Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Private Party Lawsuits and other Legal Proceedings In 2003, the Company served notices in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to reject certain executory contracts with EnerSys, which the Company contended were executory, including a 1991 Trademark and Trade Name License Agreement (“Trademark License”), pursuant to which the Company had licensed to EnerSys use of the “Exide” trademark on certain industrial battery products in the United States and 80 foreign countries. EnerSys objected to the rejection of certain of those contracts, including the Trademark License. In 2006, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's request to reject certain of the contracts, including the Trademark License. EnerSys appealed those rulings. On June 1, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court ruling, and remanded to the lower courts, holding that certain of the contracts, including the Trademark License, were not executory contracts and, therefore, were not subject to rejection. On August 27, 2010, acting on the Third Circuit's mandate, the Bankruptcy Court vacated its prior orders and denied the Company's motion to reject the contracts on the grounds that the agreements are not executory. On September 20, 2010, the Company filed a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that EnerSys did not have enforceable rights under the Trademark License under Bankruptcy Code provisions which the Company believed are relevant to non-executory contracts. EnerSys filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which the Bankruptcy Court granted on January 8, 2013. On June 7, 2013, EnerSys Delaware Inc., formerly known as EnerSys, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware seeking an accounting and restitution for alleged benefits received by the Company and alleged losses incurred by EnerSys allegedly as the result of the granting by the Bankruptcy Court in 2006 of an Order which allowed the Company to reject the Trademark License and use the licensed "Exide" trademark for Industrial battery products and the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent August 2010 Order vacating the 2006 Order and denying the Company's request to reject the Trademark License. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the suit filed by EnerSys Delaware Inc. was automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E. Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy. On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly, Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D’Appolonia, David S. Ferguson, John O’Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. Lead Plaintiffs did not name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the Consolidated Amended Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s senior secured notes during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made by the Company and its officers during these periods were materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. On February 13, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. On August 11, 2014, Judge Wilson entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Section 15 claim against R. Paul Hirt, Jr., former Executive Vice President and President of Exide Americas, but denying the remainder of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery in this litigation will now proceed and it is expected to continue through 2015. A trial date of January 19, 2016 has been set in this matter. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. The Company's Netherlands subsidiary, Exide Technologies B.V. (“BV”), received notice from the Dutch competition authorities that it was the subject of an investigation of a local trade association’s members in the traction/Motive Power batteries segment. On July 9 and July 16, 2013, the authorities conducted an on-site inspection and requested additional information and documentation, which the Company has provided. In December 2013, the Company submitted to the Dutch Competition Authority ("ACM") a leniency application for immunity or reduction of fines that might be imposed as a result of the investigation. The Company was recently notified by the ACM of a provisional grant of leniency in respect of certain conduct and that the Company did not receive provisional leniency for certain other conduct. As required under the ACM's leniency program, the Company continues to cooperate with the Dutch authority. The ACM has not issued a statement of charges to the Company or its subsidiaries. Accordingly, the precise scope and time period at issue, as well as the final outcome of the Netherlands investigation, remains uncertain. In connection with BV’s cooperation with the above-described investigation, the Company discovered activities also in different segments of its Industrial Energy division in Austria, Belgium and Germany that appeared to have occurred in prior years that did not conform to the Company’s internal policies. Upon discovery of these facts, the Company commenced an internal investigation led by independent outside counsel. While a majority of the activities had ceased prior to the initiation of the internal investigation, the Company promptly stopped any remaining ongoing conduct. The Company brought the matter to the attention of the appropriate competition authorities, and, in all affected jurisdictions, the Company has been cooperating with them in further information gathering. As a result of this action, the Company has been granted conditional immunity by regulators in Austria, Germany and Belgium. Additionally, the authority in Austria has decided that the actions would likely have fallen outside any applicable statute of limitations period and the authority has advised that it does not intend to pursue an investigation at this stage. The grants of immunity in Belgium and Germany, which are conditioned on factors that include the Company’s continued cooperation with authorities, should eliminate any governmental fines and penalties that could result if the reported conduct is found to violate applicable law in such jurisdictions. Should immunity be revoked, these investigations could result in significant penalties. Further, even with the grants of conditional immunity in Austria, Germany, and Belgium, the Company might be subject to disputes with private parties concerning alleged damages that are claimed to be a result of the Company’s prior conduct. While the Company believes it would have defenses to any adverse allegations in private actions and would intend to vigorously defend itself in any such actions, litigation of this type is inherently uncertain, costly, and complex, and the Company cannot be certain that it would prevail. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the outcome of the Netherlands investigation or any private party disputes would not have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, cash flows, and results of operations of the Company, despite the fact the Company has been granted conditional immunity in Austria, Germany, and Belgium, and continues to cooperate with the applicable regulatory authorities. On August 8, 2014, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice in the Central District of California in connection with a criminal investigation involving its Vernon, California recycling facility. The subpoena requests the production of documents relating to materials transportation and air emissions. The Company was informed that it and certain unidentified individuals are targets of the investigation. The Company will cooperate with the investigation. We cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in this matter, as such analysis would depend on facts and law that are not yet fully developed or resolved. Environmental Matters As a result of its multinational manufacturing, distribution and, recycling operations, the Company is subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, occupational health, and safety laws and regulations, as well as similar laws and regulations in other countries in which the Company operates (collectively, “EH&S laws”). The Company is exposed to liabilities under such EH&S laws arising from its past handling, release, storage, and disposal of materials now designated as hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. The Company previously has received