Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies	We are, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of our business. Historically, the outcome of all such legal proceedings has not, in the aggregate, had a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Other than as set forth below, there are no additional pending or threatened legal proceedings at this time. Lazar Leybovich et al. v. SecureAlert, Inc. On March 29, 2012, Lazar Leybovich, Dovie Leybovich and Ben Leybovich filed a complaint in the 11th Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida alleging breach of contract with regard to certain Stock Redemption Agreements. The complaint was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiffs. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on November 15, 2012. On May 2, 2016, the Court resolved this case in favor of the Company by granting the Company's motion for summary judgement. The Court's ruling is subject to appeal. Boggs et al. v. Judicial Electronic Monitoring, SecureAlert, Inc. et al. On March 3, 2015, Candace Boggs et al. filed a complaint in the State Court of Dougherty County, Georgia, alleging breach of contract breach of contract and negligence in monitoring of certain offenders in Dougherty County, Georgia, as well as a request for punitive damages. The plaintiff withdrew their complaint as of April 11, 2016. Larry C. Duggan v. Court Programs of Florida, Inc. and SecureAlert, Inc. On March 26, 2012, Mr. Duggan filed a complaint in the 9th Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Company and its subsidiary. The case resulted from actions of a former agent of the Company’s subsidiary. The Company continues to defend itself in this matter. The Company has not accrued any potential loss as the probability of incurring a material loss is deemed remote by management, after consultation with outside legal counsel.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2016

We are, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of our business. Historically, the outcome of all such legal proceedings has not, in the aggregate, had a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Other than as set forth below, there are no additional pending or threatened legal proceedings at this time.

Lazar Leybovich et al. v. SecureAlert, Inc. On March 29, 2012, Lazar Leybovich, Dovie Leybovich and Ben Leybovich filed a complaint in the 11th Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida alleging breach of contract with regard to certain Stock Redemption Agreements. The complaint was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiffs. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on November 15, 2012. On May 2, 2016, the Court resolved this case in favor of the Company by granting the Company's motion for summary judgement. The Court's ruling is subject to appeal.

Boggs et al. v. Judicial Electronic Monitoring, SecureAlert, Inc. et al. On March 3, 2015, Candace Boggs et al. filed a complaint in the State Court of Dougherty County, Georgia, alleging breach of contract breach of contract and negligence in monitoring of certain offenders in Dougherty County, Georgia, as well as a request for punitive damages. The plaintiff withdrew their complaint as of April 11, 2016.

Larry C. Duggan v. Court Programs of Florida, Inc. and SecureAlert, Inc. On March 26, 2012, Mr. Duggan filed a complaint in the 9th Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the Company and its subsidiary. The case resulted from actions of a former agent of the Company’s subsidiary. The Company continues to defend itself in this matter. The Company has not accrued any potential loss as the probability of incurring a material loss is deemed remote by management, after consultation with outside legal counsel.