Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions for sales generated from both the U.S. and Australia operating segments. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the original repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of goods sold in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income (loss). No units were repurchased during the three months ended September 30, 2016 . During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 , the Company agreed to repurchase three units from the lender of two of its former dealers. Other than these repurchase commitments, the Company has not repurchased another unit from lenders since July 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of September 30, 2016 or June 30, 2016 , respectively. Contingencies Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below under "Legal Proceedings," management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at September 30, 2016 (unaudited) or June 30, 2016 that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings On June 29, 2015, the Company filed suit against MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC, or "MasterCraft," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company's complaint alleged MasterCraft's infringement of a utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 8,578,873). MasterCraft denied liability arising from the causes of action alleged in the Company's complaint and filed a counterclaim alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent. On August 13, 2015, MasterCraft filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, which the Company opposed. On February 11, 2016, the Court denied MasterCraft’s motion for summary judgment as premature, without prejudice to MasterCraft re-filing the motion after claim construction and further discovery. On December 11, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on May 1, 2017. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery and claim construction proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously pursue this litigation to enforce its rights in its patented technology and believes that MasterCraft's counterclaims are without merit. On February 16, 2016, the Company filed a second suit against MasterCraft in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company’s complaint alleges MasterCraft’s infringement of another utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 9,260,161). On March 14, 2016, MasterCraft filed a partial motion to dismiss, asking the Court to dismiss the Company’s claim for willful infringement. The Court has not yet decided MasterCraft’s motion to dismiss. On the same date, MasterCraft filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the rest of the Company’s complaint, which the Court granted on June 16, 2016. Other than the motion to dismiss the Company’s claim for willful infringement, MasterCraft has not yet responded to the Company’s complaint. On October 5, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to bifurcate any antitrust counterclaim; the Court has not yet ruled on that motion. On June 7, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on October 30, 2017. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery. The Company intends to vigorously pursue this litigation to enforce its rights in its patented technology and believes that MasterCraft’s threatened counterclaims are without merit. On May 18, 2016, MasterCraft filed two petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “PTO,” requesting institution of Inter Partes Review, or “IPR,” of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,578,873, the patent at issue in the first Tennessee lawsuit. On August 23, 2016, the Company filed its preliminary responses to the IPR petitions. The PTO has not yet decided whether to institute the IPRs. On September 30, 2015, Great Wakes Boating, Inc. filed suit against the Company, Sunny Marine, LLC, Norris Companies a/k/a Norris Docks, LLC, Wayne Wilson, Scott Davenport and certain former employees of the Company and other individuals, in the Chancery Court for Anderson County, Tennessee seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The suit alleged inducement to breach contract, misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, violations of the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act and civil conspiracy by the Company and Messrs. Wilson, and Davenport. Great Wakes voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice against all parties on June 22, 2016. If the claims are revived by Great Wakes, the Company believes the claims are without merit and plans to vigorously defend any lawsuit. On April 22, 2014, Marine Power, a former supplier of engines to the Company, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking monetary damages. On July 10, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the lawsuit filed by Marine Power. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Marine Power. The lawsuit proceeded to trial on August 8, 2016. On August 18, 2016, in connection with a judgment rendered against the Company in a litigation with Marine Power, the Company recorded a charge of $3,268 during the three months ended June, 30, 2016. The Company filed post-trial motions. Depending on the outcome of post-trial motions, the Company will consider seeking appellate review. On August 26, 2016, Wizard Lake Marine Inc. and Wizard Lake Marine (B.C.) Inc., collectively “Wizard Lake”, a former dealer of the Company’s, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada seeking monetary damages. The suit alleged breach of contract, wrongful termination, misrepresentation, breach of duty of good faith, and intentional interference. Wizard Lake is asking for damages of $8,717 . The Company denies any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Wizard Lake and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit. |