Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies [Text Block]	Contingencies Settlement of Legal Matter During the first quarter of 2011, the company recorded a charge of $5,875 ($3,609 net of related taxes or $.03 per share on both a basic and diluted basis) in connection with the settlement of a legal matter, inclusive of related legal costs. This matter related to a customer dispute that originated in 1997. The company had successfully defended itself in a trial, but the verdict was subsequently overturned, in part, by an appellate court and remanded for a new trial. The company ultimately decided to settle this matter to avoid further legal expense and the burden on management's time that such a trial would entail. Tekelec Matter In 2000, the company purchased Tekelec Europe SA ("Tekelec") from Tekelec Airtronic SA and certain other selling shareholders. Subsequent to the closing of the acquisition, Tekelec received a product liability claim in the amount of €11,333. The product liability claim was the subject of a French legal proceeding started by the claimant in 2002, under which separate determinations were made as to whether the products that are subject to the claim were defective and the amount of damages sustained by the purchaser. The manufacturer of the products also participated in this proceeding. The claimant commenced legal proceedings against Tekelec and its insurers to recover damages in the amount of €3,742 and expenses of €312 plus interest. In May 2012, the French court ruled in favor of Tekelec and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. However, that decision has been appealed by the plaintiff. The company believes that any amount in addition to the amount accrued by the company would not materially adversely impact the company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. Environmental and Related Matters Wyle Claims In connection with the 2000 purchase of Wyle from the VEBA Group ("VEBA"), the company assumed certain of the then outstanding obligations of Wyle, including Wyle's 1994 indemnification of the purchasers of its Wyle Laboratories division for environmental clean-up costs associated with any then existing contamination or violation of environmental regulations. Under the terms of the company's purchase of Wyle from VEBA, VEBA agreed to indemnify the company for costs associated with the Wyle environmental indemnities, among other things. The company is aware of two Wyle Laboratories facilities (in Huntsville, Alabama and Norco, California) at which contaminated groundwater was identified. Each site will require remediation, the final form and cost of which is undetermined. Wyle Laboratories has demanded indemnification from the company with respect to the work at both sites (and in connection with the litigation discussed below), and the company has, in turn, demanded indemnification from VEBA. VEBA merged with a publicly-traded, German conglomerate in June 2000. The combined entity, now known as E.ON AG, remains responsible for VEBA's liabilities. E.ON AG acknowledged liability under the terms of the VEBA contract in connection with the Norco and Huntsville sites and made an initial, partial payment. Neither the company's demands for subsequent payments nor its demand for defense and indemnification in the related litigation and other costs associated with the Norco site were met. Related Litigation In October 2005, the company filed suit against E.ON AG in the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court in Germany. The suit seeks indemnification, contribution, and a declaration of the parties' respective rights and obligations in connection with the Riverside County litigation (discussed below) and other costs associated with the Norco site. In its answer to the company's claim filed in March 2009 in the German proceedings, E.ON AG filed a counterclaim against the company for approximately $16,000. The company believes it has reasonable defenses to the counterclaim and plans to defend its position vigorously. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of the counterclaim will not materially adversely impact the company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. The litigation is currently suspended while the company engages in a court-facilitated mediation with E.ON AG. The mediation commenced in December 2009 and is ongoing. The company was named as a defendant in several suits related to the Norco facility, all of which were consolidated for pre-trial purposes. In January 2005, an action was filed in the California Superior Court in Riverside County, California (Gloria Austin, et al. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al.). Approximately 90 plaintiff landowners and residents sued a number of defendants under a variety of theories for unquantified damages allegedly caused by environmental contamination at and around the Norco site. Also filed in the Superior Court in Riverside County were Jimmy Gandara, et al. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al. in January 2006, and Lisa Briones, et al. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al. in May 2006; both of which contain allegations similar to those in the Austin case on behalf of approximately 20 additional plaintiffs. All of these matters have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. The company was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in September 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Apollo Associates, L.P., et anno. v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al.) in connection with alleged contamination at a third site, an industrial building formerly leased by Wyle Laboratories, in El Segundo, California. The lawsuit was settled, though the possibility remains that government entities or others may attempt to involve the company in further characterization or remediation of groundwater issues in the area. Environmental Matters - Huntsville Characterization of the extent of contaminated soil and groundwater continues at the site in Huntsville, Alabama. Under the direction of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, approximately $4,000 was spent to date. The pace of the ongoing remedial investigations, project management and regulatory oversight is likely to increase somewhat and though the complete scope of the activities is not yet known, the company currently estimates additional investigative and related expenditures at the site of approximately $500 to $750. The nature and scope of both feasibility studies and subsequent remediation at the site has not yet been determined, but assuming the outcome includes source control and certain other measures, the cost is estimated to be between $3,000 and $4,000. Despite the amount of work undertaken and planned to date, the company is unable to estimate any potential costs in addition to those discussed above because the complete scope of the work is not yet known, and, accordingly, the associated costs have yet to be determined. Environmental Matters - Norco In October 2003, the company entered into a consent decree with Wyle Laboratories and the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (the "DTSC") in connection with the Norco site. In April 2005, a Remedial Investigation Work Plan was approved by DTSC that provided for site-wide characterization of known and potential environmental issues. Investigations performed in connection with this work plan and a series of subsequent technical memoranda continued until the filing of a final Remedial Investigation Report early in 2008. The development of a final Remedial Action Work Plan is ongoing. Approximately $31,000 was expended to date on project management, regulatory oversight, and investigative and feasibility study activities. The company currently estimates that the additional cost of project management and regulatory oversight to be $100. Project management and regulatory oversight include costs incurred by Wyle Laboratories and project consultants for project management and costs billed by DTSC to provide regulatory oversight. Ongoing remedial investigations (including costs related to soil and groundwater investigations), and the preparation of a final remedial investigation report are projected to cost $300. Work is under way pertaining to the remediation of contaminated groundwater at certain areas on the Norco site and of soil gas in a limited area immediately adjacent to the site. In 2008, a hydraulic containment system was installed to capture and treat groundwater before it moves into the adjacent offsite area. Approximately $12,000 was expended on remediation to date, and it is anticipated that these activities, along with the initial phases of the treatment of contaminated groundwater in the offsite area and remaining Remedial Action Work Plan costs, will give rise to an additional estimated $12,600 to $24,100. Despite the amount of work undertaken and planned to date, the company is unable to estimate any potential costs in addition to those discussed above because the complete scope of the work under the consent decree is not yet known, and, accordingly, the associated costs have yet to be determined. Impact on Financial Statements The company believes that any cost which it may incur in connection with environmental conditions at the Norco, Huntsville, and El Segundo sites and the related litigation is covered by the contractual indemnifications (except, under the terms of the environmental indemnification, for the first $450), discussed above. The company believes that the recovery of costs incurred to date associated with the environmental clean-up of the Norco and Huntsville sites, is probable. Accordingly, the company recognized a receivable for amounts due from E.ON AG of $41,899 and $48,954 at September 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The company's net costs for such indemnified matters may vary from period to period as estimates of recoveries are not always recognized in the same period as the accrual of estimated expenses. As successor-in-interest to Wyle, the company is the beneficiary of various Wyle insurance policies that covered liabilities arising out of operations at Norco and Huntsville. Certain of the insurance carriers implicated in the Riverside County litigation have undertaken substantial portions of the defense of the company, and the company has recovered approximately $21,000 from them to date. However, the company has sued certain other umbrella liability policy carriers because they have yet to make payment on claims filed by the company. These disputes generally relate to the umbrella liability policy carriers' proportional share of the total liability as opposed to the applicability of coverage. The company believes strongly in the merits of its positions regarding the E.ON AG indemnity and the liabilities of the insurance carriers. Also included in the proceedings against E.ON AG is a claim for the reimbursement of pre-acquisition tax liabilities of Wyle in the amount of $8,729 for which E.ON AG is also contractually liable to indemnify the company. E.ON AG has specifically acknowledged owing the company not less than $6,335 of such amounts, but its promises to make payments of at least that amount were not kept. The company also believes that the recovery of these amounts is probable. In connection with the acquisition of Wyle, the company acquired a $4,495 tax receivable due from E.ON AG (as successor to VEBA) in respect of certain tax payments made by Wyle prior to the effective date of the acquisition, the recovery of which the company also believes is probable. The receivable for amounts due from E.ON AG for the previously mentioned tax and environmental matters and related litigation are included in "Other Assets" in the company's consolidated balance sheets. The company's basis for the conclusion that recovery of these amounts are probable is based upon its determination that it has appropriate legal rights to seek reimbursement under the indemnification agreement with E.ON AG, as well as the company's ability to seek reimbursement under the various Wyle insurance policies. The timing of the collection of these amounts is contingent upon resolution of the court-facilitated mediation or litigation with E.ON AG, the completion of settlement agreements with certain insurers, and the resolution of litigation currently pending with certain other insurance carriers. The resolution of these matters could likely take several years. Other From time to time, in the normal course of business, the company may become liable with respect to other pending and threatened litigation, environmental, regulatory, labor, product, and tax matters. While such matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, it is not currently anticipated that any such matters will materially impact the company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Contingencies

Settlement of Legal Matter

During the first quarter of 2011, the company recorded a charge of $5,875 ($3,609 net of related taxes or $.03 per share on both a basic and diluted basis) in connection with the settlement of a legal matter, inclusive of related legal costs. This matter related to a customer dispute that originated in 1997. The company had successfully defended itself in a trial, but the verdict was subsequently overturned, in part, by an appellate court and remanded for a new trial. The company ultimately decided to settle this matter to avoid further legal expense and the burden on management's time that such a trial would entail.

Tekelec Matter

In 2000, the company purchased Tekelec Europe SA ("Tekelec") from Tekelec Airtronic SA and certain other selling shareholders. Subsequent to the closing of the acquisition, Tekelec received a product liability claim in the amount of €11,333. The product liability claim was the subject of a French legal proceeding started by the claimant in 2002, under which separate determinations were made as to whether the products that are subject to the claim were defective and the amount of damages sustained by the purchaser. The manufacturer of the products also participated in this proceeding. The claimant commenced legal proceedings against Tekelec and its insurers to recover damages in the amount of €3,742 and expenses of €312 plus interest. In May 2012, the French court ruled in favor of Tekelec and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. However, that decision has been appealed by the plaintiff. The company believes that any amount in addition to the amount accrued by the company would not materially adversely impact the company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Environmental and Related Matters

Wyle Claims

In connection with the 2000 purchase of Wyle from the VEBA Group ("VEBA"), the company assumed certain of the then outstanding obligations of Wyle, including Wyle's 1994 indemnification of the purchasers of its Wyle Laboratories division for environmental clean-up costs associated with any then existing contamination or violation of environmental regulations. Under the terms of the company's purchase of Wyle from VEBA, VEBA agreed to indemnify the company for costs associated with the Wyle environmental indemnities, among other things. The company is aware of two Wyle Laboratories facilities (in Huntsville, Alabama and Norco, California) at which contaminated groundwater was identified. Each site will require remediation, the final form and cost of which is undetermined.

Wyle Laboratories has demanded indemnification from the company with respect to the work at both sites (and in connection with the litigation discussed below), and the company has, in turn, demanded indemnification from VEBA. VEBA merged with a publicly-traded, German conglomerate in June 2000. The combined entity, now known as E.ON AG, remains responsible for VEBA's liabilities. E.ON AG acknowledged liability under the terms of the VEBA contract in connection with the Norco and Huntsville sites and made an initial, partial payment. Neither the company's demands for subsequent payments nor its demand for defense and indemnification in the related litigation and other costs associated with the Norco site were met.

Related Litigation

In October 2005, the company filed suit against E.ON AG in the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court in Germany. The suit seeks indemnification, contribution, and a declaration of the parties' respective rights and obligations in connection with the Riverside County litigation (discussed below) and other costs associated with the Norco site. In its answer to the company's claim filed in March 2009 in the German proceedings, E.ON AG filed a counterclaim against the company for approximately $16,000. The company believes it has reasonable defenses to the counterclaim and plans to defend its position vigorously. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of the counterclaim will not materially adversely impact the company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. The litigation is currently suspended while the company engages in a court-facilitated mediation with E.ON AG. The mediation commenced in December 2009 and is ongoing.

The company was named as a defendant in several suits related to the Norco facility, all of which were consolidated for pre-trial purposes. In January 2005, an action was filed in the California Superior Court in Riverside County, California (Gloria Austin, et al. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al.). Approximately 90 plaintiff landowners and residents sued a number of defendants under a variety of theories for unquantified damages allegedly caused by environmental contamination at and around the Norco site. Also filed in the Superior Court in Riverside County were Jimmy Gandara, et al. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al. in January 2006, and Lisa Briones, et al. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. et al. in May 2006; both of which contain allegations similar to those in the Austin case on behalf of approximately 20 additional plaintiffs. All of these matters have now been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.

The company was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in September 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Apollo Associates, L.P., et anno. v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al.) in connection with alleged contamination at a third site, an industrial building formerly leased by Wyle Laboratories, in El Segundo, California. The lawsuit was settled, though the possibility remains that government entities or others may attempt to involve the company in further characterization or remediation of groundwater issues in the area.

Environmental Matters - Huntsville

Characterization of the extent of contaminated soil and groundwater continues at the site in Huntsville, Alabama. Under the direction of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, approximately $4,000 was spent to date. The pace of the ongoing remedial investigations, project management and regulatory oversight is likely to increase somewhat and though the complete scope of the activities is not yet known, the company currently estimates additional investigative and related expenditures at the site of approximately $500 to $750. The nature and scope of both feasibility studies and subsequent remediation at the site has not yet been determined, but assuming the outcome includes source control and certain other measures, the cost is estimated to be between $3,000 and $4,000.

