Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2011
Contingencies [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 17 — CONTINGENCIES We were engaged in a lawsuit that was originally filed by us on August 8, 2008 in state district court in Houston, Texas, with one of our direct customers and 14 of its end-user customers regarding alleged leaks from our roofing panels. We sought to recover approximately $0.4 million owed for materials that were delivered to our direct customer as well as attorneys’ fees and expenses in the lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit, our direct customer asserted various counterclaims and that it was entitled to actual damages in the amount of approximately $3.2 million plus attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. During fiscal 2010 and into the first quarter of fiscal 2011, the end-users of our roofing panels intervened in the lawsuit and asserted various claims against us and that they were collectively entitled to actual damages in the amount of approximately $12 million plus attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Trial began on July 5, 2011 and concluded on July 21, 2011. On July 22, 2011, a jury returned a verdict on all counts in favor of the Company. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the Company on our direct customer’s claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, business disparagement, strict products liability, and negligent design, manufacture and marketing. Further, the jury found in favor of the Company on the end-users’ claims for breach of implied warranties, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, strict products liability and negligent design, manufacturing and marketing. On August 26, 2011, the district court judge entered final judgment against our direct customer awarding the Company approximately (i) $0.4 million owed for materials that were delivered but not paid by our direct customer, (ii) approximately $0.3 million in attorneys’ fees, (iii) approximately $0.2 million in prejudgment interest, and (iv) up to $0.125 million in the event this lawsuit is appealed. As of the time of this filing, no appeal has been filed by our direct customer or the end-users. From time to time, we and/or our subsidiaries become involved in various legal proceedings and contingencies, considered to be in the ordinary course of business. While we are not able to predict whether we will incur any liability in excess of insurance coverage or to accurately estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that we might incur in connection with these legal proceedings, we believe these legal proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.

NOTE 17 — CONTINGENCIES

We were engaged in a lawsuit that was originally filed by us on August 8, 2008 in state district court in Houston, Texas, with one of our direct customers and 14 of its end-user customers regarding alleged leaks from our roofing panels. We sought to recover approximately $0.4 million owed for materials that were delivered to our direct customer as well as attorneys’ fees and expenses in the lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit, our direct customer asserted various counterclaims and that it was entitled to actual damages in the amount of approximately $3.2 million plus attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. During fiscal 2010 and into the first quarter of fiscal 2011, the end-users of our roofing panels intervened in the lawsuit and asserted various claims against us and that they were collectively entitled to actual damages in the amount of approximately $12 million plus attorneys’ fees and punitive damages.

Trial began on July 5, 2011 and concluded on July 21, 2011. On July 22, 2011, a jury returned a verdict on all counts in favor of the Company. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the Company on our direct customer’s claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference, business disparagement, strict products liability, and negligent design, manufacture and marketing. Further, the jury found in favor of the Company on the end-users’ claims for breach of implied warranties, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, strict products liability and negligent design, manufacturing and marketing. On August 26, 2011, the district court judge entered final judgment against our direct customer awarding the Company approximately (i) $0.4 million owed for materials that were delivered but not paid by our direct customer, (ii) approximately $0.3 million in attorneys’ fees, (iii) approximately $0.2 million in prejudgment interest, and (iv) up to $0.125 million in the event this lawsuit is appealed. As of the time of this filing, no appeal has been filed by our direct customer or the end-users.

From time to time, we and/or our subsidiaries become involved in various legal proceedings and contingencies, considered to be in the ordinary course of business. While we are not able to predict whether we will incur any liability in excess of insurance coverage or to accurately estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that we might incur in connection with these legal proceedings, we believe these legal proceedings and claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.