LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
LITIGATION [Abstract]
LITIGATION	NOTE 13: LITIGATION Employment Litigation Natalie Clark v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-13-05038, 192^nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas On May 10, 2013, the Company was served notice of a lawsuit filed by Ms. Natalie Clark, a former executive with the Company, in the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas (the “Court”) alleging discrimination and harassment based on gender. Ms. Clark alleged that she was stripped of her duties and wrongfully discharged as part of an alleged “purge of females in key positions” within the Company. Ms. Clark sought damages in excess of $1,000,000. The Court issued a standard mediation order; mediation was conducted on May 14, 2014. The parties reached a settlement of the dispute at mediation, and on June 11, 2014 the Company executed a Settlement Agreement with Ms. Clark, the terms of which are confidential. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing by the Company, but is merely a good faith settlement of disputed and unresolved claims. The Company specifically denies and disclaims any liability to Ms. Clark and contends that her claims were without merit. On June 20, 2014, the Court issued an Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Company considers this matter closed. Patent Litigation Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-2497, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division On July 11, 2014 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wellness Quest, LLC and Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,157,431 and 7,202,220, both entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements,” (the “Patents”) and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. On July 16, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from infringing the Patents pending a final decision on the merits. On August 29, 2014, the Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support along with their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite Discovery. On December 15, 2014, the Company deposed Dr. Reginald McDaniel. Each party has submitted its list of claim constructions/definitions and a list of the supporting authority. Each party has filed its opening brief and their respective responsive briefs. Defendants have designated an expert and the Company deposed the expert on January 27, 2015 regarding his claim construction opinions while reserving the right to examine him later regarding other matters. The parties remain engaged in the claim construction process. Mediation on this matter is scheduled for April 24, 2015. This lawsuit continues the Company’s enforcement of its patent rights, and the Company intends to vigorously prosecute this matter. Based on the previous successful patent infringement lawsuits against Country Life, LLC, Glycobiotics International, Inc., Techmedica Health, Inc., IonX Holdings, Inc., Boston Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Green Life, LLC, and Xiong Lo, the Company believes there is a strong likelihood that it will obtain permanent injunctions against the manufacture and sale of any infringing products for the duration of the Company’s patents. This matter remains open. Breach of Contract Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-15-01904, ___ Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas On February 18, 2015 Ms. Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Mannatech alleging breach of contract pertaining to a portion of proceeds from a Mannatech Associate position once held by Ms. Anselmo’s former husband, Ray Gebauer. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 and a declaration that the Company continue to pay Plaintiffs proceeds from Mr. Gebauer’s former account. To date, Mannatech has not been formally served with notice of this lawsuit. The Company has retained counsel and the Company's answer is due on March 23, 2015. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter will remain open until it is resolved. Administrative Proceedings On July 11, 2013, the Company was issued an assessment notice from the Busan Custom Office in Korea resulting from an audit covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Other expense for the year ended December 31, 2013 includes $1.0 million for this assessment, $0.2 million of which was accrued as of December 31, 2013 and paid in January 2014. There are other ongoing audits in various international jurisdictions that the Company does not expect will have a material effect on our financial statements. Litigation in General The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred or as they become determinable. The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.

NOTE 13: LITIGATION

Employment Litigation

Natalie Clark v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-13-05038, 192^nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

On May 10, 2013, the Company was served notice of a lawsuit filed by Ms. Natalie Clark, a former executive with the Company, in the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas (the “Court”) alleging discrimination and harassment based on gender. Ms. Clark alleged that she was stripped of her duties and wrongfully discharged as part of an alleged “purge of females in key positions” within the Company. Ms. Clark sought damages in excess of $1,000,000. The Court issued a standard mediation order; mediation was conducted on May 14, 2014. The parties reached a settlement of the dispute at mediation, and on June 11, 2014 the Company executed a Settlement Agreement with Ms. Clark, the terms of which are confidential. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing by the Company, but is merely a good faith settlement of disputed and unresolved claims. The Company specifically denies and disclaims any liability to Ms. Clark and contends that her claims were without merit. On June 20, 2014, the Court issued an Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Company considers this matter closed.

Patent Litigation

Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-2497, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

On July 11, 2014 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wellness Quest, LLC and Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,157,431 and 7,202,220, both entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements,” (the “Patents”) and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. On July 16, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from infringing the Patents pending a final decision on the merits. On August 29, 2014, the Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support along with their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite Discovery. On December 15, 2014, the Company deposed Dr. Reginald McDaniel. Each party has submitted its list of claim constructions/definitions and a list of the supporting authority. Each party has filed its opening brief and their respective responsive briefs. Defendants have designated an expert and the Company deposed the expert on January 27, 2015 regarding his claim construction opinions while reserving the right to examine him later regarding other matters. The parties remain engaged in the claim construction process. Mediation on this matter is scheduled for April 24, 2015.

This lawsuit continues the Company’s enforcement of its patent rights, and the Company intends to vigorously prosecute this matter. Based on the previous successful patent infringement lawsuits against Country Life, LLC, Glycobiotics International, Inc., Techmedica Health, Inc., IonX Holdings, Inc., Boston Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Green Life, LLC, and Xiong Lo, the Company believes there is a strong likelihood that it will obtain permanent injunctions against the manufacture and sale of any infringing products for the duration of the Company’s patents. This matter remains open.

Breach of Contract

Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-15-01904, ___ Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

On February 18, 2015 Ms. Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Mannatech alleging breach of contract pertaining to a portion of proceeds from a Mannatech Associate position once held by Ms. Anselmo’s former husband, Ray Gebauer. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 and a declaration that the Company continue to pay Plaintiffs proceeds from Mr. Gebauer’s former account. To date, Mannatech has not been formally served with notice of this lawsuit.

The Company has retained counsel and the Company's answer is due on March 23, 2015. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter will remain open until it is resolved.

Administrative Proceedings

On July 11, 2013, the Company was issued an assessment notice from the Busan Custom Office in Korea resulting from an audit covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Other expense for the year ended December 31, 2013 includes $1.0 million for this assessment, $0.2 million of which was accrued as of December 31, 2013 and paid in January 2014.

There are other ongoing audits in various international jurisdictions that the Company does not expect will have a material effect on our financial statements.

Litigation in General

The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred or as they become determinable.

The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.