Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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. 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 accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded, it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying unaudited interim 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. The total amount financed under the floor financing programs with repurchase obligations was $355,785 and $183,953 as of December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, respectively. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. During the three and six months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, there were no repurchases and as of December 31, 2022, the Company has not been notified about any probable repossessions. Therefore, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of December 31, 2022 consistent with June 30, 2022. The Company has collateralized receivables financing arrangements with a third-party floor plan financing provider for European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's unaudited interim condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the Company had no financing receivables recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements. Contingencies Product Liability The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers. The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company's products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 8 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and except as disclosed below, believes there are no product liability claims as of December 31, 2022 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Litigation 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. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. 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, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) as of December 31, 2022 that would have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Legal Proceedings Batchelder Matters The Company and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC are defendants in the product liability case Batchelder et al. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, f/k/a Malibu Boats, Inc.; Malibu Boats West, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia, Civil Action Case No. 2016-CV-0114-C (the "Batchelder I Matter"), brought by, among others, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased (“Batchelder I Plaintiffs”). The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also sued the manufacturer of the boat at issue in the case, Malibu Boats West, Inc. (“West”). West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of the Company but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by Boats LLC in 2006. The case involves a personal injury accident in 2014 involving a 2000 model year boat that was manufactured by West. On August 28, 2021, the jury rejected the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ design defect claims and found that the driver of the boat was 75% at fault for the accident. Notwithstanding those findings, the jury found that Boats LLC and West negligently failed to warn of a hazard posed by the boat and that such failure was a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. The jury also found that Boats LLC is a legal successor of, and responsible for the liabilities of, West. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $80,000 and apportioned 15% of such damages to Boats LLC and 10% of such damages to West. In addition, the jury awarded $80,000 of punitive damages against Boats LLC and $40,000 of punitive damages against West. Based on the jury’s finding of successor liability, the trial court entered judgment for the full amount of the verdict against Boats LLC, with a potential maximum liability to Boats LLC of $140,000, plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 6.25% per annum. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also filed motions, after the judgment, seeking orders requiring Boats LLC to pay pre-judgment interest and a portion of their attorney fees. They claimed they are owed attorneys' fees of approximately $56,000. The Company opposed both motions, arguing that the Batchelder I Plaintiffs have no right either to pre-judgment interest or to reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees, and in the alternative that the amount of attorneys’ fees sought was unreasonable. The trial court denied the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and held that ruling on the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees would be premature, indicating that it would decide whether the Batchelder I Plaintiffs have the right to attorneys’ fees, and if so what amount is reasonable, if still necessary upon the resolution of the Company’s post-trial motions and any related appeals. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs have appealed the trial court’s order denying their motion for prejudgment interest, which amount totals approximately $8,000. On July 17, 2022, the trial court denied Boats LLC’s post-trial motions. Boats LLC has since filed a notice of appeal. Pending resolution of the appeals process, the payment of any damages in this matter is stayed. Based on the current status of the process, the Company believes a loss is reasonably possible and that the potential range of loss could be from $0 to $140,000, plus post-judgment interest at 6.25% per annum. The Company may also be required to pay prejudgment interest of approximately $8,000, if the Batchelder I Plaintiffs are successful on their appeal for such interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the Batchelder I Plaintiffs, which the Batchelder I Plaintiffs claim should be approximately $56,000. As noted above, the trial court postponed any ruling on the Batchelder I Plaintiffs' contested motion for attorneys' fees pending the resolution of the Company's post-trial motions and any related appeals. The Company and Boats LLC maintain product liability insurance applicable to this case with coverage limits of $26,000. At least one insurer has asserted potential coverage defenses and may dispute the scope of its obligation to the Company and Boats LLC. In addition, the Company and Boats LLC have potential claims against the insurers that they may decide to pursue with respect to this matter, but the Company cannot provide any assurance that it will pursue those claims or be successful if it does. The Company did not carry a reserve for loss as of December 31, 2022. The Company is also a defendant in a related product liability case, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder, as Natural Guardians of Josh Patrick Batchelder, a minor; Darin Batchelder, individually, and as Natural Guardian of Zach Batchelder, a minor; and Kayla Batchelder (the “Batchelder II Plaintiffs”) v. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Dennis Michael Ficarra; State Court of Rabun County, Civil Action File No. 2022-CV-0034. The complaint was filed on February 9, 2022 as a purported renewal of earlier claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs that were dismissed without prejudice. The case involves claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs of their own alleged bodily injury and emotional distress stemming from the same accident involving the alleged swamping of the boat manufactured and sold by West that is the subject of the Batchelder I Matter. As noted above, West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of the Company but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by the Company in 2006. Four Batchelder II Plaintiffs (including three children) seek damages for personal injury and punitive damages, alleging that the accident was caused by a design defect and a failure to warn. The Batchelder II Plaintiffs were all dismissed without prejudice from the Batchelder I Matter shortly before the trial for the Batchelder I Matter, however, and thus the new complaint is a renewal action of the original complaint. The Company believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded and denies that there was a design defect or a duty to warn, that the Batchelder II Plaintiffs suffered the alleged injuries, or that any defect in the boat or failure to warn was a legal cause of the alleged injuries. The Company also contends that the incident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the boat and has filed a Third-Party Complaint against the driver, Dennis Ficarra, based on his negligence. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.

