rule and is subsequently forced to suspend operations at the Vernon facility, the Company will need to find alternative sources of lead to ensure adequate supply of this critical raw material component in its products while it evaluates appropriate measures to meet the SCAQMD's demands. If the Company is unable to find such sources of lead, if it procures such sources of lead at significantly higher cost, or further risk reduction efforts require significant capital expenditures, such circumstances could result in a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows. On January 16, 2014, the Company, along with unnamed individuals (“ DOE Defendants”), were named as defendants in a civil lawsuit brought by the SCAQMD in the case captioned as People of the State of California, ex rel South Coast Air Quality Management District, a Public Entity v. Exide Technologies, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50. The SCAQMD alleges that the Company and the DOE Defendants failed to comply with several of the SCAQMD's rules related to lead and arsenic emissions at the Company's Vernon, California lead recycling facility. The SCAQMD is seeking penalties in an amount not less than $40 million. The Company denies the allegations in the lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. The sites that currently have the largest environmental 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. Asset Sale Contract In June 2012, the Company announced an agreement to sell approximately 180 acres of undeveloped land surrounding the Company’s Frisco, Texas recycling facility. The Company believes the sale, which is subject to certain pre-closing actions, will provide net cash proceeds, after deducting closure related costs, of approximately $25.0 million to $30.0 million. The buyer has fully funded an escrow account with the purchase price, a portion of which is currently available to the Company for certain demolition and remediation activities related to the parcel of property being sold. At the request of regulators and others, the Company will allow interested parties to provide input on pre-closure remedial activities, which may include one or more notice and comment periods. Accordingly, the Company currently believes that the net cash proceeds will be received in fiscal 2015. Under the Company's indenture for the senior secured notes, these proceeds were required to be invested in future U.S. capital expenditures or toward the repurchase of any senior secured notes outstanding. Under the DIP Credit Agreement, these proceeds will be used to repay outstanding borrowings under the ABL revolving credit facility. In connection with resolution of objections by the City of Frisco and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to the Company's efforts to obtain final approval of the DIP Credit Agreement, the Company agreed to set aside $5.0 million of the purchase price into a separate account to fund any required remedial activities related to the parcel of the Frisco property retained by the Company. Any unused funds following completion of remediation of the retained property will be returned to the Company. Guarantees At December 31, 2013, the Company had outstanding letters of credit with a face value of $61.8 million and surety bonds with a face value of $55.2 million. The majority of the letters of credit and surety bonds have been issued as collateral or financial assurance with respect to certain liabilities that 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 surety in the form of letters of credit at December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the various surety agreements, was $53.0 million. Certain of the Company’s European and Asia Pacific subsidiaries have bank guarantees outstanding as collateral or financial assurance in connection with environmental obligations, income tax claims and customer contract requirements. At December 31, 2013, bank guarantees with an aggregate face value of $12.6 million were outstanding.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Claims Reconciliation

On April 15, 2002, the “2002 Petition Date”, Exide Technologies, together with certain of its subsidiaries (the “2002 Debtors”), filed voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Previous Cases" and the "2002 Bankruptcy Court"). The 2002 Debtors, along with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Previous Cases, filed a Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “2002 Plan”) with the Bankruptcy Court on February 27, 2004 and, on April 21, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the 2002 Plan.

Under the 2002 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.

As general unsecured claims were allowed in the Previous Cases, the Company distributed approximately one share of common stock per $383.00 in allowed claim amount. These rates were established based upon the assumption that the common stock 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 2002 Plan without the need for any redistribution or supplemental issuance of securities.

Currently, there is one claim remaining open in the Previous Cases that has not been settled, adjudicated or otherwise resolved. In addition, there is a pending adversary proceeding in which a settlement agreement to allow a general unsecured, non-priority claim has been approved by the 2002 Bankruptcy Court, but is awaiting final approval from a state court to become effective. In the event that the general unsecured claims made against the 2002 Debtors in the Previous Cases were settled, adjudicated or otherwise resolved on a final basis for an aggregate amount so that all of the shares of common stock held in reserve were not distributed, the 2002 Plan required such shares to be redistributed on a pro rata basis to the holders of such allowed general unsecured claims. Because of the filing of In re Exide Technologies, Case No. 13-11482, it is not certain whether any more shares of common stock will be distributed to the few remaining unsecured creditors who have not yet received a distribution in the Previous Cases or whether surplus shares, if any, of common stock, held in the distribution reserve will be distributed to the holders of allowed general unsecured claims in the Previous Cases.

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 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 did not have enforceable rights under the Trademark License under Bankruptcy Code provisions which the Company believed were relevant to non-executory contracts. EnerSys filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which the Bankruptcy Court granted on January 8, 2013.

On June 7, 2013, EnerSys Delaware Inc., f/k/a EnerSys, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware seeking an accounting and restitution for alleged benefits received by the Company and alleged losses incurred by EnerSys allegedly as the result of the granting by the Bankruptcy Court in 2006 of an Order which allowed the Company to reject the Trademark License and use the licensed "Exide" trademark for industrial battery products and the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent August 2010 Order - vacating the 2006 Order and denying the Company's request to reject the Trademark License. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the suit filed by EnerSys Delaware Inc. was automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E. Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy.

