12. Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings.	12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS As previously disclosed, in May 2010 we voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) certain likely or potential violations of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors (Audit Committee) assumed direct responsibility for reviewing these matters and hired experienced independent counsel to conduct an investigation and provide legal advice. The SEC and DOJ each commenced its own investigation. During and following the completion of the Audit Committee’s investigation, we provided information to the DOJ and SEC and cooperated with their investigations. Effective November 3, 2014, we entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the DOJ and consented to the entry of an Order by the SEC (SEC Order), which actions resolve both the DOJ and the SEC investigations. The NPA concerns violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions related to Russia during 2005-2010. Pursuant to the NPA, we agreed to pay a penalty of $14.4 million and to certain compliance, reporting and cooperation obligations, and the DOJ agreed that it will not criminally prosecute us for any crimes related to conduct disclosed to the DOJ, provided that we perform our obligations under the NPA for two years. The SEC Order concerns violations of the FCPA’s books and records, internal controls, and anti-bribery provisions related to Russia, and violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions related to Vietnam and certain of our Thailand operations during 2005-2010. Pursuant to the SEC Order, we will pay $40.7 million in disgorgement and interest, make certain reports to the SEC on our anti-corruption compliance and remediation efforts over the next two years, and cease and desist any violations of the FCPA. In the NPA and the SEC Order, the DOJ and the SEC, respectively, took into account our initial voluntary self-disclosure of the potential FCPA violations, our own extensive investigation and cooperation with their investigations and our extensive and significant remediation efforts to date. Neither the NPA nor the SEC Order requires the appointment of an independent external monitor to oversee our activities or our compliance with applicable laws. As a result of the settlements with the DOJ and the SEC, we recorded an aggregate accrual as of September 30, 2014 of $55.1 million, which includes $5.6 million of accrued interest and an additional $12.1 million that we accrued during the third quarter of 2014. We will pay the aggregate settlement amounts in the fourth quarter of 2014. On April 13, 2011, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against each of our directors in the Superior Court for Contra Costa County, California. The case, which also names the Company as a nominal defendant, is captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees' Retirement System v. David Schwartz, et al., Case No. MSC11-00854. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), and a declaration that our directors have breached their fiduciary duties. We and the individual defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case, as well as a motion to stay this matter pending resolution of the above-referenced investigations by the DOJ and SEC. Following a hearing on September 30, 2011, the court sustained our demurrer and dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, and granted the plaintiff additional time to file an amended complaint. The court denied our motion to stay this matter because it dismissed the complaint. The parties have agreed to a stipulated dismissal of this case, without prejudice, and to a tolling of the statute of limitations pending the resolution of the DOJ and SEC investigations, which has now occurred. In May of 2014, the General Inspection Team of the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce (the “Shanghai AIC”), which is the local counterpart of China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce, commenced an investigation of certain of our business practices in China. Specifically, the Shanghai AIC was investigating whether certain of our selling arrangements may have violated China’s Anti-Unfair-Competition Law and other relevant laws and regulations. The investigation was concluded in September of 2014. As a result of the investigation, our selling subsidiary in China was subject to an administrative penalty and disgorgement of profits of $0.3 million for providing free products pursuant to contractual obligations with customers during years 2012 and 2013, which was deemed to be in violation of the Anti-Unfair-Competition Law. We had discontinued this practice in China in 2013, prior to the commencement of the Shanghai AIC investigation in May 2014. In addition, China’s Bureau of Market Supervision and Administration, through its local counterpart in Pudong New District, Shanghai (“Bureau”) has begun a review of our importation practices with respect to certain of our products. At this time, we cannot predict whether the review will culminate into a formal investigation. We are cooperating with the Bureau’s review. This authority has the power to impose fines, penalties, seek disgorgement of profits and cause us to modify our business practices in China. However, the review has not concluded and therefore, we are not in a position to assess whether it will affect our business or operating results in China. In addition, we are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe, at this time, that any ultimate liability resulting from any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, we cannot give any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these other matters and their resolution could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending on the level of income for the period.

