Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D.D.C. 2014). On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the ‘‘District Court’’) against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company’s growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its stock price, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec and the Newport News Employees’ Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting officer as a defendant. On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Only the claims related to the alleged misrepresentation regarding the Company’s retail division were not dismissed. On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ class certification motion was fully briefed as of May 16, 2017. The scheduling order in this action requires that fact discovery be completed by November 30, 2017, and that expert discovery be completed by May 23, 2018. The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. In re Liquidity Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civ. No. 2017-0080-JTL (Del. Ch.). On February 2, 2017, plaintiff David Girardi filed a putative derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”), and on February 7, 2017, plaintiff Harold Slingerland filed a putative derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery. On March 9, 2017, plaintiffs Girardi and Slingerland filed a consolidated putative derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company’s CEO and CFO, as well as certain other individuals who served on the Company’s Board of Directors between 2012 and 2014, and seeks to recover from those individuals, not the Company. The complaint asserts that, among other things, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by causing or allowing the Company to make the same misstatements that are alleged in the amended complaint in the Howard action, and for alleged trading in the Company’s securities while in possession of material non-public information. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which is now fully briefed. The Company believes the allegations in the consolidated complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time.

Legal Proceedings

Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D.D.C. 2014).

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the ‘‘District Court’’) against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company’s growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its stock price, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec and the Newport News Employees’ Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting officer as a defendant. On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Only the claims related to the alleged misrepresentation regarding the Company’s retail division were not dismissed. On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ class certification motion was fully briefed as of May 16, 2017. The scheduling order in this action requires that fact discovery be completed by November 30, 2017, and that expert discovery be completed by May 23, 2018.

The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time.

In re Liquidity Services, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civ. No. 2017-0080-JTL (Del. Ch.).

On February 2, 2017, plaintiff David Girardi filed a putative derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”), and on February 7, 2017, plaintiff Harold Slingerland filed a putative derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery. On March 9, 2017, plaintiffs Girardi and Slingerland filed a consolidated putative derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, purportedly on the Company’s behalf. The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company’s CEO and CFO, as well as certain other individuals who served on the Company’s Board of Directors between 2012 and 2014, and seeks to recover from those individuals, not the Company. The complaint asserts that, among other things, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by causing or allowing the Company to make the same misstatements that are alleged in the amended complaint in the Howard action, and for alleged trading in the Company’s securities while in possession of material non-public information. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss which is now fully briefed.

The Company believes the allegations in the consolidated complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time.