On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly, Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D’Appolonia, David S. Ferguson, John O’Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s senior secured notes during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made by the Company and its officers during these periods were materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss all claims against them on or before February 13, 2014 and briefing on their motion is expected to be complete by March 13, 2014. Discovery is currently stayed pursuant to the discovery-stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

The Company's Netherlands subsidiary received notice from the Dutch antitrust authorities that it was the subject of an investigation of a local trade association's members in the traction/motive power batteries segment. On July 9 and July 16, 2013, the authorities conducted an on-site inspection and has since requested additional information and documentation, which the company has provided. The Company is cooperating with the authorities and is currently unable to assess the ultimate outcome of the investigation, the entity or entities that could be affected or the amount of any fines that may result.

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”).

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 on-site and off-site environmental remediation costs where such costs are probable and reasonably estimable and believes that such liabilities are adequate. As of December 31, 2013 and March 31, 2013, the amount of such liabilities on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets was approximately $26.9 million and $25.4 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.

On April 12, 2013, the Company was served with a notification of violation and 60 day intent to sue regarding the Company's Vernon, California facility from the California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT). CCAT alleges the Company violated the warning requirement of the State of California's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, regarding alleged community exposure to the chemical, 1,3-butadiene.

On May 28, 2013, the Company was served with a Notice of Intent to Sue by CCAT pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's ("RCRA") citizens suit provision at 42 USC Section 6972, alleging that the Company has created an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in and around the Company's Vernon, California facility.

On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the case is stayed.

On October 18, 2013, the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") filed a petition seeking the suspension of operations at the Vernon facility for alleged violation of an SCAQMD rule and related furnace control equipment permit conditions until compliance is achieved. The Company is contesting the SCAQMD's petition. A hearing on the SCAQMD’s petition commenced on December 14, 2013 and is continuing into calendar 2014.

On January 10, 2014, the SCAQMD also adopted an amended rule that contains new emissions criteria and equipment requirements with varying compliance dates, including an April 10, 2014 deadline relating to furnace equipment operations that is the subject of the SCAQMD petition. The Company will file for a limited administrative variance and a judicial legal challenge to the amended rule's April 10, 2014 equipment deadline by February 10, 2014.

If the Company is unable to prevail with regard to the SCAQMD’s petition, obtain a variance to certain provisions of the amended rule, or fail in a contest to the amended rule and is subsequently forced to suspend operations at the Vernon facility, the Company will need to find alternative sources of lead to ensure adequate supply of this critical raw material component in its products while it evaluates appropriate measures to meet the SCAQMD's demands. If the Company is unable to find such sources of lead, if it procures such sources of lead at significantly higher cost, or further risk reduction efforts require significant capital expenditures, such circumstances could result in a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows.

On January 16, 2014, the Company, along with unnamed individuals (“ DOE Defendants”), were named as defendants in a civil lawsuit brought by the SCAQMD in the case captioned as People of the State of California, ex rel South Coast Air Quality Management District, a Public Entity v. Exide Technologies, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50. The SCAQMD alleges that the Company and the DOE Defendants failed to comply with several of the SCAQMD's rules related to lead and arsenic emissions at the Company's Vernon, California lead recycling facility. The SCAQMD is seeking penalties in an amount not less than $40 million. The Company denies the allegations in the lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations.

The sites that currently have the largest environmental 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.

Asset Sale Contract

In June 2012, the Company announced an agreement to sell approximately 180 acres of undeveloped land surrounding the Company’s Frisco, Texas recycling facility. The Company believes the sale, which is subject to certain pre-closing actions, will provide net cash proceeds, after deducting closure related costs, of approximately $25.0 million to $30.0 million. The buyer has fully funded an escrow account with the purchase price, a portion of which is currently available to the Company for certain demolition and remediation activities related to the parcel of property being sold. At the request of regulators and others, the Company will allow interested parties to provide input on pre-closure remedial activities, which may include one or more notice and comment periods. Accordingly, the Company currently believes that the net cash proceeds will be received in fiscal 2015. Under the Company's indenture for the senior secured notes, these proceeds were required to be invested in future U.S. capital expenditures or toward the repurchase of any senior secured notes outstanding. Under the DIP Credit Agreement, these proceeds will be used to repay outstanding borrowings under the ABL revolving credit facility. In connection with resolution of objections by the City of Frisco and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to the Company's efforts to obtain final approval of the DIP Credit Agreement, the Company agreed to set aside $5.0 million of the purchase price into a separate account to fund any required remedial activities related to the parcel of the Frisco property retained by the Company. Any unused funds following completion of remediation of the retained property will be returned to the Company.

Guarantees

At December 31, 2013, the Company had outstanding letters of credit with a face value of $61.8 million and surety bonds with a face value of $55.2 million. The majority of the letters of credit and surety bonds have been issued as collateral or financial assurance with respect to certain liabilities that 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 surety in the form of letters of credit at December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the various surety agreements, was $53.0 million.

Certain of the Company’s European and Asia Pacific subsidiaries have bank guarantees outstanding as collateral or financial assurance in connection with environmental obligations, income tax claims and customer contract requirements. At December 31, 2013, bank guarantees with an aggregate face value of $12.6 million were outstanding.