Form 10-Q

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 229.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x

As of July 27, 2012, the total number of outstanding shares of common stock was 9,494,494.

The results reflected in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three month period ended June 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire fiscal year. The following unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the notes thereto, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations set forth in Item 2 of Part I of this report, as well as the audited financial statements and related notes thereto contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on June 12, 2012.

When the Company refers to its fiscal year in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the Company is referring to the fiscal year ended on March 31^st of that year. Thus the Company is currently operating in its fiscal year 2013, which commenced on April 1, 2012. Unless the context expressly indicates a contrary intention, all references to years in this filing are to the Company’s fiscal years. Figures in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are in thousands, except for share amounts or where expressly noted.

The unaudited, Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, and Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows are of Breeze-Eastern Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”). These reports reflect all adjustments of a normal recurring nature, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations for the interim periods reflected therein. Certain prior year amounts may have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

The computation of basic earnings (loss) per share is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. The computation of diluted earnings per share assumes the foregoing as well as the exercise of all dilutive stock options using the treasury stock method. The diluted loss per share is computed using the same weighted-average number of shares as the basic earnings (loss) per share computation.

The components of the denominator for basic earnings (loss) per common share and diluted earnings (loss) per common share are reconciled as follows.

The Company follows guidance issued by ASC 718, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”. Compensation cost is recognized for all awards granted and modified based on the grant date fair value of the awards. Net income (loss) for the three month periods ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011, includes stock-based compensation expense of $147 net of tax, or $0.02 per diluted share, and $79 net of tax, or $0.01 per diluted share, respectively. Stock based compensation expense is included in selling, general and administrative expenses. Additional compensation cost will be recognized as new restricted stock grants are awarded. The Company has not made any material modifications to its stock-based compensation plans as the result of the issuance of this guidance.

The Company maintains the 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “1999 Plan”), the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2004 Plan”), the 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”), and the 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2012 Plan”).

Under the terms of the 2012 Plan, 750,000 shares of the Company’s common stock may be granted as stock options or awarded as restricted stock to officers, non-employee directors, certain employees, and other key individuals of the Company through October 2022. Under the terms of the 2006 Plan, 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock may be granted as stock options or awarded as restricted stock to officers, non-employee directors, and certain employees of the Company through July

2016. Under the terms of the 2004 Plan, 200,000 shares of the Company’s common stock may be granted as stock options or awarded as restricted stock to officers, non-employee directors, and certain employees of the Company through September 2014. The 1999 Plan expired in July 2009, and no further grants or awards may be made under this plan. Under the 1999 Plan, unexercised options granted in fiscal years 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 remain outstanding.

Under each of the 1999, 2004, 2006, and 2012 Plans, option exercise prices equal the fair market value of the common shares at their respective grant dates. Prior to May 1999, options granted to officers and employees and all options granted to non-employee directors expired if not exercised on or before five years after the date of the grant. Beginning in May 1999, options granted to officers and employees expire no later than 10 years after the date of the grant. Options granted to directors, officers, and employees vest ratably over three years beginning one year after the date of the grant. In certain circumstances, including a change of control of the Company (as defined in the various Plans), option vesting may be accelerated.

Pursuant to the terms of an employment agreement, effective May 22, 2012, between the Company and Brad Pedersen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, the Company granted to Mr. Pedersen an option to purchase 400,000 shares, which option has a weighted average grant date fair value equal to $8.10. This option was reported in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 22, 2012.

The Black-Scholes weighted-average value per option granted in fiscal 2013 was $2.36. In fiscal 2012, the Black-Scholes weighted-average value per option was $2.75, $2.58, $2.72, $2.81 and $2.13. The Black-Scholes option pricing model uses dividend yield, volatility, risk-free rate, expected term, and forfeiture assumptions and was used to value 50,000 options granted in fiscal 2013 and all of the options granted in fiscal 2012. The remaining 350,000 options granted in fiscal 2013 were valued based on the Monte Carolo simulation model, at the grant date, because the vesting of these options are based on service and market conditions. Expected volatilities are based on historical volatility of the Company’s common stock and other factors. The risk-free rate for periods within the contractual life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of the grant. The Company uses historical data to estimate the expected option term. The Company assumed no forfeitures because of the limited number of employees at the executive and senior management levels who receive stock options, past employment history, and current stock price projections. The Company uses the following assumptions to estimate the fair value of option grants:

The following table summarizes stock option activity under all plans and other grants authorized by the Board of Directors.

Cash received from stock option exercises during the first three months of fiscal 2013 was approximately $1. In lieu of a cash payment for stock option exercises, the Company received 14,739 shares of common stock, which were retired into treasury, valued at the price of the common stock at the transaction date. The aggregate intrinsic value of options exercised during the first three months of fiscal 2013 was approximately $35. The intrinsic value of stock options is the amount by which the market price of the stock on the date of exercise exceeded the market price of stock on the date of grant. There was no tax benefit generated to the Company from options granted prior to April 1, 2006 and exercised during fiscal 2013.

During the first three months of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, stock option compensation expense recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses was $203 and $81, respectively, before taxes of $85 and $34, respectively. As of June 30, 2012, there was $1,286 of unrecognized compensation cost related to stock options granted-but-not-yet-vested that are expected to become exercisable. This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately three years.

Except as otherwise authorized by the Board of Directors, it is the general policy of the Company that the stock underlying the option grants consists of authorized and unissued shares available for distribution under the applicable Plan. Under the 1999, 2004, 2006 and 2012 Plans, the Incentive and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (made up of independent directors) may at any time offer to repurchase a stock option that is exercisable and has not expired.

Restricted stock awards are utilized both for director compensation and awards to officers and employees, and are distributed in a single grant of shares which are subject to forfeiture prior to vesting and have voting and dividend rights from the date of issuance. Other than the restricted stock granted in fiscal 2012, outstanding restricted stock awards to officers and employees have forfeiture and transfer restrictions that lapse ratably over three years beginning one year after the date of the award. Restricted stock awards granted to officers and employees in fiscal 2012 contain forfeiture and transfer restrictions that lapse after six months.

Restricted stock awards granted to non-employee directors prior to fiscal 2012 contain forfeiture provisions that lapse after one year and transfer restrictions that lapse six months after the person ceases to be a director. In certain circumstances, including a change of control of the Company as defined in the various Plans, forfeiture lapses on restricted stock may be accelerated.

