Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	Note 21 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies In June 2011, the Company was notified that a complaint had been filed against a customer of a Company subsidiary, Penford Products Co. (“Penford Products”), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that certain pet products supplied by Penford Products to the customer by infringed upon a patent owned by T.F.H. Publications, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). The customer tendered the defense of this lawsuit to Penford Products pursuant to the terms of its supply agreement with Penford Products, and Penford Products commenced a defense at that time. In April 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that certain additional products made by Penford Products for the same customer infringed upon two of Plaintiff’s patents. The complaint seeks an injunction against infringement of the Plaintiff’s patents as well as the recovery of certain damages. The court held a claim construction hearing on August 7, 2013 and the Company is awaiting the court’s decision regarding certain disputed patent claim terms. In November 2013 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Penford Products as a defendant in the case. The Company believes that its products do not infringe upon any of Plaintiff’s patents and has continued its defense of the lawsuit. The Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of any outcome or estimate any damages that might be awarded. In late August and early September, 2013, two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Penford Products and Carolina Starches, LLC (“Carolina Starches”), were served with separate complaints filed by Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC, as Litigation Trustee for the NP Creditor Litigation Trust, a successor in interest to the bankruptcy estate of NewPage Corporation, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking damages arising from alleged preferential transfers. The complaint filed against Penford Products seeks the recovery of alleged preferential transfers in the amount of approximately $778,000, together with other damages. The complaint filed against Carolina Starches seeks recovery of alleged preferential transfers of approximately $216,000, together with other damages. Answers to these complaints are not yet due and have not been filed, and no discovery in these matters has yet occurred. The Company believes that it has adequate, well-recognized defenses to these claims; however, the Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of any outcome or estimate any damages that might be awarded. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2013, the Company received $3.4 million in full settlement of certain claims the Company had made against a contractor and its insurer that arose from engineering design work performed in connection with the construction of the Company’s ethanol plant completed in 2008. The Company had alleged breach of contract and negligence by the contractor, and sought recovery of its costs and damages from the contractor and its insurer due to errors and delays in the performance of the work. The settlement amount, net of contingent legal fees, expert fees and other litigation expenses incurred in the matter, of approximately $2.1 million, was reflected as a reduction of the cost of the ethanol plant. Approximately $0.3 million was recorded as a reduction of operating expenses related to the recovery of legal and other costs. The Company sold its Australia/New Zealand Operations in fiscal year 2010. Proceeds from the sale of the Australia/New Zealand Operations included $2.0 million placed in escrow, approximately $1.225 million of which had been distributed to the Company’s subsidiary, Penford Australia Limited (“Penford Australia”) prior to fiscal year 2013. In August 2012, the purchaser of the Company’s Lane Cove, New South Wales, Australia operating assets submitted a statement to an agreed-upon arbitrator in which it indicated that the total value of its warranty claims amounted to approximately $901,000, including certain taxes. During the second quarter of fiscal year 2013, the arbitrator denied most of the purchaser’s warranty claims. As a result of this determination and the terms of the asset sale contract with the purchaser, Penford Australia received all of the remaining escrowed funds during the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. The Company regularly evaluates the status of claims and legal proceedings in which it is involved in order to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. For the matters identified in the first two paragraphs, management is unable to provide additional information regarding any possible loss because (i) the Company currently believes that the claims are not adequately supported, and (ii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. With regard to these matters, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the eventual outcomes will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, although the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. The Company is involved from time to time in various other claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business. The Company expenses legal costs as incurred. In the judgment of management, which relies in part on information obtained from the Company’s outside legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of these other matters will not materially affect the consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.

Note 21 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

In June 2011, the Company was notified that a complaint had been filed against a customer of a Company subsidiary, Penford Products Co. (“Penford Products”), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that certain pet products supplied by Penford Products to the customer by infringed upon a patent owned by T.F.H. Publications, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). The customer tendered the defense of this lawsuit to Penford Products pursuant to the terms of its supply agreement with Penford Products, and Penford Products commenced a defense at that time. In April 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that certain additional products made by Penford Products for the same customer infringed upon two of Plaintiff’s patents. The complaint seeks an injunction against infringement of the Plaintiff’s patents as well as the recovery of certain damages. The court held a claim construction hearing on August 7, 2013 and the Company is awaiting the court’s decision regarding certain disputed patent claim terms. In November 2013 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Penford Products as a defendant in the case. The Company believes that its products do not infringe upon any of Plaintiff’s patents and has continued its defense of the lawsuit. The Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of any outcome or estimate any damages that might be awarded.

In late August and early September, 2013, two of the Company’s subsidiaries, Penford Products and Carolina Starches, LLC (“Carolina Starches”), were served with separate complaints filed by Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC, as Litigation Trustee for the NP Creditor Litigation Trust, a successor in interest to the bankruptcy estate of NewPage Corporation, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking damages arising from alleged preferential transfers. The complaint filed against Penford Products seeks the recovery of alleged preferential transfers in the amount of approximately $778,000, together with other damages. The complaint filed against Carolina Starches seeks recovery of alleged preferential transfers of approximately $216,000, together with other damages. Answers to these complaints are not yet due and have not been filed, and no discovery in these matters has yet occurred. The Company believes that it has adequate, well-recognized defenses to these claims; however, the Company cannot at this time determine the likelihood of any outcome or estimate any damages that might be awarded.

In the third quarter of fiscal year 2013, the Company received $3.4 million in full settlement of certain claims the Company had made against a contractor and its insurer that arose from engineering design work performed in connection with the construction of the Company’s ethanol plant completed in 2008. The Company had alleged breach of contract and negligence by the contractor, and sought recovery of its costs and damages from the contractor and its insurer due to errors and delays in the performance of the work. The settlement amount, net of contingent legal fees, expert fees and other litigation expenses incurred in the matter, of approximately $2.1 million, was reflected as a reduction of the cost of the ethanol plant. Approximately $0.3 million was recorded as a reduction of operating expenses related to the recovery of legal and other costs.

The Company sold its Australia/New Zealand Operations in fiscal year 2010. Proceeds from the sale of the Australia/New Zealand Operations included $2.0 million placed in escrow, approximately $1.225 million of which had been distributed to the Company’s subsidiary, Penford Australia Limited (“Penford Australia”) prior to fiscal year 2013. In August 2012, the purchaser of the Company’s Lane Cove, New South Wales, Australia operating assets submitted a statement to an agreed-upon arbitrator in which it indicated that the total value of its warranty claims amounted to approximately $901,000, including certain taxes. During the second quarter of fiscal year 2013, the arbitrator denied most of the purchaser’s warranty claims. As a result of this determination and the terms of the asset sale contract with the purchaser, Penford Australia received all of the remaining escrowed funds during the second quarter of fiscal year 2013.

The Company regularly evaluates the status of claims and legal proceedings in which it is involved in order to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. For the matters identified in the first two paragraphs, management is unable to provide additional information regarding any possible loss because (i) the Company currently believes that the claims are not adequately supported, and (ii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved. With regard to these matters, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the eventual outcomes will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, although the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

The Company is involved from time to time in various other claims and litigation arising in the normal course of business. The Company expenses legal costs as incurred. In the judgment of management, which relies in part on information obtained from the Company’s outside legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of these other matters will not materially affect the consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity of the Company.