Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 20 – Commitments and Contingencies At September 30, 2015, we were subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. The outcome of these legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty; however, management, based upon advice from legal counsel, believes such actions are either without merit or will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the “Kim Plaintiff”) against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”) seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the “Class Period”). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman’s financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees’ Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by “knowingly failing to disclose “significant problems” relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory” prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when “Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008,” that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”) and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman’s true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the request of the District Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) and, on June 23, 2015, the District Court’s ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on September 4, 2015. The defendants have until November 24, 2015 to file a writ of certiorari seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Connected Car Supply Arrangements We have arrangements with our Connected Car customers to provide infotainment products that meet predetermined technical specifications and delivery dates. In the event that we do not satisfy the performance obligations under these arrangements, we may be required to indemnify the customer. We accrue for any loss that we expect to incur under these arrangements when that loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. For the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, we recognized $3.9 million of gains relating to losses we no longer expect to incur and $4.9 million of costs relating to delayed delivery of product to Connected Car customers, respectively. An inability to meet performance obligations on infotainment platforms to be delivered in future periods could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition in future periods.

Note 20 – Commitments and Contingencies

At September 30, 2015, we were subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. The outcome of these legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty; however, management, based upon advice from legal counsel, believes such actions are either without merit or will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation

On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the “Kim Plaintiff”) against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”) seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the “Class Period”). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman’s financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees’ Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by “knowingly failing to disclose “significant problems” relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory” prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when “Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008,” that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”) and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman’s true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants’ motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008.

On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the request of the District Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”) and, on June 23, 2015, the District Court’s ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on September 4, 2015. The defendants have until November 24, 2015 to file a writ of certiorari seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Connected Car Supply Arrangements

We have arrangements with our Connected Car customers to provide infotainment products that meet predetermined technical specifications and delivery dates. In the event that we do not satisfy the performance obligations under these arrangements, we may be required to indemnify the customer. We accrue for any loss that we expect to incur under these arrangements when that loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. For the three months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, we recognized $3.9 million of gains relating to losses we no longer expect to incur and $4.9 million of costs relating to delayed delivery of product to Connected Car customers, respectively. An inability to meet performance obligations on infotainment platforms to be delivered in future periods could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition in future periods.