XML 127 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.0.814

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Operating leases Griffon rents real property and equipment under operating leases expiring at various dates. Most of the real property leases have escalation clauses related to increases in real property taxes. Rent expense for all operating leases totaled approximately $29,556, $27,784 and $22,265 in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Aggregate future minimum lease payments for operating leases at September 30, 2015 are $186,213 in 2016, $69,419 in 2017, $17,666 in 2018, $14,609 in 2019, $10,005 in 2020 and $9,294 thereafter. Legal and environmental Department of Environmental Conservation of New York State (“DEC”), with ISC Properties, Inc. Lightron Corporation (“Lightron”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon, once conducted operations at a location in Peekskill in the Town of Cortlandt, New York (the “Peekskill Site”) owned by ISC Properties, Inc. (“ISC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffon. ISC sold the Peekskill Site in November 1982. Subsequently, Griffon was advised by the DEC that random sampling at the Peekskill Site and in a creek near the Peekskill Site indicated concentrations of solvents and other chemicals common to Lightron’s prior plating operations. ISC then entered into a consent order with the DEC in 1996 (the “Consent Order”) to perform a remedial investigation and prepare a feasibility study. After completing the initial remedial investigation pursuant to the Consent Order, ISC was required by the DEC, and did accordingly conduct over the next several years, supplemental remedial investigations, including soil vapor investigations, under the Consent Order. In April 2009, the DEC advised ISC’s representatives that both the DEC and the New York State Department of Health had reviewed and accepted an August 2007 Remedial Investigation Report and an Additional Data Collection Summary Report dated January 30, 2009. With the acceptance of these reports, ISC completed the remedial investigation required under the Consent Order and was authorized, accordingly, by the DEC to conduct the Feasibility Study required by the Consent Order. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Order and its obligations thereunder, ISC, without acknowledging any responsibility to perform any remediation at the Site, submitted to the DEC in August 2009, a draft feasibility study which recommended for the soil, groundwater and sediment medias, remediation alternatives having a current net capital cost value, in the aggregate, of approximately $5,000. In February 2011, DEC advised ISC it has accepted and approved the feasibility study. Accordingly, ISC has no further obligations under the consent order. Upon acceptance of the feasibility study, DEC issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (“PRAP”) that sets forth the proposed remedy for the site. The PRAP accepted the recommendation contained in the feasibility study for remediation of the soil and groundwater medias, but selected a different remediation alternative for the sediment medium. The approximate cost and the current net capital cost value of the remedy proposed by DEC in the PRAP is approximately $10,000. After receiving public comments on the PRAP, the DEC issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) that set forth the specific remedies selected and responded to public comments. The remedies selected by the DEC in the ROD are the same remedies as those set forth in the PRAP. It is now expected that DEC will enter into negotiations with potentially responsible parties to request they undertake performance of the remedies selected in the ROD, and if such parties do not agree to implement such remedies, then the State may use State Superfund money to remediate the Peekskill site and seek recovery of costs from such parties. Griffon does not acknowledge any responsibility to perform any remediation at the Peekskill Site. Improper Advertisement Claim involving Union Tools® Products. Since December 2004, a customer of AMES has been named in various litigation matters relating to certain Union Tools products. The plaintiffs in those litigation matters have asserted causes of action against the customer of AMES for improper advertisement to end consumers. The allegations suggest that advertisements led the consumers to believe that Union Tools’ hand tools were wholly manufactured within boundaries of the United States. The complaints assert various causes of action against the customer of AMES under federal and state law, including common law fraud. At some point, likely once the litigation against the customer of AMES ends, the customer may seek indemnity (including recovery of its legal fees and costs) against AMES for an unspecified amount. Presently, AMES cannot estimate the amount of loss, if any, if the customer were to seek legal recourse against AMES. Union Fork and Hoe, Frankfort, NY site. The former Union Fork and Hoe property in Frankfort NY was acquired by Ames in 2006 as part of a larger acquisition, and has historic site contamination involving chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. AMES has entered into an Order on Consent with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While the Order is without admission or finding of liability or acknowledgment that there has been a release of hazardous substances at the site, AMES is required to perform a remedial investigation of certain portions of the property and to recommend a remediation option. At the conclusion of the remediation phase to the satisfaction of the DEC, the DEC will issue a Certificate of Completion. AMES has performed significant investigative and remedial activities in the last few years under work plans approved by the DEC, and the DEC recently approved the final remedial investigation report. AMES is now required to submit a Feasibility Study investigating four remedial options, and expects to do so by March 31, 2016. The DEC is expected to issue a Record of Decision approving the selection of a remedial alternative by July 31, 2016. Implementation of the selected remedial alternative is expected to occur in 2016 to 2017. AMES has a number of defenses to liability in this matter, including its rights under a Consent Judgment entered into between the DEC and a predecessor of AMES relating to the site. U.S. Government investigations and claims Defense contracts and subcontracts, including Griffon’s contracts and subcontracts, are subject to audit and review by various agencies and instrumentalities of the United States government, including among others, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (“DCIS”), and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") which has responsibility for asserting claims on behalf of the U.S. government. In addition to ongoing audits, pursuant to an administrative subpoena Griffon is currently providing information to the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General and the DOJ. No claim has been asserted against Griffon in connection with this matter, and Griffon is unaware of any material financial exposure in connection with the inquiry. In general, departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of Griffon, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments or compensatory or treble damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges for a company or an operating division or subdivision. Suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on Telephonics because of its reliance on government contracts. General legal Griffon is subject to various laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment and is a party to legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on facts presently known to it, that the resolution of the matters above and such other matters will not have a material adverse effect on Griffon’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration