XML 43 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 19—Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On May 21, 2018, Erik Dennis filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging violations of Do Not Call Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. On August 13, 2018, IDT Telecom and the Company filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative to strike class allegations. The plaintiff opposed the motion. IDT Telecom and the Company intend to vigorously defend this matter. On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the Company sent unauthorized marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal. The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. On April 24, 2018, Sprint Communications Company L.P. filed a patent infringement claim against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,298,064; 6,330,224; 6,343,084; 6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,473,429; 6,563,918; 6,633,561; 6,697,340; 6,999,463; 7,286,561; 7,324,534; 7,327,728; 7,505,454; and 7,693,131. Plaintiff was seeking damages and injunctive relief. On June 28, 2018, Sprint dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path’s directors. The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path’s obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the FCC, as well as the sale of Straight Path’s subsidiary SPIP to the Company in connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders are receiving in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path’s Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action. On November 20, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order staying the case pending the closing of the transaction between Verizon and Straight Path on the grounds that the claims are not ripe. That transaction closed on February 28, 2018 and the Court was so notified. The motion to dismiss was denied. On July 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal with the Delaware Chancery Court. The Chancery Court granted the motion and the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal. On September 5, 2018, the Company filed the appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On October 5, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed its Answering Brief to the appeal. In fiscal 2018, the Company incurred legal fees of $1.7 million related to this putative class action (see Note 10). At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. On May 5, 2004, the Company filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking injunctive relief and damages against Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., Tyco Telecommunications (US) Inc. (f/k/a TyCom (US) Inc.), Tyco International, Ltd., Tyco International (US) Inc., and TyCom Ltd. (collectively “Tyco”). The Company alleged that Tyco breached a settlement agreement that it had entered into with the Company to resolve certain disputes and civil actions among the parties. The Company alleged that Tyco did not provide the Company, as required under the settlement agreement, free of charge and for the Company’s exclusive use, a 15-year indefeasible right to use four Wavelengths in Ring Configuration (as defined in the settlement agreement) on a global undersea fiber optic network that Tyco was deploying at that time. After extensive proceedings, including several decisions and appeals, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision to dismiss the Company’s claim and denied the Company’s motion for re-argument of that decision. On June 23, 2015, the Company filed a new summons and complaint against Tyco in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York alleging that Tyco breached the settlement agreement. In September 2015, Tyco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Company opposed. Oral argument was held on March 9, 2016. On October 17, 2016, the judge granted Tyco’s motion and dismissed the complaint. In August 2017, the Company filed an appeal, which Tyco opposed. On November 22, 2017, oral argument was held on the appeal. On December 21, 2017, the Company’s appeal was denied. On January 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On February 6, 2018, Tyco opposed the Company’s motion. The First Department denied the Company’s motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On May 3, 2018, the Company filed a motion for leave directly to the Court of Appeals. On June 28, 2018, the motion was denied. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company believes that none of the other legal proceedings to which the Company is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Regulatory Fees Audit The Company’s 2017 FCC Form 499-A, which reports its calendar year 2016 revenue, related to payments due to the FCC, is currently under audit by the Internal Audit Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company. At July 31, 2018 and 2017, the Company’s accrued expenses included $43.9 million and $43.5 million, respectively, for these regulatory fees for the years covered by the audit and subsequent years. Purchase Commitments The Company had purchase commitments of $56.9 million at July 31, 2018, including the aggregate commitment of $55.4 million under the Reciprocal Services Agreement described below. Reciprocal Services Agreement In August 2017, the Company entered into a Reciprocal Services Agreement with a telecom operator in Central America for a full range of services, including, but not limited to, termination of inbound and outbound international long-distance voice calls. The Company has committed to pay such telecom operator monthly committed amounts during the term of the agreement. In addition, under certain limited circumstances, the parties may renegotiate the amount of the monthly payments. In the event the parties do not agree on re-pricing terms after good faith negotiations, then either party has the right to terminate the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company deposited $9.2 million into an escrow account as security for the benefit of the telecom operator, which is included in “Other current assets” in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet based on the terms and conditions of the agreement. Lease Commitments The future minimum payments for operating leases as of July 31, 2018 were as follows:
(in thousands) |  |  |
Year ending July 31: |  |  |
2019 |  | $ | 3,804 |
2020 |  |  | 2,494 |
2021 |  |  | 2,309 |
2022 |  |  | 2,205 |
2023 |  |  | 2,127 |
Thereafter |  |  | 3,144 |
Total payments |  | $ | 16,083 |
Rental expense under operating leases was $2.7 million, $2.9 million and $3.2 million in fiscal 2018, fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2016, respectively. In addition, connectivity charges under operating leases were $5.0 million, $6.4 million and $7.5 million in fiscal 2018, fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2016, respectively. The Company leases office space and parking in Rafael’s building and parking garage located at 520 Broad St, Newark, NJ. The Company also leases office space in Israel from Rafael. The leases expire in April 2025. The future minimum payments for these leases are included in the table above. In fiscal 2018, the Company incurred rent expense subsequent to the Rafael Spin-Off of $0.6 million in connection with the Rafael leases, which is included in the total rent expense above. Performance Bonds IDT Payment Services and IDT Telecom have performance bonds issued through third parties for the benefit of various states in order to comply with the states’ financial requirements for money remittance licenses and telecommunications resellers, respectively. At July 31, 2018, the Company had aggregate performance bonds of $15.8 million outstanding. Indemnification Claims Two customers of the Company have sought indemnification from the Company related to patent infringement claims brought against those customers by a third party.

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