Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Employment Agreements ALJ maintains employment agreements with certain key executive officers that provide for a base salary and an annual bonus, with annual bonus amounts to be determined by the Board of Directors or the Chief Executive Officer. The agreements also provide for involuntary termination payments, which includes base salary, performance bonus, medical premiums, stock options, non-competition provisions, and other terms and conditions of employment. On December 31, 2020, contingent termination payments related to base salary and medical premiums totaled $1.1 million. Surety Bonds As part of Faneuil’s normal course of operations, certain customers require surety bonds guaranteeing the performance of a contract. On December 31, 2020, the face value of such surety bonds, which represents the maximum cash payments that Faneuil’s surety would be obligated to pay under certain circumstances of non-performance, was $41.5 million. To date, Faneuil has not made any non-performance payments to any of its sureties. Letters of Credit The Company had letters of credit totaling $3.3 million outstanding on December 31, 2020. Litigation, Claims, and Assessments Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Company On September 22, 2016, Faneuil filed a complaint against 3M Company (“3M”) in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia (the “Richmond Circuit Court”). The dispute arose out of a subcontract entered into between 3M and Faneuil in relation to a toll road project in Portsmouth, Virginia. In its complaint, Faneuil sought recovery of $5.1 million based on three causes of action: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. On October 14, 2016, 3M filed its answer and counterclaim against Faneuil. In its counterclaim, 3M sought recovery in excess of $10.0 million based on three claims: breach of contract/indemnification, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. 3M’s counterclaim alleged it incurred approximately $3.2 million in damages as a result of Faneuil’s conduct and sought indemnification of an additional $10.0 million in damages incurred as a result of continued performance. The matter was tried in a bench trial from April 30, 2018 through May 2, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Richmond Circuit Court issued its opinion, which dismissed both Faneuil’s complaint and 3M’s counterclaim with prejudice. No monetary damages were awarded to either Faneuil or 3M. As a result of the Richmond Circuit Court’s opinion, ALJ recorded a non-cash litigation loss of $2.9 million (the outstanding unreserved receivable from 3M), which was included in selling, general, and administrative expense during the year ended September 30, 2018. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia where Faneuil was awarded approximately $1.2 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The matter was remanded to the trial court for calculation of interest and entry of final judgment. Faneuil and 3M settled on the amount of interest to be paid. The final judgment plus interest, which totaled $1.5 million, was received and recorded by Faneuil in December 2019. Of the total $1.5 million, $1.3 million was booked as a reduction to selling, general, and administrative expense, and $0.2 million was booked to interest from legal settlement on the Statement of Operations during the three months ended December 31, 2019. Marshall v. Faneuil, Inc. On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall (“Marshall”) filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ. Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil. Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which has been granted. In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (the “PAGA Claim”). Faneuil demurred to the PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed by the trial court. The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery. A court-ordered mediation is scheduled between the parties for the first half of 2021. Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to defend this case vigorously. Other Litigation The Company has been named in, and from time to time may become named in, various other lawsuits or threatened actions that are incidental to our ordinary business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. Any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, cause the Company to incur costs and expenses, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. The results of these lawsuits and actions cannot be predicted with certainty. The Company concluded as of December 31, 2020 that the ultimate resolution of these matters (including the matters described above) will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Environmental Matters The operations of Phoenix are subject to various laws and related regulations governing environmental matters. Under such laws, an owner or lessee of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances located on or in, or emanating from, such property, as well as investigation of property damage. Phoenix incurs ongoing expenses associated with the performance of appropriate monitoring and remediation at certain of its locations.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Employment Agreements

ALJ maintains employment agreements with certain key executive officers that provide for a base salary and an annual bonus, with annual bonus amounts to be determined by the Board of Directors or the Chief Executive Officer. The agreements also provide for involuntary termination payments, which includes base salary, performance bonus, medical premiums, stock options, non-competition provisions, and other terms and conditions of employment. On December 31, 2020, contingent termination payments related to base salary and medical premiums totaled $1.1 million.

Surety Bonds

As part of Faneuil’s normal course of operations, certain customers require surety bonds guaranteeing the performance of a contract. On December 31, 2020, the face value of such surety bonds, which represents the maximum cash payments that Faneuil’s surety would be obligated to pay under certain circumstances of non-performance, was $41.5 million. To date, Faneuil has not made any non-performance payments to any of its sureties.

Letters of Credit

The Company had letters of credit totaling $3.3 million outstanding on December 31, 2020.

Litigation, Claims, and Assessments

Faneuil, Inc. v. 3M Company

On September 22, 2016, Faneuil filed a complaint against 3M Company (“3M”) in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia (the “Richmond Circuit Court”). The dispute arose out of a subcontract entered into between 3M and Faneuil in relation to a toll road project in Portsmouth, Virginia. In its complaint, Faneuil sought recovery of $5.1 million based on three causes of action: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

On October 14, 2016, 3M filed its answer and counterclaim against Faneuil. In its counterclaim, 3M sought recovery in excess of $10.0 million based on three claims: breach of contract/indemnification, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. 3M’s counterclaim alleged it incurred approximately $3.2 million in damages as a result of Faneuil’s conduct and sought indemnification of an additional $10.0 million in damages incurred as a result of continued performance.

The matter was tried in a bench trial from April 30, 2018 through May 2, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Richmond Circuit Court issued its opinion, which dismissed both Faneuil’s complaint and 3M’s counterclaim with prejudice. No monetary damages were awarded to either Faneuil or 3M. As a result of the Richmond Circuit Court’s opinion, ALJ recorded a non-cash litigation loss of $2.9 million (the outstanding unreserved receivable from 3M), which was included in selling, general, and administrative expense during the year ended September 30, 2018. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia where Faneuil was awarded approximately $1.2 million, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The matter was remanded to the trial court for calculation of interest and entry of final judgment. Faneuil and 3M settled on the amount of interest to be paid. The final judgment plus interest, which totaled $1.5 million, was received and recorded by Faneuil in December 2019. Of the total $1.5 million, $1.3 million was booked as a reduction to selling, general, and administrative expense, and $0.2 million was booked to interest from legal settlement on the Statement of Operations during the three months ended December 31, 2019.

Marshall v. Faneuil, Inc.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall (“Marshall”) filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ. Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various California state law employment-related claims against Faneuil. Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, which has been granted. In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (the “PAGA Claim”). Faneuil demurred to the PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed by the trial court.

The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery. A court-ordered mediation is scheduled between the parties for the first half of 2021. Faneuil believes this action is without merit and intends to defend this case vigorously.

Other Litigation

The Company has been named in, and from time to time may become named in, various other lawsuits or threatened actions that are incidental to our ordinary business. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. Any claims against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, cause the Company to incur costs and expenses, require significant amounts of management time and result in the diversion of significant operational resources. The results of these lawsuits and actions cannot be predicted with certainty. The Company concluded as of December 31, 2020 that the ultimate resolution of these matters (including the matters described above) will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Environmental Matters

The operations of Phoenix are subject to various laws and related regulations governing environmental matters. Under such laws, an owner or lessee of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances located on or in, or emanating from, such property, as well as investigation of property damage. Phoenix incurs ongoing expenses associated with the performance of appropriate monitoring and remediation at certain of its locations.