COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation We are a party to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. In accordance with the accounting guidance for contingencies, we reserve for litigation claims and assessments asserted or threatened against us when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Consolidated Shareholder Class Actions As previously reported, on September 11, 2018, Stéphane Gouet filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, Stephen P. Herbert, the then-current Chief Executive Officer, and Priyanka Singh, the then-current Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The class was defined as purchasers of the Company’s securities from November 9, 2017 through September 11, 2018. The complaint alleged that the Company disclosed on September 11, 2018 that it was unable to timely file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 (the “2018 Form 10-K”), and that the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors was in the process of conducting an internal investigation of current and prior period matters relating to certain of the Company’s contractual arrangements, including the accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to such arrangements. The complaint alleged that the defendants disseminated false statements and failed to disclose material facts and engaged in practices that operated as a fraud or deceit upon Gouet and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of the Company’s securities during the proposed class period. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Two additional class action complaints, containing substantially the same factual allegations and legal claims, were filed against the Company, Herbert and Singh in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On September 13, 2018, David Gray filed a putative class action complaint, and on October 3, 2018, Anthony E. Phillips filed a putative class action complaint. Subsequently, multiple shareholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff, and on December 19, 2018, the Court consolidated the three actions, appointed a lead plaintiff (the “Lead Plaintiff”), and appointed lead counsel for the consolidated actions (the “Consolidated Action”). On February 28, 2019, the Court approved a Stipulation agreed to by the parties in the Consolidated Action for the filing of an amended complaint within fourteen days after the Company filed its 2018 Form 10-K. On January 22, 2019, the Company and Herbert filed a motion to transfer the Consolidated Action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 5, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On August 12, 2019, the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System (“UPR”) filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, Herbert, Singh, the Company’s Directors at the relevant time (Steven D. Barnhart, Joel Books, Robert L. Metzger, Albin F. Moschner, William J. Reilly and William J. Schoch) (the “Independent Directors”), and the investment banking firms who acted as underwriters for the May 2018 follow-on public offering of the Company (the “Public Offering”): William Blair & Company; LLC; Craig-Hallum Capital Group, LLC; Northland Securities, Inc.; and Barrington Research Associates, Inc. (the “Underwriters”). The class was defined as purchasers of the Company’s shares pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Public Offering. Plaintiff sought to recover damages caused by Defendants’ alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the “1933 Act”), and specifically Sections 11, 12 and 15 thereof. The complaint generally sought compensatory damages, rescissory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The UPR complaint was consolidated into the Consolidated Action and the UPR docket was closed. On September 30, 2019, the Court granted the motion to transfer and transferred the Consolidated Action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 19-cv-04565. On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted claims under both the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 3, 2020. Before briefing on the motions was completed, the parties participated in a private mediation on February 27, 2020, which ultimately resulted in a settlement. On May 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed documents with the Court seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, with the defendants supporting approval of the settlement. On June 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and issued a scheduling order for further action on the settlement. The settlement provides for a payment of $15.3 million which includes all administrative costs and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company’s insurance carriers paid approximately $12.7 million towards the settlement and the Company paid approximately $2.6 million towards the settlement. The settlement payments were deposited into an escrow account in July 2020. Only one putative class member submitted an objection to the settlement. On October 30, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motion for final settlement approval and granted approval. Under the settlement, payment of plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and expenses may be distributed within three business days of approval (subject to being returned if the settlement is reversed based on any appeal). The deadline for filing an appeal has now passed, so final settlement approval order is no longer at risk of being reversed or revised on appeal and this action is completed. Chester County, Pennsylvania Class Action As previously reported, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the Underwriters, in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ. The complaint alleged violations of the 1933 Act. As also previously reported, on September 20, 2019 the Court granted the defendants’ Petition for Stay and stayed the Chester County action until the Consolidated Action reaches a final disposition. On October 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from the Order granting defendants’ Petition for Stay, Docket No. 3100 EDA 2019. On December 6, 2019, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an Order stating that the Stay Order does not appear to be final or otherwise appealable and directed plaintiff to show cause as to the basis of the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause on December 16, 2019, and the defendants filed an Application to Quash Appeal on December 26, 2019. On February 20, 2020, the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the appeal. This action has remained stayed pending final disposition of the Consolidated Action. The Company expects that this action will be dismissed, but there can be no guarantee as to the outcome. Department of Justice Subpoena As previously reported, in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020, the Company responded to a subpoena received from the U.S. Department of Justice that sought records regarding Company activities that occurred during prior financial reporting periods, including restatements. The Company is cooperating fully with the agency’s queries. Other Shareholder Demand Letters By letter dated October 12, 2018, Peter D’Arcy, a purported shareholder of the Company, demanded that the Board of Directors investigate, remedy and commence proceedings against certain of the Company’s former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties. The letter alleged the officers and directors made false and misleading statements that failed to disclose that the Company’s accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to certain of the Company’s contractual agreements would result in an internal investigation and would delay the Company’s filing of its 2018 Form 10-K, and that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls. By letter dated October 18, 2018, Chiu Jen-Ting, a purported shareholder of the Company, demanded that the Board of Directors investigate, remedy and commence proceedings against certain of the Company’s former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with issues similar to those asserted by Mr. D’Arcy. By letter dated August 2, 2019, Stan Emanuel, a purported shareholder of the Company, demanded that the Board of Directors investigate, remedy and commence proceedings against certain of the Company’s former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with issues similar to those asserted by Mr. D’Arcy. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, the Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee (the “SLC”), currently consisting of Lisa P. Baird, Douglas L. Braunstein and Michael K. Passilla, in order to, among other things, investigate and evaluate the demand letters. The SLC and its counsel are currently investigating the matters raised in these letters. During the second fiscal quarter of 2021, the Company reached a settlement in principle with these shareholders. The settlement consists of a payment of $500,000 in attorney’s fees to the shareholders’ counsel and adoption of various corporate governance reforms. The final settlement documents are being negotiated and, once finalized, the derivative shareholders’ counsel will file a complaint naming each of the former officers and directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. They will then file the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement along with all of the related settlement documents. Assuming the court preliminarily approves the settlement and the proposed form of notice, the Company will have to provide notice of the settlement and final approval hearing to shareholders through publication and filing a Form 8-K with the notice and settlement papers attached and posting the Form 8-K with attachments on its website. The court will provide shareholders an opportunity to submit objections to the settlement and then will hold a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement. There can be no guarantee that the settlement will be approved. We have recognized an accrual for the $500,000 within our consolidated financial statements for the six months ended December 31, 2020. Leases The Company has entered into various operating lease obligations. See Note 3 for additional information.