notification from the EPA, equivalent state and local agencies or others alleging or indicating that the Company is or may be responsible for performing and/or investigating environmental remediation, or seeking the repayment of the costs spent by governmental entities or others performing investigations and/or remediation at certain U.S. sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or similar state laws. The Company monitors and responds to inquiries from the EPA, equivalent state and local agencies and others at approximately 50 federally defined Superfund or state equivalent sites. While the ultimate outcome of the environmental matters described in this paragraph is uncertain due to several factors, including the number of other parties that may also be responsible, the scope of investigation performed at such sites and the remediation alternatives pursued by such federal and equivalent state and local agencies, the Company presently believes any liability for these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. The Company is also involved in the assessment and remediation of various other properties, including certain currently and formerly owned or operating facilities. Such assessment and remedial work is being conducted pursuant to applicable EH&S laws with varying degrees of involvement by appropriate regulatory authorities. In addition, certain environmental matters concerning the Company are pending in various courts or with certain environmental regulatory agencies with respect to these currently or formerly owned or operating locations. In particular, the Company’s Vernon, California recycling facility is currently unable to comply with certain recently enacted regulations, and may not resume operations until the installation of certain equipment is completed in the latter part of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 should the Company decide to proceed. Additionally, newly enacted legislation in California requires regulatory authorities to make a final determination on the Company's application for a permanent hazardous waste permit by December 31, 2015. The Company is uncertain whether it would be able to obtain such permit. Exide is currently working with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") to resolve various outstanding issues in order to complete its permit applications after which the DTSC will proceed to a final permit decision in 2015. On November 6, 2014, the Company agreed to a comprehensive Stipulation and Order resolving certain disputes with the DTSC relating to the Company’s Vernon, California recycling facility. The Stipulation and Order is subject to bankruptcy court approval. On November 6, 2014, the Company filed the Debtor’s Motion for an Order Under Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363 and Bankruptcy Rule 9019 Authorizing and Approving the Debtor’s Entry Into the 2014 Vernon Stipulation and Order with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which seeks bankruptcy court approval of the stipulated resolution entered into between the Company and DTSC. The Stipulation and Order, if approved by the bankruptcy court, provides for, among other things, the following: Exide has committed approximately $38.7 million to cover any closure-related activities in the event that the Vernon facility were to be closed, approximately $11.1 million of which is covered by an existing financial guarantee bond, which shall be maintained or renewed. On October 31, 2014, Exide paid $0.5 million into a closure trust fund. Exide has agreed to pay the remaining approximately $27.0 million into the closure trust in installments over ten years, with approximately $2.3 million to be paid on the later of November 1, 2014 or the date the Stipulation and Order becomes effective, and approximately $2.8 million on each (a) the effective date of the Company’s plan of reorganization and (b) November 1, 2015. Starting in 2016 through 2024, Exide has agreed to pay approximately $2.1 million per year until the trust is fully funded. Exide will remediate soil at certain homes identified by DTSC as potentially impacted by Exide, paying up to $9.0 million over the next five years for off-site residential soil corrective action pursuant to a schedule set forth in the Stipulation and Order; and the DTSC will agree to limit off-site residential soil corrective action to that amount for five years. Exide will continue to clean the exterior industrial areas directly surrounding the Vernon facility and prepare a study assessing other potential industrial corrective measures, if any, to be implemented five years after the agreement’s effective date. Exide will also prepare an on-site corrective measures study anticipated to be completed sometime in late calendar 2016. Following DTSC approval, Exide will finance the corrective action remedies by establishing a trust fund to be funded by annual payments made over ten years or sooner as to elements of the corrective action remedy that are to be completed on a shorter time frame. No later than three (3) days after the Vernon Stipulation and Order becomes effective, and without admitting liability, Exide shall pay to the DTSC approximately $1.3 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to resolve various alleged violations and to pay past oversight costs, and will also agree to take specific corrective actions to address the alleged violations. The DTSC will have an allowed general unsecured claims in the bankruptcy case in the amounts of approximately $0.1 million and approximately $0.6 million for the DTSC prepetition oversight costs and California Environmental Quality Act compliance costs, as well as prepetition penalties, respectively. Upon payment of the above Settlement Payment, DTSC will agree to release Exide, its predecessors, successors, assigns, and affiliated subsidiaries and all of their officers, directors, agents, employees, consultants, insurers, and representatives from any and all monetary claims, fines, penalties, or other monetary liabilities solely for the settled matters as described in the Stipulation and Order. DTSC expressly has not committed to granting Exide a final hazardous waste permit, and the permitting process will continue under applicable law. Thus, the ultimate outcome is uncertain, and the Company’s failure to timely resume operations at the Vernon, California plant or obtain a permanent hazardous waste permit would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. On April 12, 2013, the Company was served with a notification of violation and 60 day intent to sue regarding the Company's Vernon, California facility from the California Communities Against Toxics ("CCAT"). CCAT alleges the Company violated the warning requirement of the State of California's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, regarding alleged community exposure to the chemical, 1,3-butadiene. Following the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, CCAT submitted a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy Court. The matter remains pending in the Bankruptcy Court. On May 28, 2013, the Company was served with a Notice of Intent to Sue by CCAT pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's ("RCRA") citizens suit provision at 42 USC Section 6972, alleging that the Company has created an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in and around the Company's Vernon, California facility. Following the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, CCAT submitted a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy Court. The matter remains pending in the Bankruptcy Court. On March 26, 2014, the Company was served with a Proposition 65 notification of violation and 60 day intent to sue regarding the Vernon, California facility from Shefa LMV LLC ("Shefa"). Shefa alleges that Exide failed to warn the community regarding chemical exposures, and further alleges that Exide has released chemicals into a source of drinking water. The Company believes Shefa's claim to be without merit. The Company is unaware whether Shefa will file a lawsuit based on the Proposition 65 notice, but if so, the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit and pursue all available remedies. On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the case is stayed. On October 18, 2013, the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District ("SCAQMD") filed a petition seeking