Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2013
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 11 - Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to threats of litigation and is involved in actual litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, and handling or disposal of vehicles. The material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party to, or of which any of the Company's property is subject to, include the following matters: On August 21, 2008, a former employee filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, claiming, in part, that he was denied employment based on his race and subjected to unlawful retaliation. The Company responded to the Charge of Discrimination explaining that it has a policy prohibiting the employment of individuals with certain criminal offenses and that the former employee was terminated after it was belatedly discovered that he had been convicted of a felony and other crimes prior to being hired by the Company. The Charge of Discrimination lay dormant at the EEOC for over two years. In January, 2011, however, the EEOC began actively investigating the allegations and challenging the Company's policy of conducting criminal background checks and denying employment based on certain criminal convictions. It was the EEOC's position that such a practice was unlawful because the policy allegedly had a disparate impact on minorities. It is the Company's position that its policy is required by one of its largest auto insurance company customers. Because the Company's customer is in the insurance and financial services industry, its operations are heavily regulated. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. §1829) prohibits savings and loan holding companies, such as the Company's customer, from employing "any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense." In turn, it is the Company's understanding that its customer is obligated to make sure its vendors, such as the Company, comply with similar hiring restrictions. By letter dated March 16, 2012, the EEOC notified the Company that it had concluded its investigation and was closing its file on this matter. Moreover, the EEOC made a determination of no reasonable cause, meaning that the EEOC had no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in the investigation, but that the charging party may exercise the right to bring private court action. On April 23, 2010, Deborah Hill filed suit against the Company in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Collier County, Florida, alleging negligent destruction of evidence in connection with a stored vehicle that suffered damage due to a fire at its facility in Florida where the vehicle was being stored. Relief sought is for compensatory damages, costs and interest allowed by law. On January 30, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Company did not owe any duty to Ms. Hill to preserve her car as evidence. The summary judgment resolves Ms. Hill's claim against the Company in its entirety in favor of the Company. On February 22, 2013, Ms Hill's attorneys filed an appeal of the summary judgment. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the appeal. On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit against the Company in Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in California at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs, interest, and punitive damages. A mediation of the matter occurred on February 12, 2013, and resulted in a settlement of the matter for an immaterial amount. The parties are in the process of getting the Court's approval of the settlement and administering the settlement funds. In connection with its response to Hurricane Sandy, the Company entered into various short-term lease/license agreements with certain land owners in New York and New Jersey to marshal and store storm damaged vehicles until they are sold. In November and December 2012, various actions were commenced against the Company and land owners. In New York, actions were brought by the Town of Southampton, the County of Suffolk, the Town of Brookhaven and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties, in connection with alleged violations of local zoning, land use and environmental regulations. In New Jersey, actions were brought by the Townships of Hillsborough and Mansfield (in Burlington County) seeking to impose monetary damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. The Company is defending the claims and believes it has bona fide legal defenses. The claims by the various plaintiffs will be mitigated with the sale and removal of vehicles from the various short-term storage locations in New York and New Jersey. The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future consolidated results of operations and cash flows cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. The Company believes that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. The Company maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against the Company. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that the Company carries requires that the Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased. Governmental Proceedings The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, conducted a sales and use tax audit of the Company's operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of the audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that the Company failed to remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest. In issuing the notice of proposed assessment, the DOR stated its policy position that sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers are subject to Georgia sales and use tax. The Company has engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of its business operations in Georgia, the notice of assessment, and the DOR's policy position. In particular, the Company's outside legal counsel has provided the Company an opinion that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, the Company's counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply. Based on the opinion from the Company's outside law firm and advice from outside tax advisors, the Company has not provided for the payment of this assessment in its consolidated financial statements. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the DOR's notice of proposed assessment and intends to defend this matter. The Company has filed a request for protest or administrative appeal with the State of Georgia. There can be no assurance, however, that this matter will be resolved in the Company's favor or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the Georgia DOR. The Company understands that Georgia law and DOR regulations are ambiguous on many of the points at issue in the audit, and litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jan. 31, 2013

