Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12—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. The Company intends 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. 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 is seeking damages and injunctive relief. 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 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata distribution of the common stock of the Company’s subsidiary Straight Path Communications Inc. (“Straight Path”) to the Company’s stockholders of record as of the close of business on July 25, 2013 (the “Straight Path Spin-Off”). 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 Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), as well as the proposed sale of Straight Path’s subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“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. In the three and nine months ended April 30, 2018, the Company incurred legal fees of $0.3 million and $1.3 million, respectively, related to this putative class action, which is included in “Other operating expenses” in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. 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. 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 April 30, 2018 and July 31, 2017, the Company’s accrued expenses included $39.4 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 $87.4 million at April 30, 2018, including the aggregate commitment of $85.6 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. 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 April 30, 2018, the Company had aggregate performance bonds of $15.8 million outstanding. Substantially Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents The Company treats unrestricted cash and cash equivalents held by IDT Payment Services, which provides the Company’s international money transfer services in the United States, as substantially restricted and unavailable for other purposes. At April 30, 2018 and July 31, 2017, “Cash and cash equivalents” in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets included an aggregate of $9.4 million and $10.8 million, respectively, held by IDT Payment Services that was unavailable for other purposes. 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. Straight Path Communications Inc. Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release The Company entered into various agreements with Straight Path prior to the Straight Path Spin-Off including a Separation and Distribution Agreement to affect the separation and provide a framework for the Company’s relationship with Straight Path after the spin-off. On September 20, 2016, the Company received a letter of inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC requesting certain information and materials related to an investigation of potential violations by Straight Path Spectrum LLC (formerly a subsidiary of the Company and currently a subsidiary of Straight Path) in connection with licenses to operate on the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands of the Fixed Microwave Services. The Company has cooperated with the FCC in this matter and has responded to the letter of inquiry. If the FCC were to pursue separate action against the Company, the FCC could seek to fine or impose regulatory penalties or civil liability on the Company related to activities during the period of ownership by the Company. The Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for the Company and Straight Path to indemnify each other for certain liabilities. The Company and Straight Path each communicated that it was entitled to indemnification from the other in connection with the inquiry described above and related matters. On October 24, 2017, the Company, Straight Path, SPIP and PR-SP IP Holdings LLC (“PR-SP”), an entity owned by Howard Jonas, entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release that provides for, among other things, the settlement and mutual release of potential liabilities and claims that may exist or arise under the Separation and Distribution Agreement between the Company and Straight Path. In exchange for the mutual release, in October 2017, the Company paid Straight Path an aggregate of $16 million in cash, Straight Path transferred to the Company its majority ownership interest in Straight Path IP Group Holding, Inc. (“New SPIP”), which holds the equity of SPIP, the entity that holds intellectual property primarily related to communications over computer networks, subject to the right to receive 22% of the net proceeds, if any, received by SPIP from licenses, settlements, awards or judgments involving any of the patent rights and certain transfers of the patents or related rights, that will be retained by Straight Path’s stockholders (such equity interest, subject to the retained interest right, the “IP Interest”), and the Company undertook certain funding and other obligations related to SPIP. The Settlement Agreement and Release allocates (i) $10 million of the payment and the retained interest right to the settlement of claims and the mutual release and (ii) $6 million to the transfer of the IP Interest. On October 24, 2017, the Company sold its entire majority interests in New SPIP to PR-SP in exchange for $6 million and the assumption by PR-SP of the funding and other obligations undertaken by the Company.

Note 12—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. The Company intends 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. 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 is seeking damages and injunctive relief. 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 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata distribution of the common stock of the Company’s subsidiary Straight Path Communications Inc. (“Straight Path”) to the Company’s stockholders of record as of the close of business on July 25, 2013 (the “Straight Path Spin-Off”). 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 Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), as well as the proposed sale of Straight Path’s subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“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. In the three and nine months ended April 30, 2018, the Company incurred legal fees of $0.3 million and $1.3 million, respectively, related to this putative class action, which is included in “Other operating expenses” in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

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.

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 April 30, 2018 and July 31, 2017, the Company’s accrued expenses included $39.4 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 $87.4 million at April 30, 2018, including the aggregate commitment of $85.6 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.

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 April 30, 2018, the Company had aggregate performance bonds of $15.8 million outstanding.

Substantially Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents

The Company treats unrestricted cash and cash equivalents held by IDT Payment Services, which provides the Company’s international money transfer services in the United States, as substantially restricted and unavailable for other purposes. At April 30, 2018 and July 31, 2017, “Cash and cash equivalents” in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets included an aggregate of $9.4 million and $10.8 million, respectively, held by IDT Payment Services that was unavailable for other purposes.

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.

Straight Path Communications Inc. Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release

The Company entered into various agreements with Straight Path prior to the Straight Path Spin-Off including a Separation and Distribution Agreement to affect the separation and provide a framework for the Company’s relationship with Straight Path after the spin-off. On September 20, 2016, the Company received a letter of inquiry from the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC requesting certain information and materials related to an investigation of potential violations by Straight Path Spectrum LLC (formerly a subsidiary of the Company and currently a subsidiary of Straight Path) in connection with licenses to operate on the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands of the Fixed Microwave Services. The Company has cooperated with the FCC in this matter and has responded to the letter of inquiry. If the FCC were to pursue separate action against the Company, the FCC could seek to fine or impose regulatory penalties or civil liability on the Company related to activities during the period of ownership by the Company.

The Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for the Company and Straight Path to indemnify each other for certain liabilities. The Company and Straight Path each communicated that it was entitled to indemnification from the other in connection with the inquiry described above and related matters. On October 24, 2017, the Company, Straight Path, SPIP and PR-SP IP Holdings LLC (“PR-SP”), an entity owned by Howard Jonas, entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release that provides for, among other things, the settlement and mutual release of potential liabilities and claims that may exist or arise under the Separation and Distribution Agreement between the Company and Straight Path. In exchange for the mutual release, in October 2017, the Company paid Straight Path an aggregate of $16 million in cash, Straight Path transferred to the Company its majority ownership interest in Straight Path IP Group Holding, Inc. (“New SPIP”), which holds the equity of SPIP, the entity that holds intellectual property primarily related to communications over computer networks, subject to the right to receive 22% of the net proceeds, if any, received by SPIP from licenses, settlements, awards or judgments involving any of the patent rights and certain transfers of the patents or related rights, that will be retained by Straight Path’s stockholders (such equity interest, subject to the retained interest right, the “IP Interest”), and the Company undertook certain funding and other obligations related to SPIP. The Settlement Agreement and Release allocates (i) $10 million of the payment and the retained interest right to the settlement of claims and the mutual release and (ii) $6 million to the transfer of the IP Interest.

On October 24, 2017, the Company sold its entire majority interests in New SPIP to PR-SP in exchange for $6 million and the assumption by PR-SP of the funding and other obligations undertaken by the Company.