Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	Legal Proceedings and Other Matters Legacy TCS 911 Call Handling Software Matter A customer that purchased a TCS 911 call handling software solution in December 2014 (which was more than one year prior to our acquisition of TCS) (the "TCS Legacy Customer") informed us in fiscal 2019 that it experienced several network outages and that it would seek indemnification for any claims made against it as a result of such outages. In connection with these outages, the TCS Legacy Customer informed us that it believed certain communication failover redundancies promised to it by former senior management of TCS were never completed and had originally demanded that we refund to it all amounts previously paid to us under the contract, which through January 31, 2020 exceeded $14,000,000. In response to such claim, we engaged legal counsel to review the claims made by our customer. In September 2019, the customer filed a lawsuit in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota alleging, among other things, our failure to provide them with certain system redundancies. We believe that TCS has complied with its contractual requirements, that the customer's allegations are baseless, and that it is not entitled to a return of any amounts previously paid to us under the contract. Our contract to provide services to this customer expired in December 2019 and the amount of annual revenue we generated from this customer is immaterial. We have notified our insurance carriers of the lawsuit and are reviewing with counsel our multiple counter claims against this TCS Legacy Customer. An agreement in principle has been reached with this TCS Legacy Customer and we are currently negotiating the terms of such settlement which is not expected to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements. However, if we are unable to reach a final settlement, the ultimate resolution of this matter could vary and possibly have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows in future periods. Separately, we also filed a lawsuit in March 2019 against a former employee and her new employer arising from such former employee's violation of her obligation to TCS of confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation of customers, including the TCS Legacy Customer. The former employee has responded with her own lawsuit against us. The ultimate resolution of this lawsuit is not expected to have any material impact. Other Matters In October 2014, we disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") that we learned during a self-assessment of our export transactions that a shipment of modems sent to a Canadian customer by Comtech EF Data Corp. was incorporated into a communication system, the ultimate end user of which was the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority. The sales value of this equipment was approximately $288,000. At the time of shipment, OFAC regulations prohibited U.S. persons from doing business directly or indirectly with Sudan. In late 2015, OFAC issued an administrative subpoena seeking information about the disclosed transaction. We responded to the subpoena, including alerting OFAC to Comtech’s repair of three modems for a customer in Lebanon who may have rerouted the modems from Lebanon to Sudan without the required U.S. licensing authorization. In September 2018, Comtech agreed to enter into a Tolling Agreement with OFAC, which extended the statute of limitations in this matter through December 31, 2019. The Tolling Agreement was shortly followed by a second administrative subpoena seeking additional information about the disclosed transaction. In December 2018, Comtech responded to a second administrative subpoena from OFAC, answering the questions it posed and providing all the documents it sought. In November 2019, Comtech agreed to enter into a second Tolling Agreement with OFAC, which extends the statute of limitations in this matter through June 30, 2020. U.S. sanctions with respect to Sudan were revoked in 2017 and we are in the process of responding to certain additional questions that OFAC asked of us based on its review. Consistent with the revocation of the Sudan Sanction Regulations ("SSR"), shipments to the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority by U.S. persons are now permissible. We are not able to predict whether OFAC will take any enforcement action against us in light of the revocation of the SSR. If OFAC determines that we have violated U.S. trade sanctions, civil and criminal penalties could apply, and we may suffer reputational harm. Even though we take precautions to avoid engaging in transactions that may violate U.S. trade sanctions, those measures may not be effective in every instance. In May 2018, we were informed by the Office of Export Enforcement ("OEE") of the Department of Commerce ("DoC") that it was forwarding to the OEE's Office of Chief Counsel, the results of its audit of international shipments by Comtech Xicom Technology, Inc. for further review and possible determination of an administrative penalty. We fully cooperated with the OEE in their audit and, based on our self-assessment of the approximately 7,800 individual transactions audited, have determined that six (6) transactions may not have been fully in compliance with the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"). These six (6) items, for which export licenses were not obtained, were either spares or repaired power amplifier subassembly components valued at less than $100,000 (in aggregate) and were shipped to Brazil, Italy, Russia, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. The EAR provides an exception to the requirement to obtain an export license for the replacement of a defective or damaged component. During our self-assessment, we determined that we inadvertently did not obtain export licenses for the spares or evidence of the return or destruction of the defective or damaged components necessary to authorize our use of the export license exception for the replacements. Since discovering this issue, we have implemented additional controls and procedures and have increased awareness of these specific export requirements throughout the Company to help avoid similar occurrences in the future. Administrative penalties under the EAR can range from a warning letter to a denial of export privileges. A civil monetary penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in the Export Administration Act ("EAA") may be imposed for each violation, and in the event that any provision of the EAR is continued by any other authority, the maximum monetary civil penalty for each violation shall be that provided by such other authority. Administrative penalties under the EAR are currently determined pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), which can reach the greater of twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation or approximately $300,000 per violation. We have not recorded an accrual related to a possible administrative penalty and continue to work cooperatively with the OEE. In the ordinary course of business, we include indemnification provisions in certain of our customer contracts to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse such customers for certain losses, including but not limited to losses related to third-party claims of intellectual property infringement arising from the customer’s use of our products or services. We may also, from time to time, receive indemnification requests from customers related to third-party claims that 911 calls were improperly routed during an emergency. We evaluate such claims as and when they arise. We do not always agree with customers that they are entitled to indemnification and in such cases reject their claims. Despite maintaining that we have properly carried out our duties, we may seek coverage under our various insurance policies; however, we cannot be sure that we will be able to maintain or obtain insurance coverage at acceptable costs or in sufficient amounts or that our insurer will not disclaim coverage as to such claims. Accordingly, pending or future claims asserted against us by a party that we agree to indemnify could result in legal costs and damages that could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition. 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.

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

Legacy TCS 911 Call Handling Software Matter

A customer that purchased a TCS 911 call handling software solution in December 2014 (which was more than one year prior to our acquisition of TCS) (the "TCS Legacy Customer") informed us in fiscal 2019 that it experienced several network outages and that it would seek indemnification for any claims made against it as a result of such outages.

In connection with these outages, the TCS Legacy Customer informed us that it believed certain communication failover redundancies promised to it by former senior management of TCS were never completed and had originally demanded that we refund to it all amounts previously paid to us under the contract, which through January 31, 2020 exceeded $14,000,000. In response to such claim, we engaged legal counsel to review the claims made by our customer.

In September 2019, the customer filed a lawsuit in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota alleging, among other things, our failure to provide them with certain system redundancies. We believe that TCS has complied with its contractual requirements, that the customer's allegations are baseless, and that it is not entitled to a return of any amounts previously paid to us under the contract. Our contract to provide services to this customer expired in December 2019 and the amount of annual revenue we generated from this customer is immaterial.

We have notified our insurance carriers of the lawsuit and are reviewing with counsel our multiple counter claims against this TCS Legacy Customer.

An agreement in principle has been reached with this TCS Legacy Customer and we are currently negotiating the terms of such settlement which is not expected to have a material impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements. However, if we are unable to reach a final settlement, the ultimate resolution of this matter could vary and possibly have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows in future periods.

Separately, we also filed a lawsuit in March 2019 against a former employee and her new employer arising from such former employee's violation of her obligation to TCS of confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation of customers, including the TCS Legacy Customer. The former employee has responded with her own lawsuit against us. The ultimate resolution of this lawsuit is not expected to have any material impact.

Other Matters

In October 2014, we disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") that we learned during a self-assessment of our export transactions that a shipment of modems sent to a Canadian customer by Comtech EF Data Corp. was incorporated into a communication system, the ultimate end user of which was the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority. The sales value of this equipment was approximately $288,000. At the time of shipment, OFAC regulations prohibited U.S. persons from doing business directly or indirectly with Sudan. In late 2015, OFAC issued an administrative subpoena seeking information about the disclosed transaction. We responded to the subpoena, including alerting OFAC to Comtech’s repair of three modems for a customer in Lebanon who may have rerouted the modems from Lebanon to Sudan without the required U.S. licensing authorization. In September 2018, Comtech agreed to enter into a Tolling Agreement with OFAC, which extended the statute of limitations in this matter through December 31, 2019. The Tolling Agreement was shortly followed by a second administrative subpoena seeking additional information about the disclosed transaction. In December 2018, Comtech responded to a second administrative subpoena from OFAC, answering the questions it posed and providing all the documents it sought. In November 2019, Comtech agreed to enter into a second Tolling Agreement with OFAC, which extends the statute of limitations in this matter through June 30, 2020. U.S. sanctions with respect to Sudan were revoked in 2017 and we are in the process of responding to certain additional questions that OFAC asked of us based on its review. Consistent with the revocation of the Sudan Sanction Regulations ("SSR"), shipments to the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority by U.S. persons are now permissible. We are not able to predict whether OFAC will take any enforcement action against us in light of the revocation of the SSR. If OFAC determines that we have violated U.S. trade sanctions, civil and criminal penalties could apply, and we may suffer reputational harm. Even though we take precautions to avoid engaging in transactions that may violate U.S. trade sanctions, those measures may not be effective in every instance.

In May 2018, we were informed by the Office of Export Enforcement ("OEE") of the Department of Commerce ("DoC") that it was forwarding to the OEE's Office of Chief Counsel, the results of its audit of international shipments by Comtech Xicom Technology, Inc. for further review and possible determination of an administrative penalty. We fully cooperated with the OEE in their audit and, based on our self-assessment of the approximately 7,800 individual transactions audited, have determined that six (6) transactions may not have been fully in compliance with the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"). These six (6) items, for which export licenses were not obtained, were either spares or repaired power amplifier subassembly components valued at less than $100,000 (in aggregate) and were shipped to Brazil, Italy, Russia, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. The EAR provides an exception to the requirement to obtain an export license for the replacement of a defective or damaged component. During our self-assessment, we determined that we inadvertently did not obtain export licenses for the spares or evidence of the return or destruction of the defective or damaged components necessary to authorize our use of the export license exception for the replacements. Since discovering this issue, we have implemented additional controls and procedures and have increased awareness of these specific export requirements throughout the Company to help avoid similar occurrences in the future. Administrative penalties under the EAR can range from a warning letter to a denial of export privileges. A civil monetary penalty not to exceed the amount set forth in the Export Administration Act ("EAA") may be imposed for each violation, and in the event that any provision of the EAR is continued by any other authority, the maximum monetary civil penalty for each violation shall be that provided by such other authority. Administrative penalties under the EAR are currently determined pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), which can reach the greater of twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation or approximately $300,000 per violation. We have not recorded an accrual related to a possible administrative penalty and continue to work cooperatively with the OEE.

In the ordinary course of business, we include indemnification provisions in certain of our customer contracts to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse such customers for certain losses, including but not limited to losses related to third-party claims of intellectual property infringement arising from the customer’s use of our products or services. We may also, from time to time, receive indemnification requests from customers related to third-party claims that 911 calls were improperly routed during an emergency. We evaluate such claims as and when they arise. We do not always agree with customers that they are entitled to indemnification and in such cases reject their claims. Despite maintaining that we have properly carried out our duties, we may seek coverage under our various insurance policies; however, we cannot be sure that we will be able to maintain or obtain insurance coverage at acceptable costs or in sufficient amounts or that our insurer will not disclaim coverage as to such claims. Accordingly, pending or future claims asserted against us by a party that we agree to indemnify could result in legal costs and damages that could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

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.