NOTE 11 - Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to threats of litigation and is involved in actual litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, and handling or disposal of vehicles. The material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party to, or of which any of the Company's property is subject to, include the following matters:

On August 21, 2008, a former employee filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, claiming, in part, that he was denied employment based on his race and subjected to unlawful retaliation. The Company responded to the Charge of Discrimination explaining that it has a policy prohibiting the employment of individuals with certain criminal offenses and that the former employee was terminated after it was belatedly discovered that he had been convicted of a felony and other crimes prior to being hired by the Company. The Charge of Discrimination lay dormant at the EEOC for over two years. In January, 2011, however, the EEOC began actively investigating the allegations and challenging the Company's policy of conducting criminal background checks and denying employment based on certain criminal convictions. It was the EEOC's position that such a practice was unlawful because the policy allegedly had a disparate impact on minorities. It is the Company's position that its policy is required by one of its largest auto insurance company customers. Because the Company's customer is in the insurance and financial services industry, its operations are heavily regulated. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. §1829) prohibits savings and loan holding companies, such as the Company's customer, from employing "any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense." In turn, it is the Company's understanding that its customer is obligated to make sure its vendors, such as the Company, comply with similar hiring restrictions. By letter dated March 16, 2012, the EEOC notified the Company that it had concluded its investigation and was closing its file on this matter. Moreover, the EEOC made a determination of no reasonable cause, meaning that the EEOC had no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in the investigation, but that the charging party may exercise the right to bring private court action.

On April 23, 2010, Deborah Hill filed suit against the Company in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Collier County, Florida, alleging negligent destruction of evidence in connection with a stored vehicle that suffered damage due to a fire at its facility in Florida where the vehicle was being stored. Relief sought is for compensatory damages, costs and interest allowed by law. On January 30, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Company did not owe any duty to Ms. Hill to preserve her car as evidence. The summary judgment resolves Ms. Hill's claim against the Company in its entirety in favor of the Company. On February 22, 2013, Ms Hill's attorneys filed an appeal of the summary judgment. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the appeal.

On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit against the Company in Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in California at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs, interest, and punitive damages. A mediation of the matter occurred on February 12, 2013, and resulted in a settlement of the matter for an immaterial amount. The parties are in the process of getting the Court's approval of the settlement and administering the settlement funds.

In connection with its response to Hurricane Sandy, the Company entered into various short-term lease/license agreements with certain land owners in New York and New Jersey to marshal and store storm damaged vehicles until they are sold. In November and December 2012, various actions were commenced against the Company and land owners. In New York, actions were brought by the Town of Southampton, the County of Suffolk, the Town of Brookhaven and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties, in connection with alleged violations of local zoning, land use and environmental regulations. In New Jersey, actions were brought by the Townships of Hillsborough and Mansfield (in Burlington County) seeking to impose monetary damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. The Company is defending the claims and believes it has bona fide legal defenses. The claims by the various plaintiffs will be mitigated with the sale and removal of vehicles from the various short-term storage locations in New York and New Jersey.

The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future consolidated results of operations and cash flows cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. The Company believes that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. The Company maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against the Company. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that the Company carries requires that the Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.

Governmental Proceedings

The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, conducted a sales and use tax audit of the Company's operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of the audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that the Company failed to remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest. In issuing the notice of proposed assessment, the DOR stated its policy position that sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers are subject to Georgia sales and use tax.

The Company has engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of its business operations in Georgia, the notice of assessment, and the DOR's policy position. In particular, the Company's outside legal counsel has provided the Company an opinion that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, the Company's counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply.

Based on the opinion from the Company's outside law firm and advice from outside tax advisors, the Company has not provided for the payment of this assessment in its consolidated financial statements. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the DOR's notice of proposed assessment and intends to defend this matter. The Company has filed a request for protest or administrative appeal with the State of Georgia. There can be no assurance, however, that this matter will be resolved in the Company's favor or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the Georgia DOR. The Company understands that Georgia law and DOR regulations are ambiguous on many of the points at issue in the audit, and litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, financial position and cash flows.