Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies	(7) Commitments and Contingencies: *Litigation* On January 19, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, unsealed indictments of 22 individuals from the law enforcement and military equipment industries, one of whom was our former Vice President-Sales, International & U.S. Law Enforcement. We were not charged in the indictment. We also were served with a Grand Jury subpoena for the production of documents. The DOJ then conducted an investigation to determine whether we had violated the FCPA and we have cooperated fully with the DOJ in this matter. On February 21, 2012, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the indictments of the remaining defendants who were pending trial, including our former Vice President-Sales, International & U.S. Law Enforcement. On February 24, 2012, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. Following extensive investigation and evaluation, the DOJ declined to pursue any FCPA charges against us and closed its investigation. The DOJ noted our “thorough cooperation” in correspondence to us. In fiscal 2011, we received a subpoena from the staff of the SEC giving notice that the SEC was conducting a non-public, fact-finding inquiry to determine whether there had been any violations of the federal securities laws. It appears this civil inquiry was triggered in part by the DOJ investigation into potential FCPA violations. We undertook a comprehensive review of company policies and procedures. Effective July 28, 2014, we settled civil charges filed by the SEC in an administrative proceeding relating to the anti-bribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement, in which we neither admitted nor denied the allegations made by the SEC, the SEC noted our cooperation with the inquiry, we consented to pay $2.0 million, and we agreed to undertake certain reporting obligations to the SEC concerning our FCPA compliance for two years following the settlement date. We are involved in a purported stockholder derivative lawsuit. This action was brought by a derivative plaintiff on behalf of our company against certain of our officers, directors, and employees. The lawsuit is based principally on a theory of breach of fiduciary duties arising from a 2007 class action lawsuit that has since been dismissed with prejudice. The derivative plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of our company from the individual defendants. Damages sought include equitable and/or injunctive relief, actions to improve corporate governance, and recovery of attorneys’ fees. The action was dismissed by the court in 2013, but is currently under review on appeal by the derivative plaintiff. A decision on the appeal is not expected until 2015. A settlement reached in a previously reported stockholder derivative lawsuit has been approved by the court. Settlement costs related to this case do not have a material impact on our financial statements and have been fully reserved up to our self-insured retention, with any remaining value expected to be covered by insurance. We are a defendant in 10 product liability cases and are aware of approximately eight other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any accident and any results from them were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party. In addition, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $1.5 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter. We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive and time consuming and diverts the time and attention of our management. We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and the review of the merits of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided for adequate reserves for defense costs. We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable in other current assets and other assets. *Environmental Remediation* We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws that regulate both the health and safety of our workforce as well as our environmental liability, including those regulations monitored by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Department of Public Health (DPH). Though not exhaustive, examples of applicable regulations include confined space safety, walking and working surfaces, machine guarding, and life safety. We are required to comply with regulations that mitigate any release into the environment. These laws have required, and are expected to continue to require, us to make significant expenditures of both a capital and expense nature. Several of the more significant federal laws applicable to our operations include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We have in place programs and personnel to monitor compliance with various federal, state, and local environmental regulations. In the normal course of our manufacturing operations, we are subject to governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to waste disposal, air emissions, and water discharges into the environment. We fund our environmental costs through cash flows from operations. We are required to remediate hazardous waste at our facilities. Currently, we own designated sites in Springfield, Massachusetts and are subject to two release areas, which are the focus of remediation projects as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, or the MCP. The MCP provides a structured environment for the voluntary remediation of regulated releases. We may be required to remove hazardous waste or remediate the alleged effects of hazardous substances on the environment associated with past disposal practices at sites not owned by us. We have received notice that we are a potentially responsible party from the Environmental Protection Agency and/or individual states under CERCLA or a state equivalent at two sites. As of July 31, 2014 and April 30, 2014, we had recorded a $623,000 environmental reserve in non-current liabilities, which represents the net present value of the estimated obligation. Our estimate of these costs is based upon currently enacted laws and regulations, currently available facts, experience in remediation efforts, existing technology, and the ability of other potentially responsible parties or contractually liable parties to pay the allocated portions of any environmental obligations. When the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. When the information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. We may not have insurance coverage for our environmental remediation costs. We have not recognized any gains from probable recoveries or other gain contingencies. The environmental reserve was calculated using undiscounted amounts based on independent environmental remediation reports obtained. Under the asset purchase agreement with TTPP, the former stockholder of TTPP has indemnified us for losses arising from, among other things, environmental conditions related to its manufacturing activities. Of the purchase price, $3.0 million has been placed in an escrow account, a portion of which will be applied to environmental remediation at the manufacturing site in Deep River, Connecticut. It is not presently possible to estimate the ultimate amount of all remediation costs and potential uses of the escrow. We believe the likelihood of environmental remediation costs exceeding the amount available in escrow to be remote. Based on information known to us, we do not expect current environmental regulations or environmental proceedings and claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, it is not possible to predict with certainty the impact on us of future environmental compliance requirements or of the cost of resolution of future environmental proceedings and claims, in part because the scope of the remedies that may be required is not certain, liability under federal environmental laws is joint and several in nature, and environmental laws and regulations are subject to modification and changes in interpretation. There can be no assurance that additional or changing environmental regulation will not become more burdensome in the future and that any such development would not have a material adverse effect on our company.

(7) Commitments and Contingencies:

Litigation

On January 19, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, unsealed indictments of 22 individuals from the law enforcement and military equipment industries, one of whom was our former Vice President-Sales, International & U.S. Law Enforcement. We were not charged in the indictment. We also were served with a Grand Jury subpoena for the production of documents. The DOJ then conducted an investigation to determine whether we had violated the FCPA and we have cooperated fully with the DOJ in this matter. On February 21, 2012, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the indictments of the remaining defendants who were pending trial, including our former Vice President-Sales, International & U.S. Law Enforcement. On February 24, 2012, the district court granted the motion to dismiss.

Following extensive investigation and evaluation, the DOJ declined to pursue any FCPA charges against us and closed its investigation. The DOJ noted our “thorough cooperation” in correspondence to us.

In fiscal 2011, we received a subpoena from the staff of the SEC giving notice that the SEC was conducting a non-public, fact-finding inquiry to determine whether there had been any violations of the federal securities laws. It appears this civil inquiry was triggered in part by the DOJ investigation into potential FCPA violations. We undertook a comprehensive review of company policies and procedures. Effective July 28, 2014, we settled civil charges filed by the SEC in an administrative proceeding relating to the anti-bribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement, in which we neither admitted nor denied the allegations made by the SEC, the SEC noted our cooperation with the inquiry, we consented to pay $2.0 million, and we agreed to undertake certain reporting obligations to the SEC concerning our FCPA compliance for two years following the settlement date.

We are involved in a purported stockholder derivative lawsuit. This action was brought by a derivative plaintiff on behalf of our company against certain of our officers, directors, and employees. The lawsuit is based principally on a theory of breach of fiduciary duties arising from a 2007 class action lawsuit that has since been dismissed with prejudice. The derivative plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of our company from the individual defendants. Damages sought include equitable and/or injunctive relief, actions to improve corporate governance, and recovery of attorneys’ fees. The action was dismissed by the court in 2013, but is currently under review on appeal by the derivative plaintiff. A decision on the appeal is not expected until 2015.

A settlement reached in a previously reported stockholder derivative lawsuit has been approved by the court. Settlement costs related to this case do not have a material impact on our financial statements and have been fully reserved up to our self-insured retention, with any remaining value expected to be covered by insurance.

We are a defendant in 10 product liability cases and are aware of approximately eight other product liability claims, primarily alleging defective product design, defective manufacturing, or failure to provide adequate warnings. In addition, we are a co-defendant in a case filed on August 27, 1999 by the city of Gary, Indiana against numerous firearm manufacturers, distributors, and dealers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties. We believe that the various allegations as described above are unfounded, and, in addition, that any accident and any results from them were due to negligence or misuse of the firearm by the claimant or a third party.

In addition, we are involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including commercial, environmental, and employment matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

The relief sought in individual cases primarily includes compensatory and, sometimes, punitive damages. Certain of the cases and claims seek unspecified compensatory or punitive damages. In others, compensatory damages sought may range from less than $75,000 to approximately $1.5 million. In our experience, initial demands do not generally bear a reasonable relationship to the facts and circumstances of a particular matter.

We are vigorously defending ourselves in the lawsuits to which we are subject. An unfavorable outcome or prolonged litigation could harm our business. Litigation of this nature also is expensive and time consuming and diverts the time and attention of our management.

We monitor the status of known claims and the related product liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs for asserted and unasserted claims. After consultation with litigation counsel and the review of the merits of each claim, we have concluded that we are unable to reasonably estimate the probability or the estimated range of reasonably possible losses related to material adverse judgments related to such claims and, therefore have not accrued for any such judgments. In the future, should we determine that a loss (or an additional loss in excess of our accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, we would then disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate could be made, or disclose that an estimate could not be made. We believe that we have provided for adequate reserves for defense costs.

We have recorded our liability for defense costs before consideration for reimbursement from insurance carriers. We have also recorded the amount due as reimbursement under existing policies from the insurance carriers as a receivable in other current assets and other assets.

Environmental Remediation

We are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws that regulate both the health and safety of our workforce as well as our environmental liability, including those regulations monitored by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Department of Public Health (DPH). Though not exhaustive, examples of applicable regulations include confined space safety, walking and working surfaces, machine guarding, and life safety.

We are required to comply with regulations that mitigate any release into the environment. These laws have required, and are expected to continue to require, us to make significant expenditures of both a capital and expense nature. Several of the more significant federal laws applicable to our operations include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

We have in place programs and personnel to monitor compliance with various federal, state, and local environmental regulations. In the normal course of our manufacturing operations, we are subject to governmental proceedings and orders pertaining to waste disposal, air emissions, and water discharges into the environment. We fund our environmental costs through cash flows from operations.

We are required to remediate hazardous waste at our facilities. Currently, we own designated sites in Springfield, Massachusetts and are subject to two release areas, which are the focus of remediation projects as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, or the MCP. The MCP provides a structured environment for the voluntary remediation of regulated releases. We may be required to remove hazardous waste or remediate the alleged effects of hazardous substances on the environment associated with past disposal practices at sites not owned by us. We have received notice that we are a potentially responsible party from the Environmental Protection Agency and/or individual states under CERCLA or a state equivalent at two sites.

As of July 31, 2014 and April 30, 2014, we had recorded a $623,000 environmental reserve in non-current liabilities, which represents the net present value of the estimated obligation. Our estimate of these costs is based upon currently enacted laws and regulations, currently available facts, experience in remediation efforts, existing technology, and the ability of other potentially responsible parties or contractually liable parties to pay the allocated portions of any environmental obligations.

When the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. When the information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. We may not have insurance coverage for our environmental remediation costs. We have not recognized any gains from probable recoveries or other gain contingencies. The environmental reserve was calculated using undiscounted amounts based on independent environmental remediation reports obtained.

Under the asset purchase agreement with TTPP, the former stockholder of TTPP has indemnified us for losses arising from, among other things, environmental conditions related to its manufacturing activities. Of the purchase price, $3.0 million has been placed in an escrow account, a portion of which will be applied to environmental remediation at the manufacturing site in Deep River, Connecticut. It is not presently possible to estimate the ultimate amount of all remediation costs and potential uses of the escrow. We believe the likelihood of environmental remediation costs exceeding the amount available in escrow to be remote.

Based on information known to us, we do not expect current environmental regulations or environmental proceedings and claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, it is not possible to predict with certainty the impact on us of future environmental compliance requirements or of the cost of resolution of future environmental proceedings and claims, in part because the scope of the remedies that may be required is not certain, liability under federal environmental laws is joint and several in nature, and environmental laws and regulations are subject to modification and changes in interpretation. There can be no assurance that additional or changing environmental regulation will not become more burdensome in the future and that any such development would not have a material adverse effect on our company.