The fair value of restricted stock awards is based on the market price of the stock at the grant date and compensation cost is amortized to expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period as stated above. The Company expects no

forfeitures during the vesting period with respect to unvested restricted stock awards granted. During the first three months of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, compensation expense related to restricted stock awards recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses was $50 and $55, respectively, before taxes of $21 and $23, respectively. As of June 30, 2012, there was approximately $46 of unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested restricted stock awards, which is expected to be recognized over a period of less than one year.

Inventory obsolescence is determined by identifying specific items based on the age of inventory and by establishing a general reserve based on annual purchases. Analyzing inventory by age showed little movement once items have aged five years, and historical trends showed that 1.1% of purchases would eventually be scrapped. Accordingly, the Company uses these two factors in determining the amount of the reserve.

Property and equipment are recorded at cost, and equipment is depreciated on a straight-line basis over its estimated economic useful life. Depreciation expense for the three month periods ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011 was $338 and $349, respectively.

The Company classified as real estate held for sale on the condensed consolidated balance sheets a property owned in Glen Head, New York that is currently under sales contract. The sale of the property is expected to be concluded upon completion of municipal approvals and soil remediation pursuant to the remediation plan approved by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. The net sale proceeds are expected to be $3,800. See Note 13 for a discussion of environmental matters related to this site.

Equipment has a one year warranty for which a reserve is established using historical averages and specific program contingencies when considered necessary. Changes in the carrying amount of accrued product warranty costs for the three month period ended June 30, 2012 are summarized as follows:

Income taxes for the three month period ended June 30, 2012 was computed using the effective tax rate estimated to be applicable for the full fiscal year, which is subject to ongoing review and evaluation by management.

At June 30, 2012, the Company has federal and state net operating loss carry forwards, or NOLs, of approximately $10,451 and $499, respectively, which are due to expire in fiscal 2025 through fiscal 2033 and fiscal 2017, respectively. These NOLs may be used to offset future taxable income through their respective expiration dates and thereby reduce or eliminate our federal and state income taxes otherwise payable. A valuation allowance of $265 exists relating to other items, as it is management’s belief that it is more likely than not that a portion of this deferred asset is not realizable.

At June 30, 2012, the current deferred tax assets are $7,626, and non-current deferred tax assets are $6,302. If the Company does not generate adequate taxable earnings, some or all of our deferred tax assets may not be realized. Additionally, changes to the federal and state income tax laws also could impact our ability to use the NOLs. In such cases, the Company may need to revise the valuation allowance established related to deferred tax assets for state purposes.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposes significant limitations on the utilization of NOLs in the event of an “ownership change” as defined under section 382 of the Code (the “Section 382 Limitation”). The Section 382 Limitation is an annual limitation on the amount of pre-ownership NOLs that a corporation may use to offset its post-ownership change income. The Section 382 Limitation is calculated by multiplying the value of a corporation’s stock immediately before an ownership change by the long-term tax-exempt rate (as published by the Internal Revenue Service). Generally, an ownership change occurs with respect to a corporation if the aggregate increase in the percentage of stock ownership by value of that corporation by one or more 5% shareholders (including specified groups of shareholders who, in the aggregate, own at least 5% of that corporation’s stock) exceeds 50 percentage points over a three-year testing period. The Company believes that it has not gone through an ownership change over the most recent three-year testing period that would cause the Company’s NOLs to be subject to the Section 382 Limitation. However, given the Company’s current ownership structure, the creation of one or more new 5% shareholders could result in the Company’s NOLs being subject to the Section 382 Limitation.

At June 30, 2012, the Company had no unrecognized tax benefits for uncertain tax positions.

Senior Credit Facility - The Company has a 60-month, $33,000 senior credit facility consisting of a $10,000 revolving line of credit (the “Revolver”) and, at the inception of the credit agreement in August 2008, a term loan totaling $23,000 (the “Senior Credit Facility”). The term loan had quarterly principal payments of $821 over the life of the loan and $6,571 due at maturity in August 2013. In June of fiscal 2013, the Company paid in full the term loan by pre-paying the total amount remaining of $10,679.

The Senior Credit Facility bears interest at either the “Base Rate” or the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) plus applicable margins based on the Company’s leverage ratio. The leverage ratio is equal to consolidated total debt divided by consolidated EBITDA (the sum of net income, depreciation, amortization, other non-cash charges and credits to net income, interest expense, and income tax expense minus charges related to debt refinancing) for the most recent four quarters and is calculated at each quarter end. The Base Rate is the higher of the Prime Rate or the Federal Funds Open Rate plus 0.50%. The applicable margins for the Base Rate based borrowings are between 0% and 0.75%. The applicable margins for LIBOR-based borrowings are between 1.25% and 2.25%. During the first three months of fiscal 2013, the Senior Credit Facility had a blended interest rate of approximately 1.5%, for debt of $10,500 tied to LIBOR and for debt of $179 tied to the Prime Rate before the term loan pre-payment of $10,679 discussed above. The Company also pays a commitment fee of 0.375% on the average daily unused portion of the Revolver. The Senior Credit Facility required the Company to enter into an interest rate swap through August 2011 (discussed below).

The Senior Credit Facility is secured by all of the Company’s assets and allows the Company to issue letters of credit against the total borrowing capacity of the facility. At June 30, 2012, there were no outstanding borrowings under the Revolver, $202 in outstanding (standby) letters of credit, and $9,798 in Revolver availability. The Senior Credit Facility contains certain financial covenants which require a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio that is not permitted to be less than 1.25 : 1.0 and a leverage ratio that is not permitted to be more than 2.5 : 1.0. The fixed charge coverage ratio is equal to consolidated EBITDA (as defined above) divided by fixed charges (the sum of cash interest expense, cash income taxes, dividends, cash environmental costs, scheduled principal installments on indebtedness adjusted for prepayments, capital expenditures, and payments under capitalized leases). The Company was permitted to exclude from fixed charges certain one-time capital expenditures of up to $5,500 related to the facility relocation in fiscal 2011. At June 30, 2012, the Company was in compliance with the covenant provisions of the Senior Credit Facility.

Interest Rate Swap - The Senior Credit Facility required the Company to enter into an interest rate swap for at least three years in an amount not less than 50% of the term loan for the first two years and 35% of the term loan for the third year. An interest rate swap, a type of derivative financial instrument, is used to minimize the effects of interest rate fluctuations on cash flows. The Company does not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes. In September 2008, the Company entered into a three year interest rate swap to exchange floating rate for fixed rate interest payments on the term loan as required by the Company’s Senior Credit Facility. The swap’s net effect of the spread between the floating rate (30 day LIBOR) and the fixed rate (3.25%), was settled monthly, and was reflected as an adjustment to interest expense in the period incurred. The adjustment to record the swap at its fair value was included in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax. The Company reduced its existing unrealized loss on the interest rate swap during the first three months of fiscal 2012. The interest rate swap expired in August 2011.

Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e. an exit price). The accounting guidance includes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:

The carrying amount reported in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximates fair value because of the short-term maturity of those instruments. The carrying amount for borrowings under the revolving portion of the Senior Credit Facility, if applicable, would approximate fair value because of the variable market interest rate charged to the Company for these borrowings.

The Company has a defined contribution plan covering all eligible employees. Contributions are based on certain percentages of an employee’s eligible compensation. Expenses related to this plan were $175 and $166, respectively, for the three month periods ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011.

The Company provides postretirement benefits to certain union employees. The Company funds these benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. The measurement date is March 31.

In February 2002, the Company’s subsidiary, Seeger-Orbis GmbH & Co. OHG, now known as TransTechnology Germany GmbH (the “Selling Company”), sold its retaining ring business in Germany to Barnes Group Inc. (“Barnes”). German law prohibits the transfer of unfunded pension obligations which have vested for retired and former employees, so the legal responsibility for the pension plan that related to the business (the “Pension Plan”) remained with the Selling Company. At the time of the sale and subsequent to the sale, that pension liability was recorded based on the projected benefit obligation since future compensation levels will not affect the level of pension benefits. The relevant information for the Pension Plan is shown below under the caption Pension Plan. The measurement date is December 31. Barnes has entered into an agreement with the Company whereby Barnes is obligated to administer and discharge the pension obligation as well as indemnify and hold the Selling Company and the Company harmless from these pension obligations. Accordingly, the Company has recorded an asset equal to the benefit obligation for the Pension Plan of $3,024 and $3,207 as of June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, respectively. This asset is included in other long-term assets and it is restricted in use to satisfy the legal liability associated with the Pension Plan.

The net periodic pension cost is based on estimated values provided by independent actuaries. The following tables provide the components of the net periodic benefit cost.

The Company is subject to concentration of credit risk primarily with its trade receivables. The Company grants credit to certain customers who meet pre-established credit requirements, and generally requires no collateral from its customers. Estimates of potential credit losses are provided for in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements and are within management’s expectations. As of June 30, 2012, the Company had no other significant concentrations of credit risk.

In December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No.2011-05. The amendments in this Update supersede certain pending paragraphs in ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income, to effectively defer only those changes in ASU No. 2011-05 that relate to the presentation of reclassification adjustments out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The amendments will be temporary to allow the Board time to re-deliberate the presentation requirements for reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income for annual and interim financial statements for public, private, and non-profit entities. The adoption of this guidance had no material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The other comprehensive income is a de minimus amount and is disclosed in the equity section of the balance sheet.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income. This guidance improves the comparability, consistency and transparency of financial reporting and increases the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income. The guidance provided by this update becomes effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company is involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination and other environmental matters at several former facilities that were never required for its current operations. These facilities were part of businesses disposed of by TransTechnology Corporation, the former parent Company. Environmental cleanup activities usually span several years, which make estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of various factors, including changing remediation technologies, assessments of the extent of contamination, and continually evolving regulatory environmental standards. The Company considers these and other factors as well as studies and reports by external environmental consultants to estimate the amount and timing of any future costs that may be required for remediation actions. The Company follows ASC 450 in recording and disclosing environmental liabilities and records a liability for its best estimate of remediation costs. Because the Company believes it has a more-definitive best estimate of the environmental liability, the Company does not calculate a range in accordance with ASC 450.

At June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012 the aggregate environmental liability was $13,397 and $13,535, respectively, included in other current liabilities and other long term liabilities on the balance sheet, before cost-sharing of approximately $1,471 and $1,500 at June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, respectfully, that is classified mostly as a non-current asset.

In the first three months of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, the Company spent $239 and $263, respectively, on environmental costs, and for the entire fiscal 2012, the Company spent $1,177. The Company has a detailed plan by property to manage its environmental exposure. Based on this plan, the Company anticipates spending $1,228 on environmental matters in fiscal 2013. These costs will be charged against the environmental liability reserve and will not impact income. The Company performs quarterly reviews of its environmental sites and the related liabilities.

The Company continues to participate in environmental assessments and remediation work at nine locations, including certain former facilities. Due to the nature of environmental remediation and monitoring work, such activities can extend for up to 30 years, depending upon the nature of the work, the substances involved, and the regulatory requirements associated with each site. The Company does not discount the recorded liabilities.

Although the Company takes great care in developing these risk assessments and future cost estimates, the actual amount of remediation costs may be different from those estimated as a result of a number of factors including: changes to federal and state environmental regulations or laws; changes in local construction costs and the availability of personnel and materials; unforeseen remediation requirements that are not apparent until the work actually commences; and actual remediation expenses that differ from those estimated. The Company does not include any unasserted claims that it might have against others in determining its potential liability for such costs, and, except as noted with specific cost sharing arrangements, has no such arrangements, nor has it taken into consideration any future claims against insurance carriers that the Company may have in determining its environmental liabilities. In those situations where the Company is considered a de minimis participant in a remediation claim, the failure of the larger participants to meet their obligations could result in an increase in the Company’s liability at such a site.

There are a number of former operating facilities that the Company is monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. In some cases, although a loss may be probable, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation for remediation activities because of uncertainties assessing the extent of the contamination or the applicable regulatory standard. The Company is also pursuing claims for contribution to site investigation and cleanup costs against other potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including the U.S. Government.

There are other properties that have a combined environmental liability of $4,176 at June 30, 2012. In addition, the Company had accrued $100 in estimated costs related to four environmental proceedings in which the Company had been named as a potentially responsible party. The Company deemed that its potential liabilities related to these matters are now resolved and does not anticipate any future costs.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2003, the Company entered into a consent order for a former facility in Glen Head, New York, which is currently subject to a contract for sale, pursuant to which the Company developed a remediation plan for review and approval by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). The Company was advised in fiscal 2010 that the NYDEC required additional offsite groundwater delineation studies. Based upon the characterization work performed to date and this latest request, the Company’s reserve is $3,369 for the Glen Head site at June 30, 2012. The amounts and timing of payments are subject to the approved remediation plan and additional discussions with NYDEC.

The property is classified as “held for sale” for $3,800 after allowing for certain costs. In July 2001, the Company entered into a sales contract for the Glen Head, New York property for $4,000. The property’s appraised value was $3,300 in July 2001 and was $4,200 in 2005, the date of the last appraisal. These appraisals did not reflect the Company’s estimated remediation costs.

Neither the consent order nor the remediation plan affect the buyer’s obligation to close under the sales contract. The contract does not include a price adjustment clause and, although there are conditions precedent to the buyer’s obligation to close, the contract does not allow for termination. Thus, the buyer cannot unilaterally terminate the contract without liability, a buy-out, or some other settlement negotiated with the Company. There is no set date for closing, and the Company must provide the buyer with a funded remediation plan and environmental insurance prior to the buyer’s obligation to close. The buyer indicated its intent to build residential housing on this former industrial site and has been engaged in the lengthy process of securing the necessary municipal approvals.

The Company sold the business previously operated at the property owned in Saltzburg, Pennsylvania. The Company presented an environmental cleanup plan during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000 for a portion of Federal Labs site pursuant to a consent order and agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PaDEP”) in fiscal 1999 (“1999 Consent Order”). PaDEP approved the plan during the third quarter of fiscal 2004, and the Company paid $200 for past costs, future oversight expenses, and in full settlement of claims made by PaDEP related to the environmental remediation of the site with an additional $200 paid subsequently.

The Company concluded a second consent order with PaDEP in the third quarter of fiscal 2001 for a second portion of the Federal Labs site (“2001 Consent Order”), and concluded a third Consent Order for the remainder of the Federal Labs site in the third quarter of fiscal 2003 (“2003 Consent Order”). The Company submitted an environmental cleanup plan for the portion of the Federal Labs site covered by the 2003 Consent Order during the second quarter of fiscal 2004.

The Company is administering a settlement, concluded in the first quarter of fiscal 2000, under which the Federal Government pays 50% of the ongoing direct and indirect environmental costs for the Fed Labs site subject to the 1999 Consent Order. The Federal Government cost-sharing receivable is classified primarily as other assets on the balance sheet. The Company also concluded an agreement in the first quarter of fiscal 2006, under which the Federal Government paid an amount equal to 45% of the estimated environmental response costs for the Federal Labs site subject to the 2001 Consent Order. No future payments are due under this second agreement.

The Company is currently under a tolling agreement with the Federal Government with the remainder of the Federal Labs site while negotiating a cost-sharing arrangement subject to the 2003 Consent Order. There can be no assurance the Company will be successful in these negotiations or any litigation seeking to enforce its rights to contribution or indemnification from the Federal Government. The Company’s environmental liability reserves are not reduced for any potential cost-sharing payments.

At June 30, 2012, the environmental liability reserve at Federal Labs was $5,852. The Company expects that remediation at this site, which is subject to the oversight of the Pennsylvania authorities, will not be completed for several years, and that monitoring costs, although expected to be incurred over twenty years, could extend for up to thirty years.

The Company is also engaged in various other legal proceedings incidental to its business. It is the opinion of management that, after taking into consideration information furnished by its counsel, these matters will have no material effect on the Company’s financial position or the results of operations or cash flows in future periods.

Our products and related services aggregate into one reportable segment – sophisticated mission equipment for specialty aerospace and defense applications. The nature of the production process (assemble, inspect, and test) is similar for all products, as are the customers and distribution methods.

During the three month period ended June 30, 2012, 30%,18% and 15% of net sales were made to three major customers, respectively. During the three month period ended June 30, 2011, 33%, 20% and 11% of net sales were made to three major customers, respectively.

Net sales below show the geographic location of customers for the three month periods ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011:

Management has evaluated all events occurring through the date the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been issued, and has determined that there are no such events that are material to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, or all such material events have been fully disclosed.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Item 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, all references to the “Company,” the “registrant” “we,” “us” or “our” and similar terms in this report refer to Breeze-Eastern Corporation and its subsidiaries. All dollar amounts stated herein are in thousands except per share amounts. All references to years in this report refer to the fiscal year ended March 31 of the indicated year unless otherwise specified. This report reflects all adjustments of a normal recurring nature, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for fair presentation of the results of operations for the periods reflected. Certain prior fiscal year amounts may have been reclassified to conform to the current fiscal year presentation.

This report contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements other than statements of historical facts included or incorporated by reference in this report, including, without limitation, statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy, budgets, projected revenues, projected costs and plans and objective of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” or “believes” or the negative thereof or any variation there on or similar terminology or expressions.

We based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions about us that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations include, but are not limited to: changes in business conditions, changes in applicable laws, rules and regulations affecting us in locations in which we conduct business, interest rate trends, a decline or redirection of the U.S. defense budget, the failure of Congress to approve a budget or continuing resolution, the termination of any contracts with the U.S. Government, changes in our sales strategy and product development plans, changes in the marketplace, developments in environmental proceedings that we are involved in, continued services of our executive management team, competitive pricing pressures, security breaches, market acceptance of our products under development, delays in the development of products, changes in spending allocation or the termination, postponement, or failure to fund one or more significant contracts by the U.S. Government or other customers, determination by us to dispose of or acquire additional assets, events impacting the U.S. and world financial markets and economies, and statements of assumption underlying any of the foregoing, as well as other factors set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the SEC on June 12, 2012, and under and Item 2. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” below.

All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us, or persons acting on our behalf, are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing. Except as required by law, we assume no duty to update or revise our forward-looking statements based on changes in internal estimates, expectations, or otherwise.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

We design, develop, manufacture, sell, and service sophisticated engineered mission equipment for specialty aerospace and defense applications. We have long been recognized as a leading global designer, manufacturer, service provider, and supplier of mission-critical rescue hoists. We also manufacture weapons-handling systems, cargo winches, cargo hook systems and tie-down equipment. Our products are designed to be efficient and reliable in extreme operating conditions and are used to complete rescue operations and military insertion/extraction operations, move and transport cargo, and load weapons onto aircraft and ground-based launching systems.

Our business is affected by global economic and geo-political conditions. In particular, as the U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan is reduced, reductions and redirection of United States defense spending could have a material impact on revenues and earnings in future periods. Similarly, if European governments significantly reduce their military and other government spending, that could have a material impact on revenues and earnings in future periods. However, we believe that the primary missions that drive procurement and the use of our equipment (search and rescue, special operations, and cargo delivery) will continue to get a relatively high funding priority.

As our OEM customers’ development timetables have been extended, we have experienced corresponding product development schedule slippage and increased investment. In May 2012 a customer informed us that the customer would seek an alternative solution for a product we were developing. We continue to provide other products and services to this customer. Other than this, we have not seen any program cancellations. Developing the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft has taken longer than was originally expected, but flight testing is now underway, and we expect revenues related to this project starting in calendar 2013. Our engineering expense is reported net of reimbursements from Airbus, and we anticipate gross engineering costs to continue at a high level.

Our core business is aerospace and defense products. We believe we are the world’s leading designer, manufacturer, service provider, and supplier of mission-critical rescue hoists and cargo hook systems. We also manufacture weapons handling systems, cargo winches, and tie-down equipment. These products are sold primarily to military and civilian agencies and aerospace contractors. Our emphasis is on the engineering, assembly, testing, service, and support of our products.

Our products and related services aggregate into one reportable segment. The nature of the production process (assemble, inspect, and test), customers, and product distribution are similar for all products. We sell our products through internal marketing representatives and independent sales representatives and distributors.

As a pioneer of helicopter rescue hoist technology, we continue to develop sophisticated helicopter hoist and winch systems, including systems for the current generation of Blackhawk, Seahawk, Osprey, Chinook, Ecureuil, Dolphin, Merlin/Cormorant, Super Stallion, Changhe Z-11, Agusta A109, Agusta A119 and AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters. We also design, market, sell and service a broad line of hydraulic and electric aircraft cargo winch systems with capacities from 900 pounds to over 7,000 pounds.

Our external cargo hook systems are original equipment on leading military medium and heavy lift helicopters. These hook systems range from smaller 1,000-pound capacity models up to the largest 36,000-pound capacity hooks employed on the Super Stallion helicopter. Our latest designs incorporate load sensing and display technology and automatic load release features. We also manufacture cargo and aircraft tie-downs which are included in this product line.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

We make static-line retrieval and cargo winches for military cargo aircraft including the Boeing C-17, Alenia C-27J, and CASA CN-235, and CASA C-295. In addition, we have a contract with Airbus to develop and produce three products for the new cargo positioning and restraint system for the A400M cargo aircraft and expect to be the sole supplier of these products with anticipated delivery beginning in the later part of fiscal 2013.

Once our products are qualified and approved for use with a particular aircraft model, sales of products and services generally continue over the life of the aircraft model, which is usually decades. It is expensive and difficult for a second supplier’s product to become qualified and approved on the same aircraft.

Our weapons handling systems include weapons handling equipment for land-based rocket launchers and munitions hoists for loading missiles and other loads using electric power or exchangeable battery packs. We supply this equipment for the United States, Japanese, and European Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) and the United States High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). We also provide actuators and specialty gearboxes for specialty weapons applications.

We perform overhaul, repair, and maintenance services for all of our products. Most of these services are performed at our Whippany, New Jersey facility. We have also licensed third-party vendors around the world to perform these services.

In addition to performing research and development to design new products, improve existing products, and add new features to our product line, we also provide engineering services to adapt our products to customer specific needs and aircraft models on a fee-for-service basis.

We discuss segment information in Note 15 of our “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 1 of Part I of this report.

Our primary strategy is to continue to expand our position as a market leader in the design, development, and service of sophisticated mission equipment for specialty aerospace and defense applications. We intend to maintain our position by continuing to focus on our principal customers and on geographic areas where we have developed our reputation as a premier provider of aircraft hoist and lift equipment, and by expanding both our customer base and product lines. We believe that continued spending on research and development to improve the quality of our product offerings and remaining on the leading edge of technological advances in our chosen markets is also crucial to our business. In this regard, we will continue to commit resources to product research and development.

For information regarding our critical accounting policies, please refer to the discussion provided in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the SEC on June 12, 2012, under the caption “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Critical Accounting Policies” and our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included therein.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 Compared with Three Months Ended June 30, 2011

Net Sales. Fiscal 2013 first quarter net sales of $14,413 were $3,835, or 21.0%, below net sales of $18,248 in the fiscal 2012 first quarter. Fiscal 2013 first quarter products sales of $10,700 were $3,192, or 23.0%, below prior year primarily due to lower new equipment hoist & winch volume to the U.S. military, lower weapons handling sales because the U.S. Government requirements for the HIMARS program are reportedly complete, and lower spare parts volume to third-party repair centers. This was partly offset by higher new equipment sales to international customers.

Fiscal 2013 first quarter services sales of $3,713 were lower by $643, or 14.8%, compared with the prior year primarily due to reduced engineering weapons handling sales.

The timing of U.S. Government awards, availability of U.S. Government funding, and product delivery schedules are among the factors that affect the period of recording revenues. Over the past several years, revenues in the second half of the fiscal year exceeded revenues in the first half of the fiscal year. We expect fiscal 2013 revenues will be consistent with this pattern.

Cost of Sales. Products cost of sales of $6,621 in the fiscal 2013 first quarter were $1,369, or 17.1%, lower than the same period in fiscal 2012 primarily due to lower new production volume. Cost of services provided of $2,281 in the fiscal 2013 first quarter was $593, or 20.6%, lower than the prior year due primarily to lower

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

engineering volume. In the fiscal 2013 first quarter, manufacturing overhead was under-absorbed by $125, or 0.9% of sales. In the prior year, under-absorbed overhead was $105, or 0.6% of sales. The absorption split between products and services was 46% and 54%, respectively.

Gross profit. Gross profit of $5,511 in the fiscal 2013 first quarter was $1,873, or 25.4%, below the same period in fiscal 2012. The decrease is due to lower sales volume in new products. As a percent of sales, the gross profit margin was 38.2% for the fiscal 2013 first quarter compared with 40.5% for the prior year. Gross profit as a percent of sales declined due to the unfavorable mix in new production sold to the U.S. Government and large OEMs in hoist & winch and weapons handling, partially offset by improved spare parts and overhaul & repair margins.

