Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	10. CONTINGENCIES Environmental compliance The United States Environmental Protection Agency and several states have adopted laws and regulations relating to underground storage tanks used for petroleum products. Several states in which the Company does business have trust fund programs with provisions for sharing or reimbursing corrective action or remediation costs. Management currently believes that substantially all capital expenditures for electronic monitoring, cathodic protection, and overfill/spill protection to comply with existing regulations have been completed. The Company has an accrued liability at April 30, 2012 and 2011 of approximately $380 and $231, respectively, for estimated expenses related to anticipated corrective actions or remediation efforts, including relevant legal and consulting costs. Management believes the Company has no material joint and several environmental liability with other parties. Additional regulations or amendments to the existing regulations could result in future revisions to such estimated expenditures. Legal matters The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits (“hot fuel” cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally alleged that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60°F. Fuel is measured at 60°F in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all sought certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also sought certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally sought recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. These actions were among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases (officially, the “Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation”) be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification. Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits. In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in two cases originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant. The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case, having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert such claims. However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and several other Defendants. With respect to claims for unjust enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that, at any time between January 1, 2001 and the present, purchased motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60°F, in the state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled by one or more of the Defendants. As to claims for violation of the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases. The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not be consolidated for all purposes. The matter is now under consideration by the Court. On April 6, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for Casey’s General Stores, Inc. informed the Court that they reached an enforceable settlement agreement which, if approved by the Court, will result in the settlement and dismissal of all claims against Casey’s in the multidistrict litigation, including the Kansas cases. Based on this representation, the Court severed plaintiffs’ claims against Casey’s General Stores, Inc. from the claims against the remaining defendants, which are set for an anticipated trial date in August of 2012. The settlement amount for the Company was determined not to be material. From time to time we may be involved in other legal and administrative proceedings or investigations arising from the conduct of our business operations, including contractual disputes; employment or personnel matters; personal injury and property damage claims; and claims by federal, state, and local regulatory authorities relating to the sale of products pursuant to licenses and permits issued by those authorities. Claims for compensatory or exemplary damages in those actions may be substantial. While the outcome of such litigation, proceedings, investigations, or claims is never certain, it is our opinion, after taking into consideration legal counsel’s assessment and the availability of insurance proceeds and other collateral sources to cover potential losses, that the ultimate disposition of such matters currently pending or threatened, individually or cumulatively, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operation. Other At April 30, 2012, the Company was partially self-insured for workers’ compensation claims in all eleven states of its marketing territory and was also partially self-insured for general liability and auto liability under an agreement that provides for annual stop-loss limits equal to or exceeding approximately $1,000. To facilitate this agreement, letters of credit approximating $15,000 and $12,000, respectively, were issued and outstanding at April 30, 2012 and 2011, on the insurance company’s behalf. The Company also has investments of approximately $223 in escrow as required by one state for partial self-insurance of workers’ compensation claims. Additionally, the Company is self-insured for its portion of employee medical expenses. At April 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company had $23,701 and $22,129, respectively, in accrued expenses for estimated claims relating to self-insurance, the majority of which has been actuarially determined.

Environmental compliance The United States Environmental Protection Agency and several states have adopted laws and regulations relating to underground storage tanks used for petroleum products. Several states in which the Company does business have trust fund programs with provisions for sharing or reimbursing corrective action or remediation costs.

Management currently believes that substantially all capital expenditures for electronic monitoring, cathodic protection, and overfill/spill protection to comply with existing regulations have been completed. The Company has an accrued liability at April 30, 2012 and 2011 of approximately $380 and $231, respectively, for estimated expenses related to anticipated corrective actions or remediation efforts, including relevant legal and consulting costs. Management believes the Company has no material joint and several environmental liability with other parties. Additional regulations or amendments to the existing regulations could result in future revisions to such estimated expenditures.

Legal matters The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits (“hot fuel” cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally alleged that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60°F. Fuel is measured at 60°F in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all sought certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also sought certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally sought recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages.

These actions were among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases (officially, the “Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation”) be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification. Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in two cases originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant. The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case, having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert such claims. However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and several other Defendants. With respect to claims for unjust enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that, at any time between January 1, 2001 and the present, purchased motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60°F, in the state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled by one or more of the Defendants. As to claims for violation of the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not be consolidated for all purposes. The matter is now under consideration by the Court. On April 6, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for Casey’s General Stores, Inc. informed the Court that they reached an enforceable settlement agreement which, if approved by the Court, will result in the settlement and dismissal of all claims against Casey’s in the multidistrict litigation, including the Kansas cases. Based on this representation, the Court severed plaintiffs’ claims against Casey’s General Stores, Inc. from the claims against the remaining defendants, which are set for an anticipated trial date in August of 2012. The settlement amount for the Company was determined not to be material.

From time to time we may be involved in other legal and administrative proceedings or investigations arising from the conduct of our business operations, including contractual disputes; employment or personnel matters; personal injury and property damage claims; and claims by federal, state, and local regulatory authorities relating to the sale of products pursuant to licenses and permits issued by those authorities. Claims for compensatory or exemplary damages in those actions may be substantial. While the outcome of such litigation, proceedings, investigations, or claims is never certain, it is our opinion, after taking into consideration legal counsel’s assessment and the availability of insurance proceeds and other collateral sources to cover potential losses, that the ultimate disposition of such matters currently pending or threatened, individually or cumulatively, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operation.

Other At April 30, 2012, the Company was partially self-insured for workers’ compensation claims in all eleven states of its marketing territory and was also partially self-insured for general liability and auto liability under an agreement that provides for annual stop-loss limits equal to or exceeding approximately $1,000. To facilitate this agreement, letters of credit approximating $15,000 and $12,000, respectively, were issued and outstanding at April 30, 2012 and 2011, on the insurance company’s behalf. The Company also has investments of approximately $223 in escrow as required by one state for partial self-insurance of workers’ compensation claims. Additionally, the Company is self-insured for its portion of employee medical expenses. At April 30, 2012 and 2011, the Company had $23,701 and $22,129, respectively, in accrued expenses for estimated claims relating to self-insurance, the majority of which has been actuarially determined.