Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company has aggregate reserves for its legal, environmental and regulatory matters of approximately $22.4 at March 31, 2015. These reserves relate primarily to the matters described below. However, based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to the Company, and given the aforementioned reserves and related insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these legal, environmental and regulatory matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Legal and Environmental Matters HRG HRG is a nominal defendant, and the members of its Board are named as defendants in a purported class and derivative action filed in March 2014 by Haverhill Retirement System in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its affiliated funds (“HCP”) and Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”), each a stockholder of HRG, are also named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with transactions involving Leucadia. The complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified award of compensatory damages and costs and disbursements. While the Company believes the allegations are without merit, it may determine to settle this matter if it believes a settlement is advantageous. HRG is a nominal defendant, and the members of its Board are named as defendants in a derivative action filed in December 2010 by Alan R. Kahn in the Delaware Court of Chancery. HCP is also named as a defendant. The plaintiff alleges that HRG's acquisition of HCP shares of Spectrum Brands in exchange for shares of common stock of HRG from HRG was financially unfair to HRG and its public stockholders and seeks unspecified damages and the rescission of the transaction. While the Company believes the allegations are without merit, it may determine to settle this matter if it believes a settlement is advantageous. The Company has prevailed in its lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which FGL sued OM Group (UK) Limited (“OMGUK”) for a $50.0 purchase price adjustment in connection with HRG’s acquisition of FGL’s subsidiaries on April 6, 2011. In a decision issued on March 18, 2015, following a trial in October 2014, the court held that FGL is entitled to the full $50.0 purchase price adjustment because the Maryland Insurance Administration did not approve a certain contemplated reinsurance transaction notwithstanding FGL’s best efforts to seek approval in good faith. The court awarded FGL both pre- and post-judgment interest on the $50.0 purchase price adjustment and attorneys’ fees. As reported previously, on May 27, 2014, the court granted OMGUK’s motion for summary judgment as to a counterclaim related to the financing of reserves referred to as "CARVM." On March 18, 2015, the court determined damages for CARVM are $5.9 and awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees as to the counterclaim to OMGUK. The Company anticipates the court entering a final judgment with respect to both the purchase price adjustment and CARVM claims shortly, which may be appealed. The Company owns all of the rights, title, interest, liabilities and obligations under this litigation against OMGUK. HRG and its subsidiaries are also involved in other litigation and claims related to their current and prior businesses. These include claims and litigations involving HRG's and its subsidiaries current business practices and transactions and certain workers compensation, environmental matters, cases in state courts and in a Federal multi-district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels alleged to have been formerly owned or operated by HRG's offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates. Based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to it, and given its reserves and related insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these legal and environmental matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Spectrum Brands Spectrum Brands has accrued approximately $4.6 for the estimated costs associated with environmental remediation activities at some of its current and former manufacturing sites. Spectrum Brands believes that any additional liability which may result from resolution of these matters in excess of the amounts provided for will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of Spectrum Brands. Spectrum Brands is a defendant in various other matters of litigation generally arising out of the ordinary course of business. Spectrum Brands does not believe that the resolution of any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows. FGL FGL is involved in various pending or threatened legal proceedings, including purported class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. In some instances, these proceedings include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive damages and similar types of relief in addition to amounts for alleged contractual liability or requests for equitable relief. In the opinion of FGL management and in light of existing insurance and other potential indemnification, reinsurance and established reserves, such litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FGL’s financial position, although it is possible that the results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome in any one period. FGL is assessed amounts by the state guaranty funds to cover losses to policyholders of insolvent or rehabilitated insurance companies. Those mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in certain states. At March 31, 2015, FGL has accrued $3.8 for guaranty fund assessments which is expected to be offset by estimated future premium tax deductions of $4.0. FGL has received inquiries from a number of state regulatory authorities regarding its use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File ("Death Master File") and compliance with state claims practices regulation. Legislation requiring insurance companies to use the Death Master File to identify potential claims has been enacted in a number of states. As a result of these legislative and regulatory developments, in May 2012, FGL undertook an initiative to use the Death Master File and other publicly available databases to identify persons potentially entitled to benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts. In addition, FGL has received audit and examination notices from several state agencies responsible for