Operating Expenses. Total operating expenses were $6,741, or 46.8% of net sales, in the first quarter of fiscal 2013 compared with $6,189 or 33.9% of net sales in the comparable prior year period. Selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses were $3,272 in the fiscal 2013 first quarter compared with $3,904 in the first quarter of fiscal 2012, a decrease of $623 due primarily to an accrual reversal in the first quarter of 2013 for fiscal 2012 incentive compensation, business strategy development costs incurred during the first three months of fiscal 2012, that were not incurred in the first three months of fiscal 2013, offset by CEO transition costs incurred in the first quarter of fiscal 2013. As a percent of sales, SG&A was 22.7% in the fiscal 2013 first quarter versus 21.4% in the comparable period last year. The increase as a percent of sales is due to the lower sales in the 2013 fiscal first quarter.

Engineering expenses were $3,469 in the first quarter of fiscal 2013 compared with $2,285 in the first quarter of fiscal 2012. The increase reflects continued new product development for awarded aerospace platforms, primarily the A400M and CH-53K and no Airbus cost reimbursement in the fiscal 2013 first quarter. Reimbursements from Airbus reduced engineering expenses in last year’s fiscal first quarter by $516. We anticipate total gross engineering costs, including Airbus and other projects, to continue at a high level through fiscal 2013.

Interest Expense. Interest expense was $173 during the first quarter of fiscal 2013 versus $134 in the first quarter of fiscal 2012. We pre-paid our $10,679 term loan in full during the fiscal 2013 first quarter which resulted in expensing $95 of deferred debt acquisition costs. Excluding this expense, our interest expense was $78, and the decline is primarily due to lower interest rates due to the expiration of our interest-rate swap in August, 2011.

Income tax provision (benefit). Income tax benefit, due to reporting a loss, was $600 in the first quarter of fiscal 2013 versus a provision of $433 in the profitable first quarter of fiscal 2012. Income taxes for the three month periods ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011 were computed using the effective tax rate estimated to be applicable for the full fiscal year, which is subject to ongoing review and evaluation. Income taxes and income tax rates are discussed further in Note 8 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part I, Item 1 of this report.

Net Income (loss). Net loss was $828, or a negative $0.09 per diluted share, in the fiscal 2013 first quarter compared with net income of $598, or $0.06 per diluted share, in the same period in fiscal 2012. The decrease is due to the lower gross profit resulting from the decline in sales, lower gross profit as a percent of sales, and higher engineering costs, partly offset by lower SG&A expenses.

New Orders. New products and services orders received during the three months ended June 30, 2012 increased by 8.7% to $14,783 compared with $13,595 during the three months ended June 30, 2011. The increase was due primarily to spare parts and also new equipment, but was partly offset by reduced overhaul & repair and also lower engineering orders. Spare parts orders increased by $2,046 and new equipment orders increased slightly.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

New orders for overhaul & repair for the three months ended June 30, 2012 were lower than the prior year due to timing of US military orders. Engineering orders decreased in weapons handling.

Backlog. We measure backlog by the amount of products or services that customers committed by contract to purchase as of a given date. Backlog may vary substantially over time due to the size and timing of orders. Backlog of approximately $38,169 at June 30, 2012 is scheduled for shipment during the next twelve months. Although significant cancellations of purchase orders or substantial reductions of product quantities in existing contracts seldom occur, such cancellations or reductions could substantially and materially reduce backlog. Therefore, backlog information may not represent the actual amount of shipments or sales for any future period.

Backlog at June 30, 2012 was $111,554 compared with $111,184 at March 31, 2012, and $126,498 at June 30, 2011. These figures include $71,466, $71,343, and $71,343, respectively, for the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft that was once scheduled to commence shipping in late calendar 2009 and continue through 2020. Airbus now indicates shipments are likely to commence in calendar 2013.

The book-to-bill ratio is computed by dividing the new orders received during a period by the sales for the same period. A book-to-bill ratio in excess of 1.0 is potentially indicative of continued overall growth in sales. The book to bill ratio was 1.0 for the fiscal 2013 first quarter and 0.7 for the fiscal 2012 first quarter.

Our principal sources of liquidity are cash on hand, cash generated from operations, and our Senior Credit Facility. Our liquidity requirements depend on a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including the timing of production under contracts with the U.S. Government. Our working capital needs fluctuate between periods as a result of changes in program status and the timing of payments by program. Additionally, because sales are generally made on the basis of individual purchase orders, liquidity requirements vary based on the timing and volume of orders. Based on cash on hand, future cash expected to be generated from operations, and the Senior Credit Facility, we expect to have sufficient cash to meet liquidity requirements for the next twelve months. The Senior Credit Facility is discussed in Note 9 of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” contained elsewhere in this report.

In fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012 the Company accelerated term-loan payments by making a total of five quarterly term-loan pre-payments totaling $4,107. During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, due to our strong cash position and to gain additional flexibility on our fixed-charge debt covenant, we pre-paid our entire term loan balance of $10,679, of which $6,571 was due when the term loan expired in August, 2013. We believe we have adequate cash flow and revolver debt availability to meet our operating needs.

We are involved in environmental proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil and groundwater contamination and other environmental matters at several of our former facilities that were never required for our current operations. In fiscal 2013, we anticipate spending approximately $1,225 on environmental costs. These costs will be charged against our environmental liability reserve and will not impact income.

Net working capital at June 30, 2012 was $29,349, a decrease of $10,456, versus $39,805 at March 31, 2012. The ratio of current assets to current liabilities was 2.9:1.0 at June 30, 2012 compared with 3.4:1.0 at the beginning of fiscal 2013. The net working capital decrease resulted primarily from pre-paying the term loan balance remaining under our Senior Credit Facility.

