XML 33 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
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 $35,726, $26,297 and $26,180 in 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Aggregate future minimum lease payments for operating leases at September 30, 2018 are $32,189 in 2019, $26,365 in 2020, $16,600 in 2021, $10,811 in 2022, $6,082 in 2023 and $12,135 thereafter. Purchase Commitments Purchase obligations are generally for the purchase of goods and services in the ordinary course of business. Griffon uses blanket purchase orders to communicate expected requirements to certain vendors. Purchase obligations reflect those purchase orders where the commitment is considered to be firm. Purchase obligations that extend beyond 2017 are principally related to long-term contracts received from customers of Telephonics. Aggregate future minimum purchase obligations at September 30, 2018 are $226,026 in 2019, $5,569 in 2020, $2 in 2021, $1 in 2022 and $1,470 in 2023. 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, ISC 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 media, 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 media, but selected a different remediation alternative for the sediment medium. After receiving public comments on the PRAP, the DEC issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) in June 2011 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. At the time of adoption of the ROD, the approximate cost of the remedy proposed by DEC in the PRAP was approximately $10,000. 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 of New York 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. Beginning in December 2004, a customer of AMES had been named in various litigation matters relating to certain Union Tools products. The plaintiffs in those litigation matters asserted causes of action against the customer of AMES for improper advertisement to end consumers. The allegations suggested that advertisements led the consumers to believe that Union Tools’ hand tools were wholly manufactured within boundaries of the United States. The complaints asserted various causes of action against the customer of AMES under federal and state law, including common law fraud. At some point, 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 has approved the final remedial investigation and feasibility study reports. AMES’ recommended remedial option of excavation and offsite disposal of lead contaminated soils, capping of other areas of the site impacted by other metals and performing limited groundwater monitoring was accepted by the DEC in a Record of Decision issued March 1, 2018. The Company has submitted a final design and implementation workplan to the State of New York and is awaiting approval. Implementation of the selected remedial alternative is expected to be completed in 2019. AMES has a number of defenses to liability in this matter, including its rights under a previous 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, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Department of Justice which has responsibility for asserting claims on behalf of the US government. In general, departments and agencies of the US 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. US Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from future US 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 Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration