Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2014
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 November 1, 2013, the Company filed suit against Sparta Consulting, Inc. (now known as “KPIT”) in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging fraud, fraudulent inducement and/or promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees. The Company seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, disgorgement of amounts paid, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement dated October 6, 2011. The suit arises out of the Company’s September 17, 2013 decision to terminate the Implementation Services Agreement, under which KPIT was to design, implement, and deliver a customized replacement enterprise resource planning system for the Company. On January 2, 2014, KPIT removed this suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 11, 2014, the Northern District of Texas transferred the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for convenience. On January 8, 2014, KPIT filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. KPIT seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement. The Company is zealously pursuing its claim for damages, and vigorously defending KPIT’s claim for damages. 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 its 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 the 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, advice from outside tax advisors, and the Company’s best estimate of a probable outcome, the Company has adequately provided for the payment of a possible 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 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 and financial position.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2014

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 November 1, 2013, the Company filed suit against Sparta Consulting, Inc. (now known as “KPIT”) in the 44th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging fraud, fraudulent inducement and/or promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17200, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees. The Company seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, disgorgement of amounts paid, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement dated October 6, 2011. The suit arises out of the Company’s September 17, 2013 decision to terminate the Implementation Services Agreement, under which KPIT was to design, implement, and deliver a customized replacement enterprise resource planning system for the Company. On January 2, 2014, KPIT removed this suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On August 11, 2014, the Northern District of Texas transferred the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for convenience. On January 8, 2014, KPIT filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, account stated, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. KPIT seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations under the Implementation Services Agreement. The Company is zealously pursuing its claim for damages, and vigorously defending KPIT’s claim for damages.

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 its 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 the 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, advice from outside tax advisors, and the Company’s best estimate of a probable outcome, the Company has adequately provided for the payment of a possible 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 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 and financial position.