The accounts receivable days outstanding increased to 74.8 days at June 30, 2012, from 69.3 days at June 30, 2011. Inventory turnover decreased to 1.6 turns at June 30, 2012 versus 2.5 turns at June 30, 2011. Inventory turns are lower due to the higher inventory level at June 30, 2012 as we built inventory levels to improve customer service for overhaul and repair turnaround time and product delivery.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Capital expenditures for the three months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 were $32 and $713, respectively. Fiscal 2013 first quarter spending was for production test equipment. Fiscal 2012 first quarter spending consisted primarily of test equipment for newly-developed products and capital for information technology. Capitalized qualification units for the three months ended June 30, 2011 was $467. We did not capitalize any qualification units for the three months ended June 30, 2012.

The Senior Credit Facility is discussed in Note 9 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part I, Item 1 of this report.

The Interest Rate Swap is discussed in Note 9 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part I, Item 1 of this report.

The Tax Benefits from Net Operating Losses is discussed in Note 8 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part I, Item 1 of this report.

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations in future fiscal years.

Neither inflation nor deflation has had, and we do not expect it to have, a material impact upon operating results. We cannot be certain that our business will not be affected by inflation or deflation in the future.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Environmental matters – At June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012 the aggregate environmental liability was $13,397 and $13,535, respectively, included in other current liabilities and other long term liabilities on the balance sheet, before cost-sharing of approximately $1,471 and $1,500 at June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, respectively, that is classified mostly as a non-current asset.

In the first three months of fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2012, we spent $239 and $263, respectively, on environmental costs, and for the entire fiscal 2012, we spent $1,177. We have a detailed plan by property to manage our environmental exposure. Based on this plan, we anticipate spending $1,228 on environmental matters in fiscal 2013. These costs will be charged against the environmental liability reserve and will not impact income. We perform quarterly reviews of our environmental sites and the related liabilities.

Environmental matters are discussed in Note 14 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part 1, Item 1 of this report.

Litigation – Litigation is discussed in Note 14 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part 1, Item 1 of this report.

The recent accounting pronouncements are discussed in Note 13 of the “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Part 1, Item 1 of this report.

As of June 30, 2012, we did not have any relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partners, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or variable interest entities, established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. As such, we are not materially exposed to any financing, liquidity, market or credit risk that could arise if we had engaged in such relationships.

We are exposed to various market risks, primarily changes in interest rates associated with our Senior Credit Facility. The Senior Credit Facility required us to enter into an interest rate swap for at least three years in an amount not less than 50% of the term loan for the first two years and 35% of the term loan for the third year. An interest rate swap, a type of derivative financial instrument, is used to minimize the effects of interest rate fluctuations on cash flows. We do not use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes. In September 2008, we entered into a three-year interest rate swap to exchange floating rate for fixed rate interest payments on the term loan as required by our Senior Credit Facility. The swap’s net effect of the spread between the floating rate (30 day LIBOR) and the fixed rate (3.25%), was settled monthly, and was reflected as an adjustment to interest expense in the period incurred. The adjustment to record the swap at its fair value was included in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax. The Company reduced its existing unrealized loss on the interest rate swap during fiscal 2012. The interest rate swap expired in August 2011.

Our management has evaluated, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this report pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(b). Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of June 30, 2012, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure (i) that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and (ii) that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, in order to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) during the first three months of fiscal 2013 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

We are engaged in various other legal proceedings incidental to the Company’s business. Management believes that, after taking into consideration information furnished by its counsel, these matters will not have a material effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods.

In addition to the other information set forth in this report, the user/reader should carefully consider the factors discussed in Part I, “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the SEC on June 12, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference, which factors could materially affect our business, financial condition, financial results or future performance.


10.1		Resignation Letter Agreement dated May 21, 2012, between the Company and D. Michael Harlan Jr. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on May 24, 2012).

10.2		Employment agreement effective as of May 22, 2012, between the Company and Brad Pedersen (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on May 24, 2012).

10.3		Option to purchase Common Stock of the Company, issued to Brad Pedersen on May 22, 2012 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on May 24, 2012).

31.1		Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2		Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1		Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

101.INS*		XBRL Instance Document.

101.SCH*		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.

101.CAL*		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.

101.DEF*		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

101.LAB*		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.

101.PRE*		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


Delaware		95-4062211
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. employer identification no.)

35 Melanie Lane Whippany, New Jersey		07981
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)


		Page No.
PART 1	Financial Information

Item 1.	Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)		3

	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets June 30, 2012 (Unaudited) and March 31, 2012		4

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations Three Month Periods Ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011 (Unaudited)		5

	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Three Month Periods Ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011 (Unaudited)		6

	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)		7 - 16

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		17 - 24

Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk		25

Item 4.	Controls and Procedures		26

PART II.	Other Information

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings		26

Item 1A.	Risk Factors		26

Item 6.	Exhibits		26

SIGNATURES			27

EXHIBIT 31.1
EXHIBIT 31.2
EXHIBIT 32.1


	(Unaudited) June 30, 2012			(Audited) March 31, 2012
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash	$	3,781		$	12,683
Accounts receivable (net of allowance for doubtful accounts of $287 at June 30, 2012 and $283 at March 31, 2012)		12,077			19,403
Inventories		20,621			14,631
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		860			759
Deferred income taxes		7,626			8,861

Total current assets		44,965			56,337

PROPERTY:
Property and equipment		18,343			18,312
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		11,029			10,692

Property – net		7,314			7,620

OTHER ASSETS:
Deferred income taxes, net		6,302			4,567
Goodwill		402			402
Real estate held for sale		3,800			3,800
Qualification units-net		1,751			1,775
Other		5,290			5,350

Total other assets		17,545			15,894


TOTAL ASSETS	$	69,824		$	79,851


LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITES:
Revolving credit facility	$	—		$	—
Current portion of long-term debt		—			2,464
Accounts payable – trade		7,771			5,779
Accrued compensation		2,661			2,967
Accrued income taxes		144			343
Other current liabilities		5,040			4,979

Total current liabilities		15,616			16,532

LONG-TERM DEBT, NET OF CURRENT PORTION		—			8,215

OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES		16,630			16,952

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 13)		—			—

TOTAL LIABILITIES		32,246			41,699


STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Preferred stock – authorized, 300,000 shares; none issued		—			—
Common stock – authorized, 100,000,000 shares of $.01 par value; issued, 9,935,937 at June 30, 2012 and 9,916,855 at March 31, 2012		99			99
Additional paid-in capital		96,395			96,019
Accumulated deficit		(51,889	)		(51,061	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(74	)		(74	)

		44,531			44,983
Less treasury stock, at cost – 441,443 shares at June 30, 2012 and 426,704 shares at March 31, 2012		(6,953	)		(6,831	)

Total stockholders’ equity		37,578			38,152


TOTAL LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$	69,824		$	79,851


	Three Months Ended
	June 30, 2012			June 30, 2011

Net sales	$	14,413		$	18,248
Cost of sales		8,902			10,864

Gross profit		5,511			7,384

Selling, general, and administrative expenses		3,272			3,904
Engineering expense		3,469			2,285

Operating income (loss)		(1,230	)		1,195

Interest expense		173			134
Other expense – net		25			30

Income (loss) before income taxes		(1,428	)		1,031

Income tax provision (benefit)		(600	)		433

Net income (loss)	$	(828	)	$	598

Earnings (loss) per common share:
Basic net income (loss) per share	$	(0.09	)	$	0.06
Diluted net income (loss) per share		(0.09	)		0.06


Weighted-average basic shares outstanding		9,493,000			9,445,000
Weighted-average diluted shares outstanding		9,493,000			9,564,000

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company


	June 30, 2012		June 30, 2011

Basic earnings (loss) per Common Share:
Weighted-average common shares outstanding for basic earnings (loss) per share calculation		9,493,000		9,445,000


Diluted earnings (loss) per Common Share:
Weighted-average common shares outstanding		9,493,000		9,445,000
Stock options (a)		—		119,000

Weighted-average common shares outstanding for diluted earnings (loss) per share calculation		9,493,000		9,564,000


	2013 $2.36 value per option			2012 $2.75 value per option			2012 $2.58 value per option			2012 $2.72 value per option			2012 $2.81 value per option			2012 $2.13 value per option
Dividend yield		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Volatility		25.0	%		25.6	%		25.8	%		25.8	%		25.4	%		25.3	%
Risk-free interest rate		1.2	%		1.5	%		1.6	%		1.6	%		1.9	%		1.9	%
Expected term of options (in years)		7.0			7.0			7.0			7.0			7.0			7.0


	Number of Shares			Aggregate Intrinsic Value (in thousands)		Approximate Remaining Contractual Term (Years)		Weighted- Average Exercise Price

Outstanding at March 31, 2012		759,577		$	800		7	$	8.17
Granted		400,000			—		—		8.10
Exercised		(19,082	)		35		—		6.40
Canceled or expired		(8,334	)		—		—		6.89

Outstanding at June 30, 2012		1,132,161			92		8		8.19


Options exercisable at June 30, 2012		520,161			73		6		8.38
Unvested options expected to become exercisable after June 30, 2012		612,000			19		9		8.02

Shares available for future option grants at June 30, 2012 (a)		652,624


	Number of Shares			Weighted – Average Grant Date Fair Value

Non-vested at March 31, 2012		21,094		$	8.54
Granted		—			—
Vested		(1,238	)		11.24
Cancelled		—			—

Non-vested at June 30, 2012		19,856			8.68


	June 30, 2012			March 31, 2012
Finished goods	$	760		$	512
Work in process		8,181			6,340
Purchased and manufactured parts		14,449			10,473

		23,390			17,325
Reserve for slow moving and obsolescence		(2,769	)		(2,694	)

Total	$	20,621		$	14,631


Machinery and equipment		3 to 10 years
Furniture and fixtures		3 to 10 years
Computer hardware and software		3 to 5 years
Leasehold improvements		10 years


Balance at March 31, 2012	$	318
Warranty costs incurred		(92	)
Change in estimates to pre-existing warranties		(9	)
Product warranty accrual		128

Balance at June 30, 2012	$	345


	June 30, 2012		March 31, 2012
Engineering project reserves	$	1,677	$	1,637
Environmental reserves – Note 14		1,228		1,225
Accrued medical benefits cost		663		636
Accrued commissions		578		630
Other		894		851

Total	$	5,040	$	4,979


	June 30, 2012		March 31, 2012

Senior Credit Facility	$	—	$	10,679
Less current maturities		—		2,464

Total long-term debt, net of current maturities	$	—	$	8,215


	Postretirement Benefits				Pension Plan
	Three Months Ended				Three Months Ended
	June 30, 2012		June 30, 2011		June 30, 2012		June 30, 2011
Interest cost	$	8	$	9	$	35	$	43
Amortization of net loss		2		4		—		—

Net periodic cost	$	10	$	13	$	35	$	43


Location	June 30, 2012		June 30, 2011
United States	$	8,816	$	13,539
Italy		1,850		817
England		658		398
Other European countries		687		670
Pacific and Far East		454		322
Other International		1,948		2,502

Total	$	14,413	$	18,248


	Three Months Ended						Increase/(Decrease)
	June 30, 2012			June 30, 2011			$			%

Products	$	10,700		$	13,892		$	(3,192	)		(23.0	)%
Services		3,713			4,356			(643	)		(14.8	)

Net sales		14,413			18,248			(3,835	)		(21.0	)


Products		6,621			7,990			(1,369	)		(17.1	)
Services		2,281			2,874			(593	)		(20.6	)

Cost of sales		8,902			10,864			(1,962	)		(18.1	)


Gross profit		5,511			7,384			(1,873	)		(25.4	)
As a % of net sales		38.2	%		40.5	%		N/A			(2.3	)% Pt

Selling, general, and administrative expenses		3,272			3,904			(632	)		(16.2	)%
Engineering expense		3,469			2,285			1,184			51.8

Operating income (loss)		(1,230	)		1,195			(2,425	)		(202.9	)

Interest expense		173			134			39			29.1

Income tax provision (benefit)		(600	)		433			(1,033	)		(238.6	)
Effective tax rate		42.0	%		42.0	%		N/A			0.0	% Pt

Net income (loss)	$	(828	)	$	598		$	(1,426	)		(238.5	)%


	Payments Due By Period
	Total		Less Than 1 Year		1-3 Years		3-5 Years		More Than 5 Years
Operating leases	$	7,275	$	1,076	$	2,041	$	1,848	$	2,310

Purchase obligations (a)		—		—		—		—		—

Total	$	7,275	$	1,076	$	2,041	$	1,848	$	2,310


	BREEZE-EASTERN CORPORATION
	(Registrant)

Dated: August 9, 2012	By:	/s/ Mark D. Mishler
		Mark D. Mishler, Senior Vice President,
		Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary *