Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	7. CONTINGENCIES *Legal Proceedings* In 1993, the Company was named as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) along with more than 100 other companies that used an Omega Chemical Corporation waste treatment facility in Whittier, California (the “Omega Site”). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has alleged that Omega failed to properly treat and dispose of certain hazardous waste materials at the Omega Site. The Company is a member of a large group of PRPs, known as the Omega Chemical Site PRP Organized Group (“OPOG”) that has agreed to fund certain on-going remediation efforts at the Omega Site. In February 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) approved a consent decree between EPA and OPOG to study contamination and evaluate cleanup options at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 1 or “OU1”). In January 2009, the Court approved two amendments to the consent decree, the first expanding the scope of work to mitigate volatile organic compounds affecting indoor air quality near the Omega Site and the second adding settling parties to the consent decree. Removal of waste materials from the Omega Site has been completed. As part of OU1, efforts to remediate the soil and groundwater at the Omega Site, including without limitation the extraction of chemical vapors from the soil in and around the site, are underway and are expected to be ongoing for several years. In addition, OPOG and EPA are investigating a regional groundwater contamination plume allegedly originating at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”). In September 2011, EPA issued an interim Record of Decision specifying the interim clean-up actions EPA has chosen for OU2, and in September 2012, it issued a special notice letter that triggered the commencement of good faith settlement negotiations with OPOG. It is anticipated that such settlement negotiations will result in EPA and OPOG entering into a remediation consent decree with the Court regarding OU2. In November 2007, Angeles Chemical Company, located downstream from the Omega Site, filed a lawsuit (the “Angeles Litigation”) in the Court against OPOG and the PRPs for cost recovery and indemnification for future response costs allegedly resulting from the regional groundwater contamination plume described above. In March 2008, the Court granted OPOG’s motion to stay the Angeles Litigation pending EPA’s determination of how to investigate and remediate the regional groundwater. In November 2010, a toxic tort litigation (the “Aguirre Litigation”) was commenced against Omega and OPOG in Los Angeles Superior Court by a group of employees of the Tri-Cities Regional Occupational Program located near the Omega Site. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, negligence, unlawful discharge of pollutants and public nuisance, and seek monetary damages for a variety of alleged injuries. In September 2012, the parties reached a final settlement of the Aguirre Litigation and the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The Company’s aggregate contribution allocation for the defense and settlement of the action was approximately $19,000. In 2010, certain PRP’s challenged the criteria previously used to allocate liability among the PRP’s. In December 2011, an allocation committee established by OPOG to review those criteria recommended changes to the cost allocation structure that would, upon final approval, increase the Company’s overall share of liability within the PRP group. In addition, the recent departure of one or more PRPs from OPOG could have the effect of increasing the proportional liability of the remaining PRPs, including the Company. In January 2012, as a result of the allocation criteria modifications and PRP departure from OPOG described above, the Company’s proportional allocation of liability was increased. Although the Company considers a loss relating to the Omega Site probable, its share of any financial obligations for the remediation of the Omega Site, including taking into account the allocation increases described above, is not currently believed to be material to the Company’s financial statements, based on the Company’s approximately 0.5% contribution to the total waste tonnage sent to the site and current estimates of the potential remediation costs. Based on currently available information, the Company has a loss accrual that is not material and believes that the actual amount of its costs will not be materially different from the amount accrued. However, proceedings are ongoing and the eventual outcome of the clean-up efforts and the pending litigation matters is uncertain at this time. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any eventual outcome will have a material adverse effect on its operations. AppliedMicro TPack A/S, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary acquired in September 2010 (“TPack”), is involved in a contract dispute with Xtera Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Meriton Networks Canada Inc. (collectively, “Xtera”), regarding a software development and licensing agreement the parties entered into in September 2006. In August 2009, Xtera filed an action against TPack in the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Texas, which was dismissed in October 2010 for lack of jurisdiction. In September 2009, TPack filed an action against Xtera in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada, which action was resumed in March 2011 following dismissal of the Texas action. In the Canadian action, TPack seeks contract damages from Xtera of approximately $1.0 million plus pre-judgment interest and expenses. In April 2011, Xtera filed a statement of defense and counter claim with the Ontario court, in which Xtera denies liability to TPack and seeks reimbursement of approximately $1.7 million in development fees and royalties previously paid to TPack, plus pre-judgment interest and expenses. Discovery in the legal proceedings is continuing. The Company does not currently anticipate that the TPack/Xtera legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

7. CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

In 1993, the Company was named as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) along with more than 100 other companies that used an Omega Chemical Corporation waste treatment facility in Whittier, California (the “Omega Site”). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has alleged that Omega failed to properly treat and dispose of certain hazardous waste materials at the Omega Site. The Company is a member of a large group of PRPs, known as the Omega Chemical Site PRP Organized Group (“OPOG”) that has agreed to fund certain on-going remediation efforts at the Omega Site. In February 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) approved a consent decree between EPA and OPOG to study contamination and evaluate cleanup options at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 1 or “OU1”). In January 2009, the Court approved two amendments to the consent decree, the first expanding the scope of work to mitigate volatile organic compounds affecting indoor air quality near the Omega Site and the second adding settling parties to the consent decree. Removal of waste materials from the Omega Site has been completed. As part of OU1, efforts to remediate the soil and groundwater at the Omega Site, including without limitation the extraction of chemical vapors from the soil in and around the site, are underway and are expected to be ongoing for several years. In addition, OPOG and EPA are investigating a regional groundwater contamination plume allegedly originating at the Omega Site (the Operable Unit 2 or “OU2”). In September 2011, EPA issued an interim Record of Decision specifying the interim clean-up actions EPA has chosen for OU2, and in September 2012, it issued a special notice letter that triggered the commencement of good faith settlement negotiations with OPOG. It is anticipated that such settlement negotiations will result in EPA and OPOG entering into a remediation consent decree with the Court regarding OU2. In November 2007, Angeles Chemical Company, located downstream from the Omega Site, filed a lawsuit (the “Angeles Litigation”) in the Court against OPOG and the PRPs for cost recovery and indemnification for future response costs allegedly resulting from the regional groundwater contamination plume described above. In March 2008, the Court granted OPOG’s motion to stay the Angeles Litigation pending EPA’s determination of how to investigate and remediate the regional groundwater. In November 2010, a toxic tort litigation (the “Aguirre Litigation”) was commenced against Omega and OPOG in Los Angeles Superior Court by a group of employees of the Tri-Cities Regional Occupational Program located near the Omega Site. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, negligence, unlawful discharge of pollutants and public nuisance, and seek monetary damages for a variety of alleged injuries. In September 2012, the parties reached a final settlement of the Aguirre Litigation and the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The Company’s aggregate contribution allocation for the defense and settlement of the action was approximately $19,000. In 2010, certain PRP’s challenged the criteria previously used to allocate liability among the PRP’s. In December 2011, an allocation committee established by OPOG to review those criteria recommended changes to the cost allocation structure that would, upon final approval, increase the Company’s overall share of liability within the PRP group. In addition, the recent departure of one or more PRPs from OPOG could have the effect of increasing the proportional liability of the remaining PRPs, including the Company. In January 2012, as a result of the allocation criteria modifications and PRP departure from OPOG described above, the Company’s proportional allocation of liability was increased. Although the Company considers a loss relating to the Omega Site probable, its share of any financial obligations for the remediation of the Omega Site, including taking into account the allocation increases described above, is not currently believed to be material to the Company’s financial statements, based on the Company’s approximately 0.5% contribution to the total waste tonnage sent to the site and current estimates of the potential remediation costs. Based on currently available information, the Company has a loss accrual that is not material and believes that the actual amount of its costs will not be materially different from the amount accrued. However, proceedings are ongoing and the eventual outcome of the clean-up efforts and the pending litigation matters is uncertain at this time. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe that any eventual outcome will have a material adverse effect on its operations.

AppliedMicro TPack A/S, the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary acquired in September 2010 (“TPack”), is involved in a contract dispute with Xtera Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Meriton Networks Canada Inc. (collectively, “Xtera”), regarding a software development and licensing agreement the parties entered into in September 2006. In August 2009, Xtera filed an action against TPack in the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Texas, which was dismissed in October 2010 for lack of jurisdiction. In September 2009, TPack filed an action against Xtera in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada, which action was resumed in March 2011 following dismissal of the Texas action. In the Canadian action, TPack seeks contract damages from Xtera of approximately $1.0 million plus pre-judgment interest and expenses. In April 2011, Xtera filed a statement of defense and counter claim with the Ontario court, in which Xtera denies liability to TPack and seeks reimbursement of approximately $1.7 million in development fees and royalties previously paid to TPack, plus pre-judgment interest and expenses. Discovery in the legal proceedings is continuing. The Company does not currently anticipate that the TPack/Xtera legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 460

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 8

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 450

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 4

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)

-Number 14

-Paragraph 3

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 440

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 2

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 210

-SubTopic 10

-Section S99

-Paragraph 1

-Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25)

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 825

-SubTopic 20

-Section 50

-Paragraph 1

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621

Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 5

-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

+ Details