12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

As previously disclosed, in May 2010 we voluntarily disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) certain likely or potential violations of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors (Audit Committee) assumed direct responsibility for reviewing these matters and hired experienced independent counsel to conduct an investigation and provide legal advice. The SEC and DOJ each commenced its own investigation. During and following the completion of the Audit Committee’s investigation, we provided information to the DOJ and SEC and cooperated with their investigations.

Effective November 3, 2014, we entered into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the DOJ and consented to the entry of an Order by the SEC (SEC Order), which actions resolve both the DOJ and the SEC investigations. The NPA concerns violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions related to Russia during 2005-2010. Pursuant to the NPA, we agreed to pay a penalty of $14.4 million and to certain compliance, reporting and cooperation obligations, and the DOJ agreed that it will not criminally prosecute us for any crimes related to conduct disclosed to the DOJ, provided that we perform our obligations under the NPA for two years.

The SEC Order concerns violations of the FCPA’s books and records, internal controls, and anti-bribery provisions related to Russia, and violations of the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions related to Vietnam and certain of our Thailand operations during 2005-2010. Pursuant to the SEC Order, we will pay $40.7 million in disgorgement and interest, make certain reports to the SEC on our anti-corruption compliance and remediation efforts over the next two years, and cease and desist any violations of the FCPA.

In the NPA and the SEC Order, the DOJ and the SEC, respectively, took into account our initial voluntary self-disclosure of the potential FCPA violations, our own extensive investigation and cooperation with their investigations and our extensive and significant remediation efforts to date. Neither the NPA nor the SEC Order requires the appointment of an independent external monitor to oversee our activities or our compliance with applicable laws.

As a result of the settlements with the DOJ and the SEC, we recorded an aggregate accrual as of September 30, 2014 of $55.1 million, which includes $5.6 million of accrued interest and an additional $12.1 million that we accrued during the third quarter of 2014. We will pay the aggregate settlement amounts in the fourth quarter of 2014.

On April 13, 2011, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against each of our directors in the Superior Court for Contra Costa County, California. The case, which also names the Company as a nominal defendant, is captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees' Retirement System v. David Schwartz, et al., Case No. MSC11-00854. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), and a declaration that our directors have breached their fiduciary duties. We and the individual defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case, as well as a motion to stay this matter pending resolution of the above-referenced investigations by the DOJ and SEC. Following a hearing on September 30, 2011, the court sustained our demurrer and dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, and granted the plaintiff additional time to file an amended complaint. The court denied our motion to stay this matter because it dismissed the complaint. The parties have agreed to a stipulated dismissal of this case, without prejudice, and to a tolling of the statute of limitations pending the resolution of the DOJ and SEC investigations, which has now occurred.

In May of 2014, the General Inspection Team of the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce (the “Shanghai AIC”), which is the local counterpart of China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce, commenced an investigation of certain of our business practices in China. Specifically, the Shanghai AIC was investigating whether certain of our selling arrangements may have violated China’s Anti-Unfair-Competition Law and other relevant laws and regulations. The investigation was concluded in September of 2014. As a result of the investigation, our selling subsidiary in China was subject to an administrative penalty and disgorgement of profits of $0.3 million for providing free products pursuant to contractual obligations with customers during years 2012 and 2013, which was deemed to be in violation of the Anti-Unfair-Competition Law. We had discontinued this practice in China in 2013, prior to the commencement of the Shanghai AIC investigation in May 2014. In addition, China’s Bureau of Market Supervision and Administration, through its local counterpart in Pudong New District, Shanghai (“Bureau”) has begun a review of our importation practices with respect to certain of our products. At this time, we cannot predict whether the review will culminate into a formal investigation. We are cooperating with the Bureau’s review. This authority has the power to impose fines, penalties, seek disgorgement of profits and cause us to modify our business practices in China. However, the review has not concluded and therefore, we are not in a position to assess whether it will affect our business or operating results in China.

In addition, we are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe, at this time, that any ultimate liability resulting from any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, we cannot give any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these other matters and their resolution could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending on the level of income for the period.