Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	(19) Legal Proceedings and Other Matters U.S. Government Investigations In June 2012, certain officers and employees of the Company received subpoenas issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) seeking certain documents and records relating to our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Although the EDNY subpoenas made no specific allegations, we believe the subpoenas related to a grand jury investigation stemming from our CEO's contacts with a scientific attaché to the Israeli Purchasing Mission in the United States who our CEO met in connection with the sale of our equipment to the State of Israel during the 1980's. This scientific attaché was later alleged to have conducted intelligence operations in the U.S. In August 2012, we were informed by the U.S. government that our CEO's security clearance was suspended. In order to maintain our qualification for government contracts requiring facility security clearance, we made certain internal organizational realignments. These changes restrict access to classified information to other Comtech senior executives, management and other employees who maintain the required level of clearance. Separately, in connection with an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) into trading in securities of CPI International, Inc. (“CPI”), in March and April 2012, we and our CEO received subpoenas for documents from the SEC concerning transactions in CPI stock by our CEO and other persons (including one subsidiary employee). Our CEO purchased CPI stock in November 2010 which was after the September 2010 termination of our May 2010 agreement to acquire CPI. The independent members of our Board of Directors have monitored these matters with the assistance of independent counsel. We and our CEO have cooperated with the U.S. government regarding the above matters and have not been contacted by the government with respect to either matter since September 2012. The outcome of any investigation is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to predict. However, based on our work to date in respect of the subpoenas in each matter, we do not believe that it is likely that either investigation will result in a legal proceeding against our CEO or the Company. If either of these investigations results in a legal proceeding, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) Audit In May 2011, we were notified that our original BFT-1 contract, which was awarded to us on August 31, 2007 (our fiscal 2008), was selected for a post award audit by the DCAA. We received total funded orders against this contract, which expired December 31, 2011, of $376,246,000. A post-award audit (sometimes referred to as a Truth in Negotiations Act or “TINA” audit) generally focuses on whether the contractor disclosed current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data in the contract negotiation process pursuant to TINA and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). Shortly after this audit began, the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) advised us that the fiscal 2008 award of the BFT-1 contract triggered full coverage under the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) and that we should submit an initial CAS disclosure statement. The CAS is a set of specialized rules and standards that the U.S. government uses for determining costs on large, negotiated contracts. We have cooperated fully with the DCAA and DCMA and provided them information that supports our view that the August 2007 BFT-1 contract is subject to a CAS and TINA exemption for fixed price commercial contract line items (such as our mobile satellite transceivers and other hardware), as defined by the FAR. In March 2013, DCMA advised us that it was not making any determination with regard to the commerciality of our products and that it withdrew its request, at that time, for a CAS disclosure statement. In May 2013, the DCAA provided a draft audit report which stated that the commercial item exemption to TINA did not apply because there was no official determination of commerciality for Delivery Order No. 1 at the time of award. Thus, according to DCAA, TINA applied and we were required to disclose current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data. The DCAA recommended a price adjustment of $11,819,000 (plus interest). This recommended price adjustment is approximately the same amount that was included in a draft audit report that was presented to us in December 2012. Consistent with the position we have taken throughout the audit, we informed the DCAA that we believe the May 2013 draft audit report is erroneous. For example, we noted that the U.S. Army had previously determined, in July 2007, that the MT 2011F mobile satellite transceiver was a commercial item on a separate contract awarded to us. We also noted that the same contracting officer who signed the August 2007 BFT-1 contract, in an email sent four days after the BFT-1 contract was signed, indicated that certain of our mobile satellite transceivers and other equipment on the August 2007 BFT-1 contract were commercial. We advised the DCAA that, although the August 2007 BFT-1 contract did not initially incorporate FAR commercial clauses, the contract was modified in January 2008 to incorporate those clauses, and that an Administrative Contracting Officer confirmed, in January 2008, that Delivery Order No. 1 was for commercial items. Regardless of the commerciality determination, we informed the DCAA that we provided the U.S. government with all required information prior to August 31, 2007. We disagree with the DCAA's draft audit report and provided a written response in May 2013. In October 2013, we were advised verbally by a DCAA senior auditor that a final DCAA audit report was issued to our BFT-1 Contracting Officer but we have not received a copy of a final report, nor any correspondence concerning issuance of a final report If the above matters are not resolved in our favor with the Contracting Officer, the U.S. government could issue a demand in the form of a Contracting Officer's Final Decision, which we would have the right to appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. If it is ultimately determined that a cost or price adjustment for our BFT-1 contract is appropriate, we would be required to refund monies to the U.S. government, with interest. These amounts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which we believe it is probable that we will be required to refund monies to the U.S. government. However, based on our analysis of the facts and circumstances regarding this matter, we do not believe this matter will ultimately have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. Other Proceedings There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

(19) Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

U.S. Government Investigations

In June 2012, certain officers and employees of the Company received subpoenas issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) seeking certain documents and records relating to our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). Although the EDNY subpoenas made no specific allegations, we believe the subpoenas related to a grand jury investigation stemming from our CEO's contacts with a scientific attaché to the Israeli Purchasing Mission in the United States who our CEO met in connection with the sale of our equipment to the State of Israel during the 1980's. This scientific attaché was later alleged to have conducted intelligence operations in the U.S. In August 2012, we were informed by the U.S. government that our CEO's security clearance was suspended. In order to maintain our qualification for government contracts requiring facility security clearance, we made certain internal organizational realignments. These changes restrict access to classified information to other Comtech senior executives, management and other employees who maintain the required level of clearance.

Separately, in connection with an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) into trading in securities of CPI International, Inc. (“CPI”), in March and April 2012, we and our CEO received subpoenas for documents from the SEC concerning transactions in CPI stock by our CEO and other persons (including one subsidiary employee). Our CEO purchased CPI stock in November 2010 which was after the September 2010 termination of our May 2010 agreement to acquire CPI.

The independent members of our Board of Directors have monitored these matters with the assistance of independent counsel. We and our CEO have cooperated with the U.S. government regarding the above matters and have not been contacted by the government with respect to either matter since September 2012.

The outcome of any investigation is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to predict. However, based on our work to date in respect of the subpoenas in each matter, we do not believe that it is likely that either investigation will result in a legal proceeding against our CEO or the Company. If either of these investigations results in a legal proceeding, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) Audit

In May 2011, we were notified that our original BFT-1 contract, which was awarded to us on August 31, 2007 (our fiscal 2008), was selected for a post award audit by the DCAA. We received total funded orders against this contract, which expired December 31, 2011, of $376,246,000. A post-award audit (sometimes referred to as a Truth in Negotiations Act or “TINA” audit) generally focuses on whether the contractor disclosed current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data in the contract negotiation process pursuant to TINA and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). Shortly after this audit began, the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) advised us that the fiscal 2008 award of the BFT-1 contract triggered full coverage under the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) and that we should submit an initial CAS disclosure statement. The CAS is a set of specialized rules and standards that the U.S. government uses for determining costs on large, negotiated contracts. We have cooperated fully with the DCAA and DCMA and provided them information that supports our view that the August 2007 BFT-1 contract is subject to a CAS and TINA exemption for fixed price commercial contract line items (such as our mobile satellite transceivers and other hardware), as defined by the FAR.

In March 2013, DCMA advised us that it was not making any determination with regard to the commerciality of our products and that it withdrew its request, at that time, for a CAS disclosure statement.

In May 2013, the DCAA provided a draft audit report which stated that the commercial item exemption to TINA did not apply because there was no official determination of commerciality for Delivery Order No. 1 at the time of award. Thus, according to DCAA, TINA applied and we were required to disclose current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data. The DCAA recommended a price adjustment of $11,819,000 (plus interest). This recommended price adjustment is approximately the same amount that was included in a draft audit report that was presented to us in December 2012.

Consistent with the position we have taken throughout the audit, we informed the DCAA that we believe the May 2013 draft audit report is erroneous. For example, we noted that the U.S. Army had previously determined, in July 2007, that the MT 2011F mobile satellite transceiver was a commercial item on a separate contract awarded to us. We also noted that the same contracting officer who signed the August 2007 BFT-1 contract, in an email sent four days after the BFT-1 contract was signed, indicated that certain of our mobile satellite transceivers and other equipment on the August 2007 BFT-1 contract were commercial. We advised the DCAA that, although the August 2007 BFT-1 contract did not initially incorporate FAR commercial clauses, the contract was modified in January 2008 to incorporate those clauses, and that an Administrative Contracting Officer confirmed, in January 2008, that Delivery Order No. 1 was for commercial items. Regardless of the commerciality determination, we informed the DCAA that we provided the U.S. government with all required information prior to August 31, 2007. We disagree with the DCAA's draft audit report and provided a written response in May 2013.

In October 2013, we were advised verbally by a DCAA senior auditor that a final DCAA audit report was issued to our BFT-1 Contracting Officer but we have not received a copy of a final report, nor any correspondence concerning issuance of a final report

If the above matters are not resolved in our favor with the Contracting Officer, the U.S. government could issue a demand in the form of a Contracting Officer's Final Decision, which we would have the right to appeal to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. If it is ultimately determined that a cost or price adjustment for our BFT-1 contract is appropriate, we would be required to refund monies to the U.S. government, with interest. These amounts could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which we believe it is probable that we will be required to refund monies to the U.S. government. However, based on our analysis of the facts and circumstances regarding this matter, we do not believe this matter will ultimately have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition.

Other Proceedings

There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.