Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2011
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 8—Legal Proceedings On October 12, 2011, the Company and its subsidiary, IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc., entered into a binding term sheet with T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) to settle litigation related to a complaint filed by T-Mobile on May 15, 2009, against IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. T-Mobile alleged that IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. breached a wholesale supply agreement entered into between T-Mobile and IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. in February 2005, as amended, by failing to purchase at least $75 million in services from T-Mobile. T-Mobile sought approximately $55 million for alleged damages and interest. In consideration of the settlement of all disputes between the parties, on October 13, 2011, IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. paid T-Mobile $10 million. The Company incurred legal fees of $1.0 million in fiscal 2012 in connection with this matter. The Company recorded a loss of $11.0 million in the three months ended October 31, 2011 for this settlement, which is included in “Other operating (loss) gains” in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. In addition, selling, general and administrative expense was reduced by $1.3 million for estimated legal fees related to this matter that were recorded in a prior period. The parties will execute a formal settlement agreement containing standard mutual releases and covenants not to sue and at such time will also execute and file a stipulation of dismissal of the complaint with the Court. On August 5, 2011, the Administrative Court in Gothenburg, Sweden rejected the Company’s appeal and upheld the Swedish Tax Agency’s imposition of a value added tax (“VAT”) assessment including penalties and interest of approximately SEK 147 million ($22.7 million at October 31, 2011) for the period from January 2004 through June 2008. If the VAT for these periods is ultimately held payable, it is likely that the Swedish Tax Agency also will request VAT for periods subsequent to June 2008. The Company’s potential exposure for VAT, penalties and interest for the period from July 2008 through October 2011 is an additional SEK 41 million ($6.3 million at October 31, 2011). The Company has appealed this decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg. On September 16, 2011, the Swedish Tax Agency granted the Company a respite from paying the tax until the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal is rendered. After completing a comprehensive review, which included consultation with the Company’s outside legal counsel, the Company concluded that the claims asserted in the judgment are not supported by Swedish law. Further, the Company concluded that the Administrative Court in Gothenburg made multiple errors resulting in the judgment and that these errors constitute grounds for a successful appeal and, as a result, the judgment against the Company should ultimately be reversed and the Company should prevail without a liability being incurred. The Company, therefore, has determined that a loss from this judgment is not probable and accordingly has not recorded an accrual for this matter. However, if the Company does not prevail in its appeal, imposition of assessments and penalties will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. On May 20, 2011, the Company’s subsidiary, Net2Phone Cable Telephony, LLC, brought an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Broadstripe, LLC, a debtor-in-possession under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failure to pay for telephony services and sought damages of approximately $450,000. On July 8, 2011, Broadstripe, LLC answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim against the Company alleging breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract stemming from the Company’s alleged refusal to provide transition services in connection with Broadstripe, LLC’s proposed bankruptcy sale. On August 9, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Broadstripe, LLC’s counterclaims. On August 21, 2011, Broadstripe, LLC filed a motion asking the Bankruptcy Court to estimate the Company’s administrative expense claim that would result from Broadstripe, LLC’s proposed rejection of its agreements with the Company upon confirmation of its proposed bankruptcy plan and closing of its bankruptcy sale. The Court scheduled a hearing on Broadstripe, LLC’s motion to estimate the Company’s administrative expense claim and Broadstripe, LLC’s counterclaims for November 30, 2011. On November 9, 2011, the parties entered into a binding term sheet to settle these disputes. Pursuant to the binding term sheet, Broadstripe, LLC agreed to, among other things, pay the Company (i) $0.2 million in settlement of the deliqinuent accounts receivable claims alleged in theCompany’s complaint, and (ii) $1.75 million in settlement of the Company’s administrative expense claim stemming from Broadstripe, LLC’s rejection of its agreements with the Company. On December 5, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement and release that includes, among other things, the payments that were agreed upon in the term sheet. On December 8, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the settlement agreement. Certain provisions of the settlement agreement, including Broadstripe, LLC’s obligation to pay the aforementioned $1.75 million settlement amount and the releases exchanged by the parties, are subject to the closing of Broadstripe, LLC’s bankruptcy sale and the occurrence of the effective date of Broadstripe, LLC’s proposed bankruptcy plan. On February 15, 2011, a jury in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas awarded Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) $9.1 million in damages from the Company in an action alleging infringement of two patents related to the activation of phone and gift cards (incorporating bank identification numbers approved by the American Banking Association for use in a banking network) over a point-of-sale terminal. The final judgment issued in August 2011 awarded Alexsam an aggregate of $10.1 million including damages and interest. Post-judgment interest continues to accrue at 0.11% on the $10.1 million awarded in the final judgment. Alexsam filed its complaint against the Company in September 2007. The Company does not expect that this decision will have a material impact on its future business operations. On October 28, 2011, the Company filed its notice of appeal and on November 1, 2011, Alexsam filed a notice of cross-appeal. The Company’s opening brief is due by January 9, 2012. Alexsam’s cross-appeal opening and response brief is due by February 20, 2012. The Company’s response and reply brief is due by April 2, 2012 and Alexsam’s cross-appeal reply brief is due by April 16, 2012. On September 1, 2011, Alexsam filed a new action relating to post-judgment royalties for the products and systems previously found to infringe its patents. On September 22, 2011, the Company filed its answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, which Alexsam moved to dismiss. The Company opposed Alexsam’s motion to dismiss. As of October 31, 2011, the Company had $10.1 million in accrued expenses for this matter. On August 27, 2003, Aerotel, Ltd., Aerotel U.S.A., and Aerotel U.S.A., LLC (collectively “Aerotel”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, seeking damages for alleged infringement of a patent. On August 17, 2007, the parties reached a settlement (the “2007 Settlement”) and all claims and counterclaims were dismissed. The 2007 Settlement provided for a payment of $15 million in cash to Aerotel, which the Company paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2008. The 2007 Settlement also required the Company to make available to Aerotel calling cards or PINS over time with potential termination costs of up to $15 million, subject to certain other conditions. In connection with the 2007 Settlement, the Company accrued an expense of $24 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007. On May 13, 2008, Aerotel, Ltd. filed a complaint against the Company in the United Stated District Court, Southern District of New York related to a dispute concerning the 2007 Settlement alleging breach of contract, anticipatory breach, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On June 29, 2009, the parties finalized a Settlement Agreement (the “2009 Settlement Agreement”), the terms of which were subject to a confidentiality provision and the complaint was dismissed. In connection with this matter, the Company accrued an additional expense of $6 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008. Since that time, the parties had been working to implement the 2009 Settlement Agreement. On October 27, 2010, Aerotel, Ltd. served the Company with a Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim referring disputes related to the 2009 Settlement Agreement to the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution. The Statement of Claim alleges breach of contract, anticipatory breach, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law fraud, negligence and deceptive business practices. On November 26, 2010, the Company served its Notice of Defense and Counterclaim. Aerotel is seeking damages of at least $25 million and attorneys’ fees. The parties participated in non-binding mediation on March 14-15, 2011, which did not result in a resolution. However, the parties continue to discuss ways to reach an amicable resolution of this matter. Arbitrators have been selected and the arbitration is scheduled for June 11, 2012. As of October 31, 2011, the Company’s remaining accrual for these matters was $13.9 million. The Company is currently unable to form an estimate of any potential additional liabilities to the Company related to this matter. On July 2, 2009, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and nine of its affiliates (collectively “Southwestern Bell”), each of which is a local exchange carrier, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking an accounting as well as declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief from certain of the Company’s subsidiaries and several as of yet unidentified entities affiliated with the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company’s subsidiaries failed to pay hundreds of thousands and potentially millions, of dollars of “switched access service” charges for calls made by consumers using the Company’s prepaid calling cards. The complaint alleges causes of action for (i) violation of federal tariffs, (ii) violation of state tariffs, and (iii) unjust enrichment. On November 18, 2011, the parties each submitted a motion for summary judgment. Opposition briefs were filed on December 9, 2011 and reply briefs are due by December 23, 2011. A trial date is set for March 5, 2012. The Company is currently unable to form an estimate of any potential liabilities to the Company related to this matter. 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) (“Wavelengths”) on a global undersea fiber optic network that Tyco was deploying at that time. In June 2004, Tyco asserted several counterclaims against the Company, alleging that the Company breached the settlement agreement and is liable for damages for allegedly refusing to accept Tyco’s offer regarding the Wavelengths referenced in the settlement agreement and for making a public statement that Tyco failed to provide the Company with the use of its Wavelengths. On August 19, 2008, the Appellate Division of the State of New York, First Department, granted summary judgment in favor of Tyco dismissing the complaint and remanded the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. On October 22, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals issued an Order denying the Company’s appeal and affirming the Appellate Division’s order. On or about November 17, 2009, the Company demanded that Tyco comply with its obligations under the settlement agreement. After further discussions and meetings between the parties regarding Tyco’s obligations under the settlement agreement, including its obligation to provide the use of the Wavelengths for fifteen years in a manner fully consistent with that described in the settlement agreement, the Company filed a complaint on November 24, 2010 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Tyco based upon the failure to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement, to negotiate the terms of an indefeasible right to use the Wavelengths in good faith, and to provide the Company with the Wavelengths. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and breach of duty to negotiate in good faith. On January 6, 2011, Tyco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. On July 22, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal. The Company’s filed its opening brief on November 7, 2011. Tyco’s opposition is due by December 23, 2011 and the Company’s reply is due by January 13, 2012. On April 1, 2004, D. Michael Jewett, a former employee with whom the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement in November 2010, sent a copy of the complaint he had filed against the Company to the United States Attorney’s Office. In the complaint, Jewett had alleged, among other things, that improper payments were made to foreign officials in connection with an IDT Telecom contract. As a result, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the SEC and the United States Attorney in Newark, New Jersey conducted an investigation of this matter. The Company and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated independent investigations, by outside counsel, regarding certain of the matters raised in the Jewett complaint and in these investigations. Neither the Company’s nor the Audit Committee’s investigations have found any evidence that the Company made any such improper payments to foreign officials. The Company continues to cooperate with these investigations, which the SEC and DOJ have confirmed are still ongoing. 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, 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.

Note 8—Legal Proceedings

On October 12, 2011, the Company and its subsidiary, IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc., entered into a binding term sheet with T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) to settle litigation related to a complaint filed by T-Mobile on May 15, 2009, against IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. T-Mobile alleged that IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. breached a wholesale supply agreement entered into between T-Mobile and IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. in February 2005, as amended, by failing to purchase at least $75 million in services from T-Mobile. T-Mobile sought approximately $55 million for alleged damages and interest. In consideration of the settlement of all disputes between the parties, on October 13, 2011, IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. paid T-Mobile $10 million. The Company incurred legal fees of $1.0 million in fiscal 2012 in connection with this matter. The Company recorded a loss of $11.0 million in the three months ended October 31, 2011 for this settlement, which is included in “Other operating (loss) gains” in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. In addition, selling, general and administrative expense was reduced by $1.3 million for estimated legal fees related to this matter that were recorded in a prior period. The parties will execute a formal settlement agreement containing standard mutual releases and covenants not to sue and at such time will also execute and file a stipulation of dismissal of the complaint with the Court.

On August 5, 2011, the Administrative Court in Gothenburg, Sweden rejected the Company’s appeal and upheld the Swedish Tax Agency’s imposition of a value added tax (“VAT”) assessment including penalties and interest of approximately SEK 147 million ($22.7 million at October 31, 2011) for the period from January 2004 through June 2008. If the VAT for these periods is ultimately held payable, it is likely that the Swedish Tax Agency also will request VAT for periods subsequent to June 2008. The Company’s potential exposure for VAT, penalties and interest for the period from July 2008 through October 2011 is an additional SEK 41 million ($6.3 million at October 31, 2011). The Company has appealed this decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg. On September 16, 2011, the Swedish Tax Agency granted the Company a respite from paying the tax until the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal is rendered. After completing a comprehensive review, which included consultation with the Company’s outside legal counsel, the Company concluded that the claims asserted in the judgment are not supported by Swedish law. Further, the Company concluded that the Administrative Court in Gothenburg made multiple errors resulting in the judgment and that these errors constitute grounds for a successful appeal and, as a result, the judgment against the Company should ultimately be reversed and the Company should prevail without a liability being incurred. The Company, therefore, has determined that a loss from this judgment is not probable and accordingly has not recorded an accrual for this matter. However, if the Company does not prevail in its appeal, imposition of assessments and penalties will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

On May 20, 2011, the Company’s subsidiary, Net2Phone Cable Telephony, LLC, brought an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Broadstripe, LLC, a debtor-in-possession under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failure to pay for telephony services and sought damages of approximately $450,000. On July 8, 2011, Broadstripe, LLC answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim against the Company alleging breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract stemming from the Company’s alleged refusal to provide transition services in connection with Broadstripe, LLC’s proposed bankruptcy sale. On August 9, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Broadstripe, LLC’s counterclaims. On August 21, 2011, Broadstripe, LLC filed a motion asking the Bankruptcy Court to estimate the Company’s administrative expense claim that would result from Broadstripe, LLC’s proposed rejection of its agreements with the Company upon confirmation of its proposed bankruptcy plan and closing of its bankruptcy sale. The Court scheduled a hearing on Broadstripe, LLC’s motion to estimate the Company’s administrative expense claim and Broadstripe, LLC’s counterclaims for November 30, 2011. On November 9, 2011, the parties entered into a binding term sheet to settle these disputes. Pursuant to the binding term sheet, Broadstripe, LLC agreed to, among other things, pay the Company (i) $0.2 million in settlement of the deliqinuent accounts

receivable claims alleged in theCompany’s complaint, and (ii) $1.75 million in settlement of the Company’s administrative expense claim stemming from Broadstripe, LLC’s rejection of its agreements with the Company. On December 5, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement and release that includes, among other things, the payments that were agreed upon in the term sheet. On December 8, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the settlement agreement. Certain provisions of the settlement agreement, including Broadstripe, LLC’s obligation to pay the aforementioned $1.75 million settlement amount and the releases exchanged by the parties, are subject to the closing of Broadstripe, LLC’s bankruptcy sale and the occurrence of the effective date of Broadstripe, LLC’s proposed bankruptcy plan.

On February 15, 2011, a jury in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas awarded Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) $9.1 million in damages from the Company in an action alleging infringement of two patents related to the activation of phone and gift cards (incorporating bank identification numbers approved by the American Banking Association for use in a banking network) over a point-of-sale terminal. The final judgment issued in August 2011 awarded Alexsam an aggregate of $10.1 million including damages and interest. Post-judgment interest continues to accrue at 0.11% on the $10.1 million awarded in the final judgment. Alexsam filed its complaint against the Company in September 2007. The Company does not expect that this decision will have a material impact on its future business operations. On October 28, 2011, the Company filed its notice of appeal and on November 1, 2011, Alexsam filed a notice of cross-appeal. The Company’s opening brief is due by January 9, 2012. Alexsam’s cross-appeal opening and response brief is due by February 20, 2012. The Company’s response and reply brief is due by April 2, 2012 and Alexsam’s cross-appeal reply brief is due by April 16, 2012. On September 1, 2011, Alexsam filed a new action relating to post-judgment royalties for the products and systems previously found to infringe its patents. On September 22, 2011, the Company filed its answer and counterclaim for declaratory judgment, which Alexsam moved to dismiss. The Company opposed Alexsam’s motion to dismiss. As of October 31, 2011, the Company had $10.1 million in accrued expenses for this matter.

On August 27, 2003, Aerotel, Ltd., Aerotel U.S.A., and Aerotel U.S.A., LLC (collectively “Aerotel”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, seeking damages for alleged infringement of a patent. On August 17, 2007, the parties reached a settlement (the “2007 Settlement”) and all claims and counterclaims were dismissed. The 2007 Settlement provided for a payment of $15 million in cash to Aerotel, which the Company paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2008. The 2007 Settlement also required the Company to make available to Aerotel calling cards or PINS over time with potential termination costs of up to $15 million, subject to certain other conditions. In connection with the 2007 Settlement, the Company accrued an expense of $24 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007. On May 13, 2008, Aerotel, Ltd. filed a complaint against the Company in the United Stated District Court, Southern District of New York related to a dispute concerning the 2007 Settlement alleging breach of contract, anticipatory breach, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On June 29, 2009, the parties finalized a Settlement Agreement (the “2009 Settlement Agreement”), the terms of which were subject to a confidentiality provision and the complaint was dismissed. In connection with this matter, the Company accrued an additional expense of $6 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008. Since that time, the parties had been working to implement the 2009 Settlement Agreement. On October 27, 2010, Aerotel, Ltd. served the Company with a Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim referring disputes related to the 2009 Settlement Agreement to the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution. The Statement of Claim alleges breach of contract, anticipatory breach, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law fraud, negligence and deceptive business practices. On November 26, 2010, the Company served its Notice of Defense and Counterclaim. Aerotel is seeking damages of at least $25 million and attorneys’ fees. The parties participated in non-binding mediation on March 14-15, 2011, which did not result in a resolution. However, the parties continue to discuss ways to reach an amicable resolution of this matter. Arbitrators have been selected and the arbitration is scheduled for June 11, 2012. As of October 31, 2011, the Company’s remaining accrual for these matters was $13.9 million. The Company is currently unable to form an estimate of any potential additional liabilities to the Company related to this matter.

On July 2, 2009, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and nine of its affiliates (collectively “Southwestern Bell”), each of which is a local exchange carrier, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking an accounting as well as declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief from certain of the Company’s subsidiaries and several as of yet unidentified entities affiliated with the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company’s subsidiaries failed to pay hundreds of thousands and potentially millions, of dollars of “switched access service” charges for calls made by consumers using the Company’s prepaid calling cards. The complaint alleges causes of action for (i) violation of federal tariffs, (ii) violation of state tariffs, and (iii) unjust enrichment. On November 18, 2011, the parties each submitted a motion for summary judgment. Opposition briefs were filed on December 9, 2011 and reply briefs are due by December 23, 2011. A trial date is set for March 5, 2012. The Company is currently unable to form an estimate of any potential liabilities to the Company related to this matter.

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) (“Wavelengths”) on a global undersea fiber optic network that Tyco was deploying at that time. In June 2004, Tyco asserted several counterclaims against the Company, alleging that the Company breached the settlement agreement and is liable for damages for allegedly refusing to accept Tyco’s offer regarding the Wavelengths referenced in the settlement agreement and for making a public statement that Tyco failed to provide the Company with the use of its Wavelengths. On August 19, 2008, the Appellate Division of the State of New York, First Department, granted summary judgment in favor of Tyco dismissing the complaint and remanded the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. On October 22, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals issued an Order denying the Company’s appeal and affirming the Appellate Division’s order. On or about November 17, 2009, the Company demanded that Tyco comply with its obligations under the settlement agreement. After further discussions and meetings between the parties regarding Tyco’s obligations under the settlement agreement, including its obligation to provide the use of the Wavelengths for fifteen years in a manner fully consistent with that described in the settlement agreement, the Company filed a complaint on November 24, 2010 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Tyco based upon the failure to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement, to negotiate the terms of an indefeasible right to use the Wavelengths in good faith, and to provide the Company with the Wavelengths. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and breach of duty to negotiate in good faith. On January 6, 2011, Tyco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. On July 22, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal. The Company’s filed its opening brief on November 7, 2011. Tyco’s opposition is due by December 23, 2011 and the Company’s reply is due by January 13, 2012.

On April 1, 2004, D. Michael Jewett, a former employee with whom the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement in November 2010, sent a copy of the complaint he had filed against the Company to the United States Attorney’s Office. In the complaint, Jewett had alleged, among other things, that improper payments were made to foreign officials in connection with an IDT Telecom contract. As a result, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the SEC and the United States Attorney in Newark, New Jersey conducted an investigation of this matter. The Company and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated independent investigations, by outside counsel, regarding certain of the matters raised in the Jewett complaint and in these investigations. Neither the Company’s nor the Audit Committee’s investigations have found any evidence that the Company made any such improper payments to foreign officials. The Company continues to cooperate with these investigations, which the SEC and DOJ have confirmed are still ongoing.

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, 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.