Despite the amount of work undertaken and planned to date, the company is unable to estimate any potential costs in addition to those discussed above because the complete scope of the work is not yet known, and, accordingly, the associated costs have yet to be determined.

Environmental Matters - Norco

In October 2003, the company entered into a consent decree with Wyle Laboratories and the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (the "DTSC") in connection with the Norco site. In April 2005, a Remedial Investigation Work Plan was approved by DTSC that provided for site-wide characterization of known and potential environmental issues. Investigations performed in connection with this work plan and a series of subsequent technical memoranda continued until the filing of a final Remedial Investigation Report early in 2008. The development of a final Remedial Action Work Plan is ongoing. Approximately $31,000 was expended to date on project management, regulatory oversight, and investigative and feasibility study activities. The company currently estimates that the additional cost of project management and regulatory oversight to be $100. Project management and regulatory oversight include costs incurred by Wyle Laboratories and project consultants for project management and costs billed by DTSC to provide regulatory oversight. Ongoing remedial investigations (including costs related to soil and groundwater investigations), and the preparation of a final remedial investigation report are projected to cost $300.

Work is under way pertaining to the remediation of contaminated groundwater at certain areas on the Norco site and of soil gas in a limited area immediately adjacent to the site. In 2008, a hydraulic containment system was installed to capture and treat groundwater before it moves into the adjacent offsite area. Approximately $12,000 was expended on remediation to date, and it is anticipated that these activities, along with the initial phases of the treatment of contaminated groundwater in the offsite area and remaining Remedial Action Work Plan costs, will give rise to an additional estimated $12,600 to $24,100.

Despite the amount of work undertaken and planned to date, the company is unable to estimate any potential costs in addition to those discussed above because the complete scope of the work under the consent decree is not yet known, and, accordingly, the associated costs have yet to be determined.

Impact on Financial Statements

The company believes that any cost which it may incur in connection with environmental conditions at the Norco, Huntsville, and El Segundo sites and the related litigation is covered by the contractual indemnifications (except, under the terms of the environmental indemnification, for the first $450), discussed above. The company believes that the recovery of costs incurred to date associated with the environmental clean-up of the Norco and Huntsville sites, is probable. Accordingly, the company recognized a receivable for amounts due from E.ON AG of $41,899 and $48,954 at September 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively. The company's net costs for such indemnified matters may vary from period to period as estimates of recoveries are not always recognized in the same period as the accrual of estimated expenses.

As successor-in-interest to Wyle, the company is the beneficiary of various Wyle insurance policies that covered liabilities arising out of operations at Norco and Huntsville. Certain of the insurance carriers implicated in the Riverside County litigation have undertaken substantial portions of the defense of the company, and the company has recovered approximately $21,000 from them to date. However, the company has sued certain other umbrella liability policy carriers because they have yet to make payment on claims filed by the company. These disputes generally relate to the umbrella liability policy carriers' proportional share of the total liability as opposed to the applicability of coverage.

The company believes strongly in the merits of its positions regarding the E.ON AG indemnity and the liabilities of the insurance carriers.

Also included in the proceedings against E.ON AG is a claim for the reimbursement of pre-acquisition tax liabilities of Wyle in the amount of $8,729 for which E.ON AG is also contractually liable to indemnify the company. E.ON AG has specifically acknowledged owing the company not less than $6,335 of such amounts, but its promises to make payments of at least that amount were not kept. The company also believes that the recovery of these amounts is probable.

In connection with the acquisition of Wyle, the company acquired a $4,495 tax receivable due from E.ON AG (as successor to VEBA) in respect of certain tax payments made by Wyle prior to the effective date of the acquisition, the recovery of which the company also believes is probable.

The receivable for amounts due from E.ON AG for the previously mentioned tax and environmental matters and related litigation are included in "Other Assets" in the company's consolidated balance sheets. The company's basis for the conclusion that recovery of these amounts are probable is based upon its determination that it has appropriate legal rights to seek reimbursement under the indemnification agreement with E.ON AG, as well as the company's ability to seek reimbursement under the various Wyle insurance policies. The timing of the collection of these amounts is contingent upon resolution of the court-facilitated mediation or litigation with E.ON AG, the completion of settlement agreements with certain insurers, and the resolution of litigation currently pending with certain other insurance carriers. The resolution of these matters could likely take several years.

Other

From time to time, in the normal course of business, the company may become liable with respect to other pending and threatened litigation, environmental, regulatory, labor, product, and tax matters. While such matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, it is not currently anticipated that any such matters will materially impact the company's consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.