COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase and Supply Commitments In January 2011, Irgovel entered into a commitment to supply $0.4 million of rice oil each month from April 2011 to December 2011 to an existing customer. The commitment represents approximately 50% of Irgovel's current rice oil production capacity. As of June 30, 2011, Irgovel has outstanding equipment purchase commitments totaling approximately $2.2 million. The equipment is part of a capital project to expand production capacity and improve operational efficiency. We expect to pay for this equipment through the first quarter of 2012. Litigation In addition to the matters discussed below, from time to time we are involved in litigation incidental to the conduct of our business. When applicable, we record accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While the outcome of lawsuits and other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management, individually or in the aggregate, no such lawsuits are expected to have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations. Defense costs are expensed as incurred and are included in professional fees. Irgovel Stockholders Lawsuit On August 28, 2008, former Irgovel stockholder David Resyng filed an indemnification suit against Irgovel, Osmar Brito and the remaining Irgovel stockholders (Sellers), requesting: (i) the freezing of the escrow account maintained in connection with the transfer of Irgovel's corporate control to us and the presentation of all documentation related to the transaction, and (ii) damages in the amount of the difference between (a) the sum received by David Resyng in connection with the judicial settlement agreement executed in the action for the partial dissolution of the limited liability company filed by David Resyng against Irgovel and the Sellers and (b) the amount received by the Sellers in connection with the sale of Irgovel's corporate control to us, in addition to moral damages as determined in the court's discretion. The amount of damage claimed by Mr. Resyng is approximately $3 million. We believe that the filing of the above lawsuit is a fundamental default of the obligations undertaken by the Sellers under the Quotas Purchase Agreement for the transfer of Irgovel's corporate control, executed by and among the Sellers and us on January 31, 2008 (Purchase Agreement). Consequently, we believe that the responsibility for any indemnity, costs and expenses incurred or that may come to be incurred by Irgovel and/or us in connection with the above lawsuit is the sole responsibility of the Sellers. On February 6, 2009, the Sellers filed a collection lawsuit against us seeking payment of the second installment of the purchase price under the Purchase Agreement, which the Sellers allege is approximately $1 million. We have withheld payment of the second installment pending resolution of the Resyng lawsuit noted above. The Parent Company has not been served with any formal notices in regard to this matter so far. To date, only Irgovel has received formal legal notice. In addition, the Purchase Agreement requires that all disputes between us and the Sellers be adjudicated through arbitration. As part of the Purchase Agreement, $2.0 million was deposited into an escrow account to cover contingencies with the net remaining funds payable to the Sellers upon resolution of all contingencies. We believe any payout due to the lawsuit will be made out of the escrow account. As of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the balance in the escrow account was $1.9 million and is included in restricted cash in the consolidated balance sheets. There is an offsetting liability in accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. We believe that there is no additional material exposure as any amounts determined to be owed as a result of the above noted litigation and contingencies will be covered by the escrow account. SEC Enforcement Investigation We received a letter from the SEC in January 2009 indicating that it had opened an informal inquiry, and we subsequently received an informal request for the production of documents in February 2009 relating to a number of 2007 transactions. In March 2009, we received a formal order of private investigation from the SEC. In June 2009, we received a subpoena for the production of documents that largely tracked the SEC's earlier requests. We responded to these requests for documents and based on findings related to the internal review and the SEC's requests, we restated our financial statements for 2006, 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008. On January 13, 2011, the SEC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that we violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78m(a), 78m(b)(2)(A), and 78m(b)(2)(B), and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1, and 240.13a-13 (the SEC Action). We have settled these allegations with the SEC, without admitting or denying them, and have consented to the entry of a final judgment of permanent injunction (Consent Judgment), which, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins us from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78m(a), 78m(b)(2)(A), and 78m(b)(2)(B), and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1, and 240.13a-13. The final Consent Judgment was entered in the SEC action on February 14, 2011. No financial penalty was assessed by the SEC against us. Farmers' Rice Milling Farmers' Rice Milling (FRM) contended that we defaulted by failing to pay rentals due under two leases between the parties: (i) the March 15, 2007, ground lease, as amended on November 1, 2008, and (ii) the April 15, 2007, warehouse lease. FRM filed suit against us to terminate the leases and recover damages thereunder. This suit was filed in the 14th Judicial District Court on June 24, 2009, and was timely removed to the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles division. We filed an answer and counterclaim and deposited into the registry of the court $0.1 million constituting the rentals due under the leases, a late fee due under the warehouse lease plus accrued interest. As part of the Chapter 11 Reorganization, the leases were assumed under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Arrearages due under the leases were paid in January 2011 and the lawsuit was dismissed. FRM also asserted a claim for monetary damages for breach of a supply agreement, but that claim was dismissed from the lawsuit and allowed as a general unsecured claim in the Chapter 11 Reorganization.

NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase and Supply Commitments

In January 2011, Irgovel entered into a commitment to supply $0.4 million of rice oil each month from April 2011 to December 2011 to an existing customer. The commitment represents approximately 50% of Irgovel's current rice oil production capacity.

As of June 30, 2011, Irgovel has outstanding equipment purchase commitments totaling approximately $2.2 million. The equipment is part of a capital project to expand production capacity and improve operational efficiency. We expect to pay for this equipment through the first quarter of 2012.

Litigation

In addition to the matters discussed below, from time to time we are involved in litigation incidental to the conduct of our business. When applicable, we record accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While the outcome of lawsuits and other proceedings against us cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management, individually or in the aggregate, no such lawsuits are expected to have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations. Defense costs are expensed as incurred and are included in professional fees.

Irgovel Stockholders Lawsuit

On August 28, 2008, former Irgovel stockholder David Resyng filed an indemnification suit against Irgovel, Osmar Brito and the remaining Irgovel stockholders (Sellers), requesting: (i) the freezing of the escrow account maintained in connection with the transfer of Irgovel's corporate control to us and the presentation of all documentation related to the transaction, and (ii) damages in the amount of the difference between (a) the sum received by David Resyng in connection with the judicial settlement agreement executed in the action for the partial dissolution of the limited liability company filed by David Resyng against Irgovel and the Sellers and (b) the amount received by the Sellers in connection with the sale of Irgovel's corporate control to us, in addition to moral damages as determined in the court's discretion. The amount of damage claimed by Mr. Resyng is approximately $3 million.

We believe that the filing of the above lawsuit is a fundamental default of the obligations undertaken by the Sellers under the Quotas Purchase Agreement for the transfer of Irgovel's corporate control, executed by and among the Sellers and us on January 31, 2008 (Purchase Agreement). Consequently, we believe that the responsibility for any indemnity, costs and expenses incurred or that may come to be incurred by Irgovel and/or us in connection with the above lawsuit is the sole responsibility of the Sellers.

On February 6, 2009, the Sellers filed a collection lawsuit against us seeking payment of the second installment of the purchase price under the Purchase Agreement, which the Sellers allege is approximately $1 million. We have withheld payment of the second installment pending resolution of the Resyng lawsuit noted above. The Parent Company has not been served with any formal notices in regard to this matter so far. To date, only Irgovel has received formal legal notice. In addition, the Purchase Agreement requires that all disputes between us and the Sellers be adjudicated through arbitration. As part of the Purchase Agreement, $2.0 million was deposited into an escrow account to cover contingencies with the net remaining funds payable to the Sellers upon resolution of all contingencies. We believe any payout due to the lawsuit will be made out of the escrow account. As of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the balance in the escrow account was $1.9 million and is included in restricted cash in the consolidated balance sheets. There is an offsetting liability in accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. We believe that there is no additional material exposure as any amounts determined to be owed as a result of the above noted litigation and contingencies will be covered by the escrow account.

SEC Enforcement Investigation

We received a letter from the SEC in January 2009 indicating that it had opened an informal inquiry, and we subsequently received an informal request for the production of documents in February 2009 relating to a number of 2007 transactions. In March 2009, we received a formal order of private investigation from the SEC. In June 2009, we received a subpoena for the production of documents that largely tracked the SEC's earlier requests. We responded to these requests for documents and based on findings related to the internal review and the SEC's requests, we restated our financial statements for 2006, 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008.

On January 13, 2011, the SEC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that we violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78m(a), 78m(b)(2)(A), and 78m(b)(2)(B), and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1, and 240.13a-13 (the SEC Action). We have settled these allegations with the SEC, without admitting or denying them, and have consented to the entry of a final judgment of permanent injunction (Consent Judgment), which, among other things, permanently restrains and enjoins us from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78m(a), 78m(b)(2)(A), and 78m(b)(2)(B), and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5, 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1, and 240.13a-13. The final Consent Judgment was entered in the SEC action on February 14, 2011. No financial penalty was assessed by the SEC against us.

Farmers' Rice Milling

Farmers' Rice Milling (FRM) contended that we defaulted by failing to pay rentals due under two leases between the parties: (i) the March 15, 2007, ground lease, as amended on November 1, 2008, and (ii) the April 15, 2007, warehouse lease. FRM filed suit against us to terminate the leases and recover damages thereunder. This suit was filed in the 14th Judicial District Court on June 24, 2009, and was timely removed to the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles division. We filed an answer and counterclaim and deposited into the registry of the court $0.1 million constituting the rentals due under the leases, a late fee due under the warehouse lease plus accrued interest. As part of the Chapter 11 Reorganization, the leases were assumed under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Arrearages due under the leases were paid in January 2011 and the lawsuit was dismissed. FRM also asserted a claim for monetary damages for breach of a supply agreement, but that claim was dismissed from the lawsuit and allowed as a general unsecured claim in the Chapter 11 Reorganization.