LEGAL MATTERS	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
LEGAL MATTERS
LEGAL MATTERS	NOTE 16—LEGAL MATTERS In 1997, the Ministry of Defense for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran obtained a U.S. District Court judgment enforcing an arbitration award in its favor against us of $2.8 million, plus arbitration costs and interest related to a contract awarded to us by Iran in 1977. Both parties appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2011, a decision was handed down upholding the arbitration award and requiring the district court to resolve outstanding issues related to the amount of interest to be paid and whether the plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees. Under a 1979 Presidential executive order, all transactions by U.S. citizens with Iran are prohibited; however, in April 2012 we received a license from the U.S. Treasury Department allowing us to remit the arbitration award and related post-judgment interest owed totaling $8.8 million to the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2012. We had recorded a liability for the judgment amount in periods prior to 2012 and had accrued interest through the date of the payment, so there was no impact on 2012 earnings related to this matter other than interest accrued of $0.2 million. Through September 30, 2012 we did not accrue a liability for any additional pre-judgment interest, as we were unable to estimate a probability of loss for these amounts. In January 2013, the District Court decided in favor of the plaintiff for pre-judgment interest totaling $0.6 million. This amount was recognized as expense in the first quarter of fiscal 2013. On February 15, 2013, this remaining sum was paid to the U.S. District Court, which we believe concluded our involvement in this matter. In November 2011, we received a claim from a public transit authority customer which alleges that the authority incurred a loss of transit revenue due to the inappropriate and illegal actions of one of our former employees, who has pled guilty to the charges. This individual was employed to work on a contract we acquired in a business combination in 2009 and had allegedly been committing these illegal acts from almost two years prior to our acquisition of the contract, until his arrest in May 2011. The transit system was designed and installed by a company unrelated to us. The claim currently seeks recoupment from us of a total amount of $3.9 million for alleged lost revenue, fees and damages. In March 2012, the county superior court entered a default judgment against our former employee and others for $2.9 million based upon the estimated loss of revenue by the public transit authority customer. In the quarter ended March 31, 2012, we recorded an accrued cost of $2.9 million within general and administrative expense in the transportation systems segment based upon the court’s assessment of these losses. We have not recorded expense for any amount in excess of the $2.9 million through September 30, 2013 as no other amount of loss is deemed probable. Insurance may cover all, or a portion, of any losses we could ultimately incur for this matter. However, any potential insurance proceeds will not be recognized in the financial statements until receipt of any such proceeds is probable. In October 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against us and one of our transit customers alleging breach of contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act. The plaintiff claims he was wrongly charged (i) multiple times, at two dollars each time, for calling the call center that we operate for patrons of our transit customer, and (ii) transfer and a second fare when he paid for a fare plus a transfer. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as a class action for all patrons charged in such a manner. We are undertaking the defense of the transit customer pursuant to our contractual obligations to that customer. We are investigating the matter and plan to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of possible loss. Also in October 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in a state court against our same transit customer alleging conversion and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleges his bank debit card was charged two dollars and twenty-five cents for his ride on the transit system rather than the ride being charged to his transit fare card. This plaintiff is also seeking to have his case certified as a class action for all patrons whose bank cards were charged in the same manner. We are investigating the matter and we are undertaking the defense pursuant to our contractual obligations to our transit customer. We plan to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of possible loss. In December 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against us and one of our transit customers alleging breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment in relation to our operation of our transit customer’s fare collection system. The plaintiff claims to have not been credited the cost of her transit card even after registration of the card, as is required under the terms of the cardholder agreement. In addition, the plaintiff claims to have attempted to load value onto her transit card and although her bank account was debited when doing so, she claims the value has never been added on her transit account. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as a class action for all transit patrons who have experienced the same alleged problems with the fare system. We are expecting to undertake the defense of the transit customer pursuant to our contractual obligations to that customer. We are investigating this matter and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of possible loss. We are not a party to any other material pending proceedings and we consider all other matters to be ordinary proceedings incidental to the business. We believe the outcome of these other proceedings will not have a materially adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

NOTE 16—LEGAL MATTERS

In 1997, the Ministry of Defense for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran obtained a U.S. District Court judgment enforcing an arbitration award in its favor against us of $2.8 million, plus arbitration costs and interest related to a contract awarded to us by Iran in 1977. Both parties appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2011, a decision was handed down upholding the arbitration award and requiring the district court to resolve outstanding issues related to the amount of interest to be paid and whether the plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees. Under a 1979 Presidential executive order, all transactions by U.S. citizens with Iran are prohibited; however, in April 2012 we received a license from the U.S. Treasury Department allowing us to remit the arbitration award and related post-judgment interest owed totaling $8.8 million to the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2012. We had recorded a liability for the judgment amount in periods prior to 2012 and had accrued interest through the date of the payment, so there was no impact on 2012 earnings related to this matter other than interest accrued of $0.2 million. Through September 30, 2012 we did not accrue a liability for any additional pre-judgment interest, as we were unable to estimate a probability of loss for these amounts. In January 2013, the District Court decided in favor of the plaintiff for pre-judgment interest totaling $0.6 million. This amount was recognized as expense in the first quarter of fiscal 2013. On February 15, 2013, this remaining sum was paid to the U.S. District Court, which we believe concluded our involvement in this matter.

In November 2011, we received a claim from a public transit authority customer which alleges that the authority incurred a loss of transit revenue due to the inappropriate and illegal actions of one of our former employees, who has pled guilty to the charges. This individual was employed to work on a contract we acquired in a business combination in 2009 and had allegedly been committing these illegal acts from almost two years prior to our acquisition of the contract, until his arrest in May 2011. The transit system was designed and installed by a company unrelated to us. The claim currently seeks recoupment from us of a total amount of $3.9 million for alleged lost revenue, fees and damages. In March 2012, the county superior court entered a default judgment against our former employee and others for $2.9 million based upon the estimated loss of revenue by the public transit authority customer. In the quarter ended March 31, 2012, we recorded an accrued cost of $2.9 million within general and administrative expense in the transportation systems segment based upon the court’s assessment of these losses. We have not recorded expense for any amount in excess of the $2.9 million through September 30, 2013 as no other amount of loss is deemed probable. Insurance may cover all, or a portion, of any losses we could ultimately incur for this matter. However, any potential insurance proceeds will not be recognized in the financial statements until receipt of any such proceeds is probable.

In October 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against us and one of our transit customers alleging breach of contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Act. The plaintiff claims he was wrongly charged (i) multiple times, at two dollars each time, for calling the call center that we operate for patrons of our transit customer, and (ii) transfer and a second fare when he paid for a fare plus a transfer. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as a class action for all patrons charged in such a manner. We are undertaking the defense of the transit customer pursuant to our contractual obligations to that customer. We are investigating the matter and plan to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of possible loss.

Also in October 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in a state court against our same transit customer alleging conversion and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleges his bank debit card was charged two dollars and twenty-five cents for his ride on the transit system rather than the ride being charged to his transit fare card. This plaintiff is also seeking to have his case certified as a class action for all patrons whose bank cards were charged in the same manner. We are investigating the matter and we are undertaking the defense pursuant to our contractual obligations to our transit customer. We plan to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of possible loss.

In December 2013, a lawsuit was filed in federal court against us and one of our transit customers alleging breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment in relation to our operation of our transit customer’s fare collection system. The plaintiff claims to have not been credited the cost of her transit card even after registration of the card, as is required under the terms of the cardholder agreement. In addition, the plaintiff claims to have attempted to load value onto her transit card and although her bank account was debited when doing so, she claims the value has never been added on her transit account. The plaintiff is seeking to have the case certified as a class action for all transit patrons who have experienced the same alleged problems with the fare system. We are expecting to undertake the defense of the transit customer pursuant to our contractual obligations to that customer. We are investigating this matter and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the preliminary nature of this case, we cannot estimate the probability of loss or any range of estimate of possible loss.

We are not a party to any other material pending proceedings and we consider all other matters to be ordinary proceedings incidental to the business. We believe the outcome of these other proceedings will not have a materially adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.