the suspension of operations at the Vernon, California facility for alleged violation of an SCAQMD rule and related furnace control equipment permit conditions until compliance is achieved. The Company contested the SCAQMD's petition. A hearing on the SCAQMD’s petition commenced on December 14, 2013 and continued into calendar 2014. On April 11, 2014, as a result of the Vernon, California facility allegedly exceeding the SCAQMD ambient air standard for lead, the SCAQMD filed a second petition seeking an order that Exide “cease and desist” from violating air quality standards, or in the alternative, to comply with other such conditions and increments of progress which the SCAQMD Hearing Board deems appropriate. On January 10, 2014, the SCAQMD adopted an amended rule that contained new emissions and equipment requirements with varying compliance dates, including an April 10, 2014 deadline that would require the Company to operate the furnaces at the Vernon, California facility under continuous "negative pressure" ("Rule 1420.1"). In response, the Company initiated two separate related proceedings on February 7, 2014: (i) a Petition for Variance before the SCAQMD Hearing Board, requesting a delay of the negative pressure requirement until December 31, 2014, and (ii) a Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking to invalidate the negative pressure requirement of Rule 1420.1. Additionally, on February 21, 2014, the Company filed a request for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily suspend the April 10, 2014 deadline until such time as the Superior Court could conduct a trial on the Writ of Mandamus. On April 7, 2014, the Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the Company's preliminary injunction. Additionally, on April 8, 2014, the SCAQMD Hearing Board denied the Company's variance request. As a result of these two decisions, the Company suspended operations at the Vernon, California facility until such time as the Company can design, engineer, permit, install, and test new equipment needed to achieve the new standard under Rule 1420.1. On July 10, 2014 the SCAQMD Hearing Board approved a resolution of the Company's pending administrative matters with the SCAQMD through the issuance of two Orders for Abatement ("Stipulated OAs"). The Stipulated OAs require the Company: (i) to refrain from resuming operations of the Vernon, California facility furnaces until it installs certain air quality control improvements required to comply with the newly adopted Rule 1420.1 standards in accordance with SCAQMD issued permits and applicable SCAQMD rules; and (ii) to install those improvements in accordance with an SCAQMD approved dust mitigation plan. Concurrently, in a settlement agreement with SCAQMD, the Company agreed to dismiss its Writ of Mandamus legal action. The Company currently estimates the full operation of the furnaces under continuous negative pressure will not occur until after installation of the aforesaid equipment expected to be completed in the latter part of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 should the Company decide to proceed. On January 16, 2014, the Company and unnamed individuals (“DOE Defendants”), were named as defendants in a civil lawsuit brought by the SCAQMD in the case captioned as People of the State of California, ex rel South Coast Air Quality Management District, a Public Entity v. Exide Technologies, Inc., and DOE Defendants 1 through 50. The SCAQMD subsequently amended its complaint. The SCAQMD alleges that the Company and the DOE Defendants failed to comply with several of the SCAQMD's rules related to operation of equipment or lead and arsenic emissions at the Company's Vernon, California lead recycling facility. The SCAQMD is seeking penalties in an amount not less than $40.0 million. The Company denies the allegations in the lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. The matter is in discovery and presently scheduled for trial on September 15, 2015. On May 22, 2014, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) served a Finding and Notice of Violation (“Federal NOV”) on Exide, alleging that Exide violated air quality standards for lead at various times in 2013 and 2014; the alleged violations are duplicative of those cited by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in its penalty action. EPA seeks civil penalties for these alleged violations. An initial conference seeking resolution of the matter was convened with the EPA on June 30, 2014 and discussions are anticipated at some point in the future regarding a resolution to the notice. EPA has also sought information from Exide under the Federal Clean Air Act and the Company has responded to all such EPA requests for information. On September 24, 2013, the Company received a Notice of Enforcement issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) for alleged violations related to the compliance of its site in its Frisco, Texas, a former recycling facility, with Industrial Solid Waste and Municipal Hazardous waste requirements. The Company reasonably believes the proceeding may result in monetary sanctions to be paid to TCEQ in excess of $0.1 million. The Company has established liabilities for on-site and off-site environmental remediation costs where such costs are probable and reasonably estimable and believes that such liabilities are adequate. As of September 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the amount of such liabilities on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets was approximately $24.1 million and $25.5 million, respectively. Because environmental liabilities are not accrued until a liability is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable, not all potential future environmental liabilities have been included in the Company’s environmental liabilities. Therefore, changes in estimates or future findings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations. The sites that currently have the largest environmental reserves include the following: Tampa, Florida The Tampa site is a former secondary lead recycling plant, lead oxide production facility, and sheet lead-rolling mill that operated from 1943 to 1989. Under a RCRA Part B Closure Permit and a Consent Decree with the State of Florida, Exide is required to investigate and remediate certain historic environmental impacts to the site. Cost estimates for remediation (closure and post-closure) are expected to range from $10.0 million to $14.0 million depending on final State of Florida requirements. The remediation activities are expected to occur over the course of several years. Columbus, Georgia The Columbus site is a former secondary lead recycling plant that was taken out of service in 1999, but remains part of a larger facility that includes an operating lead-acid battery manufacturing facility. Groundwater remediation activities began in 1988. Costs for supplemental investigations, remediation and site closure are currently estimated at $6.0 million to $8.5 million. Guarantees At September 30, 2014, the Company had outstanding letters of credit with a face value of $33.7 million and surety bonds with a face value of $56.5 million. The majority of the letters of credit and surety bonds have been issued as collateral or financial assurance with respect to certain liabilities that the Company has recorded, including but not limited to environmental remediation obligations and self-insured workers’ compensation reserves. Failure of the Company to satisfy its obligations with respect to the primary obligations secured by the letters of credit or surety bonds could entitle the beneficiary of the related letter of credit or surety bond to demand payments pursuant to such instruments. The letters of credit generally have terms up to one year subject to the terms of the DIP Credit Facility. Collateral held by the surety in the form of letters of credit at September 30, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, was $22.9 million. Certain of the Company’s European and Asia Pacific subsidiaries have bank guarantees outstanding as collateral or financial assurance in connection with environmental obligations, income tax claims and customer contract requirements. At September 30, 2014, bank guarantees with an aggregate face value of $10.4 million were outstanding.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Private Party Lawsuits and other Legal Proceedings