In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions. 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 accordingly. When a potential loss reserve is recorded, it is presented in accrued liabilities in the accompanying unaudited interim 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. The total amount financed under the floor financing programs with repurchase obligations was $355,785 and $183,953 as of December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, respectively.

Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. During the three and six months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, there were no repurchases and as of December 31, 2022, the Company has not been notified about any probable repossessions. Therefore, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of December 31, 2022 consistent with June 30, 2022.

European dealers. Under terms of these arrangements, the Company transfers the right to collect a trade receivable to the financing provider in exchange for cash but agrees to repurchase the receivable if the dealer defaults. Since the transfer of the receivable to the financing provider does not meet the conditions for a sale under ASC Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, the Company continues to report the transferred trade receivable in other current assets with an offsetting balance recorded as a secured obligation in accrued expenses in the Company's unaudited interim condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the Company had no financing receivables recorded in other current assets and accrued expenses related to these arrangements.

The Company is engaged in a business that exposes it to claims for product liability and warranty claims in the event the Company’s products actually or allegedly fail to perform as expected or the use of the Company’s products results, or is alleged to result, in property damage, personal injury or death. Although the Company maintains product and general liability insurance of the types and in the amounts that the Company believes are customary for the industry, the Company is not fully insured against all such potential claims. The Company may have the ability to refer claims to its suppliers and their insurers to pay the costs associated with any claims arising from the suppliers’ products. The Company’s insurance covers such claims that are not adequately covered by a supplier’s insurance and provides for excess secondary coverage above the limits provided by the Company’s suppliers.

The Company may experience legal claims in excess of its insurance coverage or claims that are not covered by insurance, either of which could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations. Adverse determination of material product liability and warranty claims made against the Company could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and harm its reputation. In addition, if any of the Company's products are, or are alleged to be, defective, the Company may be required to participate in a recall of that product if the defect or alleged defect relates to safety. These and other claims that the Company faces could be costly to the Company and require substantial management attention. Refer to Note 8 for discussion of warranty claims. The Company insures against product liability claims and except as disclosed below, believes there are no product liability claims as of December 31, 2022 that will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

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. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. 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, management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) as of December 31, 2022 that would have a material adverse impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company and its indirect subsidiary Boats LLC are defendants in the product liability case Batchelder et al. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, f/k/a Malibu Boats, Inc.; Malibu Boats West, Inc., et. al., Superior Court of Rabun County, Georgia, Civil Action Case No. 2016-CV-0114-C (the "Batchelder I Matter"), brought by, among others, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Paul Batchelder, deceased (“Batchelder I Plaintiffs”). The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also sued the manufacturer of the boat at issue in the case, Malibu Boats West, Inc. (“West”). West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of the Company but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by Boats LLC in 2006. The case involves a personal injury accident in 2014 involving a 2000 model year boat that was manufactured by West. On August 28, 2021, the jury rejected the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ design defect claims and found that the driver of the boat was 75% at fault for the accident. Notwithstanding those findings, the jury found that Boats LLC and West negligently failed to

warn of a hazard posed by the boat and that such failure was a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. The jury also found that Boats LLC is a legal successor of, and responsible for the liabilities of, West. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $80,000 and apportioned 15% of such damages to Boats LLC and 10% of such damages to West. In addition, the jury awarded $80,000 of punitive damages against Boats LLC and $40,000 of punitive damages against West. Based on the jury’s finding of successor liability, the trial court entered judgment for the full amount of the verdict against Boats LLC, with a potential maximum liability to Boats LLC of $140,000, plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 6.25% per annum.