escheatment and unclaimed property regulation in those states and in some cases has challenged the audits. FGL established a contingency of $1.7 based on its estimates related to the external legal costs and administrative costs of challenging said audits and examinations of which $1.6 has been paid through March 31, 2015. Additional costs that cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this filing are possible as a result of ongoing regulatory developments and other future requirements related to this matter. On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty Life Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An Amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014. On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement. The implementation shall commence on or about August 10, 2015. The parties will advise the Court when the settlement is complete. At March 31, 2015, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.2 and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $3.4. FGL has incurred and paid $3.8 related to legal fees and other costs and $2.0 related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2015. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL is seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement between FGL (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. FGL has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.5, the collection of which FGL believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than FGL’s estimate, but FGL anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. (“Ludwick”). The complaint asserts claims of violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and injunctive relief, among other forms of relief. As of March 31, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient information to determine that the Company is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $0.9, which was accrued during the three months ended March 31, 2015. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matters described above and uncertainties in litigation generally, there can be no assurance that the matters described above, or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on FGL's business, financial condition, or results of operations. Compass Various federal, state and local laws and regulations covering discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, may affect Compass’ operations and the costs of its oil and natural gas exploitation, development and production operations. Compass does not anticipate that it will be required in the foreseeable future to expend amounts material in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole by reason of environmental laws and regulations. Because these laws and regulations are constantly being changed, Compass is unable to predict the conditions and other factors over which Compass does not exercise control that may give rise to environmental liabilities affecting it. Salus On March 17, 2015, Salus, in its capacity as agent for certain secured lenders of RadioShack under a $250.0 term loan, filed an adversary complaint in the RadioShack bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against certain other secured asset-based lenders (including Standard General L.P., its affiliates and certain hedge fund lenders) of RadioShack (the "ABL Lenders") under a $585.0 term and revolving loan facility. The adversary complaint seeks (i) a determination that the liens securing the term loan provided by Salus to RadioShack have priority over the ABL Lenders' liens with respect to the termed out portion of the ABL Lenders’ loans to RadioShack and (ii) disgorgement of payments received from RadioShack by the ABL Lenders in connection with the termed out loans. The ABL Lenders have moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, which motion remains pending. Guarantees Throughout its history, the Company has entered into indemnifications in the ordinary course of business with customers, suppliers, service providers, business partners and, in certain instances, when it sold businesses. Additionally, the Company has indemnified its directors and officers who are, or were, serving at the request of the Company in such capacities. Although the specific terms or number of such arrangements is not precisely known due to the extensive history of past operations, costs incurred to settle claims related to these indemnifications have not been material to the Company’s financial statements. The Company has no reason to believe that future costs to settle claims related to its former operations will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The F&G Stock Purchase Agreement includes a Guarantee and Pledge Agreement (the "Guarantee and Pledge Agreement") which creates certain obligations for FGH as a grantor and also grants a security interest to OMGUK of FGH’s equity interest in FGL Insurance in the event that FGL fails to perform in accordance with the terms of the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement. The Company is not aware of any events or transactions that resulted in non-compliance with the Guarantee and Pledge Agreement. See Note 17, Subsequent Events for details of the limited unconditional and irrevocable guarantee for the full and prompt payment when due of present and future payment obligations under the Compass Credit Agreement that was provided by HGI Funding by pledging certain of its assets as a collateral. Unfunded Asset Based Lending Commitments Through Salus, the Company enters into commitments to extend credit to meet the financing needs of its asset based lending customers upon satisfaction of certain conditions. At March 31, 2015, the notional amount of unfunded, legally binding lending commitments was approximately $153.2, of which $60.6 expires in one year or less, and the remainder expires between one and five years.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has aggregate reserves for its legal, environmental and regulatory matters of approximately $22.4 at March 31, 2015. These reserves relate primarily to the matters described below. However, based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to the Company, and given the aforementioned reserves and related insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these legal, environmental and regulatory matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal and Environmental Matters

HRG

HRG is a nominal defendant, and the members of its Board are named as defendants in a purported class and derivative action filed in March 2014 by Haverhill Retirement System in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its affiliated funds (“HCP”) and Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”), each a stockholder of HRG, are also named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with transactions involving Leucadia. The complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified award of compensatory damages and costs and disbursements. While the Company believes the allegations are without merit, it may determine to settle this matter if it believes a settlement is advantageous.

HRG is a nominal defendant, and the members of its Board are named as defendants in a derivative action filed in December 2010 by Alan R. Kahn in the Delaware Court of Chancery. HCP is also named as a defendant. The plaintiff alleges that HRG's acquisition of HCP shares of Spectrum Brands in exchange for shares of common stock of HRG from HRG was financially unfair to HRG and its public stockholders and seeks unspecified damages and the rescission of the transaction. While the Company believes the allegations are without merit, it may determine to settle this matter if it believes a settlement is advantageous.

The Company has prevailed in its lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which FGL sued OM Group (UK) Limited (“OMGUK”) for a $50.0 purchase price adjustment in connection with HRG’s acquisition of FGL’s subsidiaries on April 6, 2011. In a decision issued on March 18, 2015, following a trial in October 2014, the court held that FGL is entitled to the full $50.0 purchase price adjustment because the Maryland Insurance Administration did not approve a certain contemplated reinsurance transaction notwithstanding FGL’s best efforts to seek approval in good faith. The court awarded FGL both pre- and post-judgment interest on the $50.0 purchase price adjustment and attorneys’ fees. As reported previously, on May 27, 2014, the court granted OMGUK’s motion for summary judgment as to a counterclaim related to the financing of reserves referred to as "CARVM." On March 18, 2015, the court determined damages for CARVM are $5.9 and awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees as to the counterclaim to OMGUK. The Company anticipates the court entering a final judgment with respect to both the purchase price adjustment and CARVM claims shortly, which may be appealed. The Company owns all of the rights, title, interest, liabilities and obligations under this litigation against OMGUK.

HRG and its subsidiaries are also involved in other litigation and claims related to their current and prior businesses. These include claims and litigations involving HRG's and its subsidiaries current business practices and transactions and certain workers compensation, environmental matters, cases in state courts and in a Federal multi-district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels alleged to have been formerly owned or operated by HRG's offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates. Based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to it, and given its reserves and related insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these legal and environmental matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Spectrum Brands

Spectrum Brands has accrued approximately $4.6 for the estimated costs associated with environmental remediation activities at some of its current and former manufacturing sites. Spectrum Brands believes that any additional liability which may result from resolution of these matters in excess of the amounts provided for will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of Spectrum Brands.

Spectrum Brands is a defendant in various other matters of litigation generally arising out of the ordinary course of business. Spectrum Brands does not believe that the resolution of any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows.

FGL

FGL is involved in various pending or threatened legal proceedings, including purported class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. In some instances, these proceedings include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive damages and similar types of relief in addition to amounts for alleged contractual liability or requests for equitable relief. In the opinion of FGL management and in light of existing insurance and other potential indemnification, reinsurance and established reserves, such litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FGL’s financial position, although it is possible that the results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome in any one period.

FGL is assessed amounts by the state guaranty funds to cover losses to policyholders of insolvent or rehabilitated insurance companies. Those mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in certain states. At March 31, 2015, FGL has accrued $3.8 for guaranty fund assessments which is expected to be offset by estimated future premium tax deductions of $4.0.