In 2003, the Company served notices in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to reject certain executory contracts with EnerSys, which the Company contended were executory, including a 1991 Trademark and Trade Name License Agreement (“Trademark License”), pursuant to which the Company had licensed to EnerSys use of the “Exide” trademark on certain industrial battery products in the United States and 80 foreign countries. EnerSys objected to the rejection of certain of those contracts, including the Trademark License. In 2006, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's request to reject certain of the contracts, including the Trademark License. EnerSys appealed those rulings. On June 1, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court ruling, and remanded to the lower courts, holding that certain of the contracts, including the Trademark License, were not executory contracts and, therefore, were not subject to rejection. On August 27, 2010, acting on the Third Circuit's mandate, the Bankruptcy Court vacated its prior orders and denied the Company's motion to reject the contracts on the grounds that the agreements are not executory. On September 20, 2010, the Company filed a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court seeking a declaratory judgment that EnerSys did not have enforceable rights under the Trademark License under Bankruptcy Code provisions which the Company believed are relevant to non-executory contracts. EnerSys filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which the Bankruptcy Court granted on January 8, 2013.

On June 7, 2013, EnerSys Delaware Inc., formerly known as EnerSys, Inc. filed suit against the Company in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware seeking an accounting and restitution for alleged benefits received by the Company and alleged losses incurred by EnerSys allegedly as the result of the granting by the Bankruptcy Court in 2006 of an Order which allowed the Company to reject the Trademark License and use the licensed "Exide" trademark for Industrial battery products and the Bankruptcy Court's subsequent August 2010 Order vacating the 2006 Order and denying the Company's request to reject the Trademark License. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the suit filed by EnerSys Delaware Inc. was automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013, against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E. Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption, lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013. On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy.

