Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 9 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Kayne Litigation — On July 7, 2011, the Company was served with an amended complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that the Company, certain of its present and former directors and other entities or individuals now or previously associated with Grande, intentionally interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs to collect on a judgment (now approximately $47 million) they had against Grande by engaging in transactions (such as the dividend paid to all shareholders in March 2010) which transferred assets out of the United States. The Complaint also asserts claims under the civil RICO statute and for alter ego liability. In the Company’s opinion, the claims appear to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, on September 27, 2011, Emerson moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim (the “Motion”). On or about February 27, 2012, the Court dismissed the intentional interference claim and portions of the Civil RICO claim with leave to re-plead, but denied the Motion to dismiss the alter ego claim. On March 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint setting forth the same claims as the Complaint. On April 20, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the re-pleaded intentional interference and RICO claims, and oral arguments on this motion were held on June 18, 2012. On September 6, 2012, the Court dismissed the RICO claim, but granted the plaintiffs leave to re-plead. On September 17, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint setting forth the same claims as the Complaint. The Company’s response to the Third Amended Complaint was due and filed on October 4, 2012, which joined in a co-defendants’ motion to dismiss the alter ego claim and the RICO claim. The Court heard oral argument on December 17, 2012, but has not yet issued its decision. In the interim, the parties have exchanged document discovery requests and responses and plaintiffs and defendants, including the Company, have produced documents. Several depositions have been taken with more scheduled to take place in February. This matter has now been scheduled for a July 2, 2013 trial date. Emerson is defending the action vigorously. Except for the litigation matter described above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than litigation matters, in most cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to our business. Management cannot estimate with certainty the Company’s ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to such pending litigation matters. However, management believes, based on our examination of such matters, that the Company’s ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 9 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Kayne Litigation — On July 7, 2011, the Company was served with an amended complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that the Company, certain of its present and former directors and other entities or individuals now or previously associated with Grande, intentionally interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs to collect on a judgment (now approximately $47 million) they had against Grande by engaging in transactions (such as the dividend paid to all shareholders in March 2010) which transferred assets out of the United States. The Complaint also asserts claims under the civil RICO statute and for alter ego liability. In the Company’s opinion, the claims appear to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, on September 27, 2011, Emerson moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim (the “Motion”). On or about February 27, 2012, the Court dismissed the intentional interference claim and portions of the Civil RICO claim with leave to re-plead, but denied the Motion to dismiss the alter ego claim. On March 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint setting forth the same claims as the Complaint. On April 20, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the re-pleaded intentional interference and RICO claims, and oral arguments on this motion were held on June 18, 2012. On September 6, 2012, the Court dismissed the RICO claim, but granted the plaintiffs leave to re-plead. On September 17, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint setting forth the same claims as the Complaint. The Company’s response to the Third Amended Complaint was due and filed on October 4, 2012, which joined in a co-defendants’ motion to dismiss the alter ego claim and the RICO claim. The Court heard oral argument on December 17, 2012, but has not yet issued its decision. In the interim, the parties have exchanged document discovery requests and responses and plaintiffs and defendants, including the Company, have produced documents. Several depositions have been taken with more scheduled to take place in February. This matter has now been scheduled for a July 2, 2013 trial date. Emerson is defending the action vigorously.

Except for the litigation matter described above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than litigation matters, in most cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to our business. Management cannot estimate with certainty the Company’s ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to such pending litigation matters. However, management believes, based on our examination of such matters, that the Company’s ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.