FGL has received inquiries from a number of state regulatory authorities regarding its use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File ("Death Master File") and compliance with state claims practices regulation. Legislation requiring insurance companies to use the Death Master File to identify potential claims has been enacted in a number of states. As a result of these legislative and regulatory developments, in May 2012, FGL undertook an initiative to use the Death Master File and other publicly available databases to identify persons potentially entitled to benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts. In addition, FGL has received audit and examination notices from several state agencies responsible for escheatment and unclaimed property regulation in those states and in some cases has challenged the audits. FGL established a contingency of $1.7 based on its estimates related to the external legal costs and administrative costs of challenging said audits and examinations of which $1.6 has been paid through March 31, 2015. Additional costs that cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this filing are possible as a result of ongoing regulatory developments and other future requirements related to this matter.

On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty Life Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies.

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An Amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement. The implementation shall commence on or about August 10, 2015. The parties will advise the Court when the settlement is complete.

At March 31, 2015, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.2 and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $3.4. FGL has incurred and paid $3.8 related to legal fees and other costs and $2.0 related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2015. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL is seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement between FGL (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. FGL has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.5, the collection of which FGL believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than FGL’s estimate, but FGL anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net on the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves."

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. (“Ludwick”). The complaint asserts claims of violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act ("RICO") and injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and injunctive relief, among other forms of relief. As of March 31, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient information to determine that the Company is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $0.9, which was accrued during the three months ended March 31, 2015. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matters described above and uncertainties in litigation generally, there can be no assurance that the matters described above, or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on FGL's business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Compass

Various federal, state and local laws and regulations covering discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, may affect Compass’ operations and the costs of its oil and natural gas exploitation, development and production operations. Compass does not anticipate that it will be required in the foreseeable future to expend amounts material in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole by reason of environmental laws and regulations. Because these laws and regulations are constantly being changed, Compass is unable to predict the conditions and other factors over which Compass does not exercise control that may give rise to environmental liabilities affecting it.

Salus

On March 17, 2015, Salus, in its capacity as agent for certain secured lenders of RadioShack under a $250.0 term loan, filed an adversary complaint in the RadioShack bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against certain other secured asset-based lenders (including Standard General L.P., its affiliates and certain hedge fund lenders) of RadioShack (the "ABL Lenders") under a $585.0 term and revolving loan facility. The adversary complaint seeks (i) a determination that the liens securing the term loan provided by Salus to RadioShack have priority over the ABL Lenders' liens with respect to the termed out portion of the ABL Lenders’ loans to RadioShack and (ii) disgorgement of payments received from RadioShack by the ABL Lenders in connection with the termed out loans. The ABL Lenders have moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, which motion remains pending.

Guarantees

Throughout its history, the Company has entered into indemnifications in the ordinary course of business with customers, suppliers, service providers, business partners and, in certain instances, when it sold businesses. Additionally, the Company has indemnified its directors and officers who are, or were, serving at the request of the Company in such capacities. Although the specific terms or number of such arrangements is not precisely known due to the extensive history of past operations, costs incurred to settle claims related to these indemnifications have not been material to the Company’s financial statements. The Company has no reason to believe that future costs to settle claims related to its former operations will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The F&G Stock Purchase Agreement includes a Guarantee and Pledge Agreement (the "Guarantee and Pledge Agreement") which creates certain obligations for FGH as a grantor and also grants a security interest to OMGUK of FGH’s equity interest in FGL Insurance in the event that FGL fails to perform in accordance with the terms of the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement. The Company is not aware of any events or transactions that resulted in non-compliance with the Guarantee and Pledge Agreement.

See Note 17, Subsequent Events for details of the limited unconditional and irrevocable guarantee for the full and prompt payment when due of present and future payment obligations under the Compass Credit Agreement that was provided by HGI Funding by pledging certain of its assets as a collateral.

Unfunded Asset Based Lending Commitments

Through Salus, the Company enters into commitments to extend credit to meet the financing needs of its asset based lending customers upon satisfaction of certain conditions. At March 31, 2015, the notional amount of unfunded, legally binding lending commitments was approximately $153.2, of which $60.6 expires in one year or less, and the remainder expires between one and five years.