On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly, Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D’Appolonia, David S. Ferguson, John O’Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. Lead Plaintiffs did not name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the Consolidated Amended Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013. In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s senior secured notes during the period August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain public statements made by the Company and its officers during these periods were materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January 30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. On February 13, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. On August 11, 2014, Judge Wilson entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Section 15 claim against R. Paul Hirt, Jr., former Executive Vice President and President of Exide Americas, but denying the remainder of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery in this litigation will now proceed and it is expected to continue through 2015. A trial date of January 19, 2016 has been set in this matter. Defendants deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense.

The Company's Netherlands subsidiary, Exide Technologies B.V. (“BV”), received notice from the Dutch competition authorities that it was the subject of an investigation of a local trade association’s members in the traction/Motive Power batteries segment. On July 9 and July 16, 2013, the authorities conducted an on-site inspection and requested additional information and documentation, which the Company has provided. In December 2013, the Company submitted to the Dutch Competition Authority ("ACM") a leniency application for immunity or reduction of fines that might be imposed as a result of the investigation. The Company was recently notified by the ACM of a provisional grant of leniency in respect of certain conduct and that the Company did not receive provisional leniency for certain other conduct. As required under the ACM's leniency program, the Company continues to cooperate with the Dutch authority. The ACM has not issued a statement of charges to the Company or its subsidiaries. Accordingly, the precise scope and time period at issue, as well as the final outcome of the Netherlands investigation, remains uncertain.

In connection with BV’s cooperation with the above-described investigation, the Company discovered activities also in different segments of its Industrial Energy division in Austria, Belgium and Germany that appeared to have occurred in prior years that did not conform to the Company’s internal policies. Upon discovery of these facts, the Company commenced an internal investigation led by independent outside counsel. While a majority of the activities had ceased prior to the initiation of the internal investigation, the Company promptly stopped any remaining ongoing conduct. The Company brought the matter to the attention of the appropriate competition authorities, and, in all affected jurisdictions, the Company has been cooperating with them in further information gathering. As a result of this action, the Company has been granted conditional immunity by regulators in Austria, Germany and Belgium. Additionally, the authority in Austria has decided that the actions would likely have fallen outside any applicable statute of limitations period and the authority has advised that it does not intend to pursue an investigation at this stage. The grants of immunity in Belgium and Germany, which are conditioned on factors that include the Company’s continued cooperation with authorities, should eliminate any governmental fines and penalties that could result if the reported conduct is found to violate applicable law in such jurisdictions. Should immunity be revoked, these investigations could result in significant penalties.

Further, even with the grants of conditional immunity in Austria, Germany, and Belgium, the Company might be subject to disputes with private parties concerning alleged damages that are claimed to be a result of the Company’s prior conduct. While the Company believes it would have defenses to any adverse allegations in private actions and would intend to vigorously defend itself in any such actions, litigation of this type is inherently uncertain, costly, and complex, and the Company cannot be certain that it would prevail. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the outcome of the Netherlands investigation or any private party disputes would not have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, cash flows, and results of operations of the Company, despite the fact the Company has been granted conditional immunity in Austria, Germany, and Belgium, and continues to cooperate with the applicable regulatory authorities.

On August 8, 2014, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice in the Central District of California in connection with a criminal investigation involving its Vernon, California recycling facility. The subpoena requests the production of documents relating to materials transportation and air emissions. The Company was informed that it and certain unidentified individuals are targets of the investigation. The Company will cooperate with the investigation. We cannot estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, in this matter, as such analysis would depend on facts and law that are not yet fully developed or resolved.

Environmental Matters

As a result of its multinational manufacturing, distribution and, recycling operations, the Company is subject to numerous federal, state, and local environmental, occupational health, and safety laws and regulations, as well as similar laws and regulations in other countries in which the Company operates (collectively, “EH&S laws”).

The Company is exposed to liabilities under such EH&S laws arising from its past handling, release, storage, and disposal of materials now designated as hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. The Company previously has received notification from the EPA, equivalent state and local agencies or others alleging or indicating that the Company is or may be responsible for performing and/or investigating environmental remediation, or seeking the repayment of the costs spent by governmental entities or others performing investigations and/or remediation at certain U.S. sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or similar state laws.

The Company monitors and responds to inquiries from the EPA, equivalent state and local agencies and others at approximately 50 federally defined Superfund or state equivalent sites. While the ultimate outcome of the environmental matters described in this paragraph is uncertain due to several factors, including the number of other parties that may also be responsible, the scope of investigation performed at such sites and the remediation alternatives pursued by such federal and equivalent state and local agencies, the Company presently believes any liability for these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

The Company is also involved in the assessment and remediation of various other properties, including certain currently and formerly owned or operating facilities. Such assessment and remedial work is being conducted pursuant to applicable EH&S laws with varying degrees of involvement by appropriate regulatory authorities. In addition, certain environmental matters concerning the Company are pending in various courts or with certain environmental regulatory agencies with respect to these currently or formerly owned or operating locations. In particular, the Company’s Vernon, California recycling facility is currently unable to comply with certain recently enacted regulations, and may not resume operations until the installation of certain equipment is completed in the latter part of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 should the Company decide to proceed. Additionally, newly enacted legislation in California requires regulatory authorities to make a final determination on the Company's application for a permanent hazardous waste permit by December 31, 2015. The Company is uncertain whether it would be able to obtain such permit. Exide is currently working with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") to resolve various outstanding issues in order to complete its permit applications after which the DTSC will proceed to a final permit decision in 2015.

On November 6, 2014, the Company agreed to a comprehensive Stipulation and Order resolving certain disputes with the DTSC relating to the Company’s Vernon, California recycling facility. The Stipulation and Order is subject to bankruptcy court approval. On November 6, 2014, the Company filed the Debtor’s Motion for an Order Under Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363 and Bankruptcy Rule 9019 Authorizing and Approving the Debtor’s Entry Into the 2014 Vernon Stipulation and Order with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which seeks bankruptcy court approval of the stipulated resolution entered into between the Company and DTSC. The Stipulation and Order, if approved by the bankruptcy court, provides for, among other things, the following:

Exide has committed approximately $38.7 million to cover any closure-related activities in the event that the Vernon facility were to be closed, approximately $11.1 million of which is covered by an existing financial guarantee bond, which shall be maintained or renewed. On October 31, 2014, Exide paid $0.5 million into a closure trust fund. Exide has agreed to pay the remaining approximately $27.0 million into the closure trust in installments over ten years, with approximately $2.3 million to be paid on the later of November 1, 2014 or the date the Stipulation and Order becomes effective, and approximately $2.8 million on each (a) the effective date of the Company’s plan of reorganization and (b) November 1, 2015. Starting in 2016 through 2024, Exide has agreed to pay approximately $2.1 million per year until the trust is fully funded.

Exide will remediate soil at certain homes identified by DTSC as potentially impacted by Exide, paying up to $9.0 million over the next five years for off-site residential soil corrective action pursuant to a schedule set forth in the Stipulation and Order; and the DTSC will agree to limit off-site residential soil corrective action to that amount for five years.

Exide will continue to clean the exterior industrial areas directly surrounding the Vernon facility and prepare a study assessing other potential industrial corrective measures, if any, to be implemented five years after the agreement’s effective date. Exide will also prepare an on-site corrective measures study anticipated to be completed sometime in late calendar 2016. Following DTSC approval, Exide will finance the corrective action remedies by establishing a trust fund to be funded by annual payments made over ten years or sooner as to elements of the corrective action remedy that are to be completed on a shorter time frame.

No later than three (3) days after the Vernon Stipulation and Order becomes effective, and without admitting liability, Exide shall pay to the DTSC approximately $1.3 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to resolve various alleged violations and to pay past oversight costs, and will also agree to take specific corrective actions to address the alleged violations.

The DTSC will have an allowed general unsecured claims in the bankruptcy case in the amounts of approximately $0.1 million and approximately $0.6 million for the DTSC prepetition oversight costs and California Environmental Quality Act compliance costs, as well as prepetition penalties, respectively.

Upon payment of the above Settlement Payment, DTSC will agree to release Exide, its predecessors, successors, assigns, and affiliated subsidiaries and all of their officers, directors, agents, employees, consultants, insurers, and representatives from any and all monetary claims, fines, penalties, or other monetary liabilities solely for the settled matters as described in the Stipulation and Order.

DTSC expressly has not committed to granting Exide a final hazardous waste permit, and the permitting process will continue under applicable law. Thus, the ultimate outcome is uncertain, and the Company’s failure to timely resume operations at the Vernon, California plant or obtain a permanent hazardous waste permit would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

On April 12, 2013, the Company was served with a notification of violation and 60 day intent to sue regarding the Company's Vernon, California facility from the California Communities Against Toxics ("CCAT"). CCAT alleges the Company violated the warning requirement of the State of California's Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, regarding alleged community exposure to the chemical, 1,3-butadiene. Following the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, CCAT submitted a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy Court. The matter remains pending in the Bankruptcy Court.

On May 28, 2013, the Company was served with a Notice of Intent to Sue by CCAT pursuant to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's ("RCRA") citizens suit provision at 42 USC Section 6972, alleging that the Company has created an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in and around the Company's Vernon, California facility. Following the Company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, CCAT submitted a Proof of Claim in the Bankruptcy Court. The matter remains pending in the Bankruptcy Court.

On March 26, 2014, the Company was served with a Proposition 65 notification of violation and 60 day intent to sue regarding the Vernon, California facility from Shefa LMV LLC ("Shefa"). Shefa alleges that Exide failed to warn the community regarding chemical exposures, and further alleges that Exide has released chemicals into a source of drinking water. The Company believes Shefa's claim to be without merit. The Company is unaware whether Shefa will file a lawsuit based on the Proposition 65 notice, but if so, the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit and pursue all available remedies.

On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10, 2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware, and the case is stayed.

On October 18, 2013, the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District ("SCAQMD") filed a petition seeking the suspension of operations at the Vernon, California facility for alleged violation of an SCAQMD rule and related furnace control equipment permit conditions until compliance is achieved. The Company contested the SCAQMD's petition. A hearing on the SCAQMD’s petition commenced on December 14, 2013 and continued into calendar 2014.

On April 11, 2014, as a result of the Vernon, California facility allegedly exceeding the SCAQMD ambient air standard for lead, the SCAQMD filed a second petition seeking an order that Exide “cease and desist” from violating air quality standards, or in the alternative, to comply with other such conditions and increments of progress which the SCAQMD Hearing Board deems appropriate.

On January 10, 2014, the SCAQMD adopted an amended rule that contained new emissions and equipment requirements with varying compliance dates, including an April 10, 2014 deadline that would require the Company to operate the furnaces at the Vernon, California facility under continuous "negative pressure" ("Rule 1420.1"). In response, the Company initiated two separate related proceedings on February 7, 2014: (i) a Petition for Variance before the SCAQMD Hearing Board, requesting a delay of the negative pressure requirement until December 31, 2014, and (ii) a Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking to invalidate the negative pressure requirement of Rule 1420.1. Additionally, on February 21, 2014, the Company filed a request for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily suspend the April 10, 2014 deadline until such time as the Superior Court could conduct a trial on the Writ of Mandamus.

On April 7, 2014, the Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the Company's preliminary injunction. Additionally, on April 8, 2014, the SCAQMD Hearing Board denied the Company's variance request. As a result of these two decisions, the Company suspended operations at the Vernon, California facility until such time as the Company can design, engineer, permit, install, and test new equipment needed to achieve the new standard under Rule 1420.1.

On July 10, 2014 the SCAQMD Hearing Board approved a resolution of the Company's pending administrative matters with the SCAQMD through the issuance of two Orders for Abatement ("Stipulated OAs"). The Stipulated OAs require the Company: (i) to refrain from resuming operations of the Vernon, California facility furnaces until it installs certain air quality control improvements required to comply with the newly adopted Rule 1420.1 standards in accordance with SCAQMD issued permits and applicable SCAQMD rules; and (ii) to install those improvements in accordance with an SCAQMD approved dust mitigation plan. Concurrently, in a settlement agreement with SCAQMD, the Company agreed to dismiss its Writ of Mandamus legal action. The Company currently estimates the full operation of the furnaces under continuous negative pressure will not occur until after installation of the aforesaid equipment expected to be completed in the latter part of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 should the Company decide to proceed.

On January 16, 2014, the Company and unnamed individuals (“DOE Defendants”), were named as defendants in a civil lawsuit brought by the SCAQMD in the case captioned as People of the State of California, ex rel South Coast Air Quality Management District, a Public Entity v. Exide Technologies, Inc., and DOE Defendants 1 through 50. The SCAQMD subsequently amended its complaint. The SCAQMD alleges that the Company and the DOE Defendants failed to comply with several of the SCAQMD's rules related to operation of equipment or lead and arsenic emissions at the Company's Vernon, California lead recycling facility. The SCAQMD is seeking penalties in an amount not less than $40.0 million. The Company denies the allegations in the lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. The matter is in discovery and presently scheduled for trial on September 15, 2015.

On May 22, 2014, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) served a Finding and Notice of Violation (“Federal NOV”) on Exide, alleging that Exide violated air quality standards for lead at various times in 2013 and 2014; the alleged violations are duplicative of those cited by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in its penalty action. EPA seeks civil penalties for these alleged violations. An initial conference seeking resolution of the matter was convened with the EPA on June 30, 2014 and discussions are anticipated at some point in the future regarding a resolution to the notice. EPA has also sought information from Exide under the Federal Clean Air Act and the Company has responded to all such EPA requests for information.

On September 24, 2013, the Company received a Notice of Enforcement issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) for alleged violations related to the compliance of its site in its Frisco, Texas, a former recycling facility, with Industrial Solid Waste and Municipal Hazardous waste requirements. The Company reasonably believes the proceeding may result in monetary sanctions to be paid to TCEQ in excess of $0.1 million.

The Company has established liabilities for on-site and off-site environmental remediation costs where such costs are probable and reasonably estimable and believes that such liabilities are adequate. As of September 30, 2014 and March 31, 2014, the amount of such liabilities on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets was approximately $24.1 million and $25.5 million, respectively. Because environmental liabilities are not accrued until a liability is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable, not all potential future environmental liabilities have been included in the Company’s environmental liabilities. Therefore, changes in estimates or future findings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, cash flows, or results of operations.

The sites that currently have the largest environmental reserves include the following:

Tampa, Florida

The Tampa site is a former secondary lead recycling plant, lead oxide production facility, and sheet lead-rolling mill that operated from 1943 to 1989. Under a RCRA Part B Closure Permit and a Consent Decree with the State of Florida, Exide is required to investigate and remediate certain historic environmental impacts to the site. Cost estimates for remediation (closure and post-closure) are expected to range from $10.0 million to $14.0 million depending on final State of Florida requirements. The remediation activities are expected to occur over the course of several years.

Columbus, Georgia

The Columbus site is a former secondary lead recycling plant that was taken out of service in 1999, but remains part of a larger facility that includes an operating lead-acid battery manufacturing facility. Groundwater remediation activities began in 1988. Costs for supplemental investigations, remediation and site closure are currently estimated at $6.0 million to $8.5 million.

Guarantees

At September 30, 2014, the Company had outstanding letters of credit with a face value of $33.7 million and surety bonds with a face value of $56.5 million. The majority of the letters of credit and surety bonds have been issued as collateral or financial assurance with respect to certain liabilities that the Company has recorded, including but not limited to environmental remediation obligations and self-insured workers’ compensation reserves. Failure of the Company to satisfy its obligations with respect to the primary obligations secured by the letters of credit or surety bonds could entitle the beneficiary of the related letter of credit or surety bond to demand payments pursuant to such instruments. The letters of credit generally have terms up to one year subject to the terms of the DIP Credit Facility. Collateral held by the surety in the form of letters of credit at September 30, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, was $22.9 million.

Certain of the Company’s European and Asia Pacific subsidiaries have bank guarantees outstanding as collateral or financial assurance in connection with environmental obligations, income tax claims and customer contract requirements. At September 30, 2014, bank guarantees with an aggregate face value of $10.4 million were outstanding.