The Batchelder I Plaintiffs also filed motions, after the judgment, seeking orders requiring Boats LLC to pay pre-judgment interest and a portion of their attorney fees. They claimed they are owed attorneys' fees of approximately $56,000. The Company opposed both motions, arguing that the Batchelder I Plaintiffs have no right either to pre-judgment interest or to reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees, and in the alternative that the amount of attorneys’ fees sought was unreasonable. The trial court denied the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for prejudgment interest and held that ruling on the Batchelder I Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees would be premature, indicating that it would decide whether the Batchelder I Plaintiffs have the right to attorneys’ fees, and if so what amount is reasonable, if still necessary upon the resolution of the Company’s post-trial motions and any related appeals. The Batchelder I Plaintiffs have appealed the trial court’s order denying their motion for prejudgment interest, which amount totals approximately $8,000.

On July 17, 2022, the trial court denied Boats LLC’s post-trial motions. Boats LLC has since filed a notice of appeal. Pending resolution of the appeals process, the payment of any damages in this matter is stayed. Based on the current status of the process, the Company believes a loss is reasonably possible and that the potential range of loss could be from $0 to $140,000, plus post-judgment interest at 6.25% per annum. The Company may also be required to pay prejudgment interest of approximately $8,000, if the Batchelder I Plaintiffs are successful on their appeal for such interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the Batchelder I Plaintiffs, which the Batchelder I Plaintiffs claim should be approximately $56,000. As noted above, the trial court postponed any ruling on the Batchelder I Plaintiffs' contested motion for attorneys' fees pending the resolution of the Company's post-trial motions and any related appeals. The Company and Boats LLC maintain product liability insurance applicable to this case with coverage limits of $26,000. At least one insurer has asserted potential coverage defenses and may dispute the scope of its obligation to the Company and Boats LLC. In addition, the Company and Boats LLC have potential claims against the insurers that they may decide to pursue with respect to this matter, but the Company cannot provide any assurance that it will pursue those claims or be successful if it does. The Company did not carry a reserve for loss as of December 31, 2022.

The Company is also a defendant in a related product liability case, Stephan Paul Batchelder and Margaret Mary Batchelder, as Natural Guardians of Josh Patrick Batchelder, a minor; Darin Batchelder, individually, and as Natural Guardian of Zach Batchelder, a minor; and Kayla Batchelder (the “Batchelder II Plaintiffs”) v. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Dennis Michael Ficarra; State Court of Rabun County, Civil Action File No. 2022-CV-0034. The complaint was filed on February 9, 2022 as a purported renewal of earlier claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs that were dismissed without prejudice. The case involves claims by the Batchelder II Plaintiffs of their own alleged bodily injury and emotional distress stemming from the same accident involving the alleged swamping of the boat manufactured and sold by West that is the subject of the Batchelder I Matter. As noted above, West is not, and has never been, a subsidiary of the Company but was a separate legal entity whose assets were purchased by the Company in 2006. Four Batchelder II Plaintiffs (including three children) seek damages for personal injury and punitive damages, alleging that the accident was caused by a design defect and a failure to warn. The Batchelder II Plaintiffs were all dismissed without prejudice from the Batchelder I Matter shortly before the trial for the Batchelder I Matter, however, and thus the new complaint is a renewal action of the original complaint. The Company believes that the allegations in this case are unfounded and denies that there was a design defect or a duty to warn, that the Batchelder II Plaintiffs suffered the alleged injuries, or that any defect in the boat or failure to warn was a legal cause of the alleged injuries. The Company also contends that the incident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the boat and has filed a Third-Party Complaint against the driver, Dennis Ficarra, based on his negligence. The Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss.