Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	14. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We and certain current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in complaints filed by investors in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The first complaint was filed in November 2007 and several other complaints were filed shortly thereafter. These actions were consolidated and, in September 2008, the district court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2008. The amended complaint purports to state claims under Section 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 2, 2007 and April 14, 2008 (the “Class Period”). The amended complaint also added our independent auditor as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading public statements about us and our business and prospects and, as a result, the market price of our common stock was artificially inflated. The amended complaint also claims that certain current and former officers and directors traded in our common stock on the basis of material non-public information. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, including interest, and also added attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. On February 28, 2011, the District Court granted motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and dismissed all claims. A final judgment was thereafter entered. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. We and those current and former officers and directors named as defendants have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs that would, if approved by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, resolve all claims asserted against us by the plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class, and plaintiffs’ appeal would be dismissed. Our independent auditor is not a party to the Stipulation of Settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including preliminary court approval, and final court approval following notice to stockholders. If the settlement becomes final, all amounts required by the settlement will be paid by our insurers. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finally approved by the District Court, or that approval by the District Court will, if challenged, be upheld by the Tenth Circuit. On October 27, 2010, Spectrum Agencies (“Spectrum”) filed suit against our subsidiary, Crocs Europe B.V. (“Crocs Europe”), in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice in London, United Kingdom (“UK”). Spectrum acted as an agent for Crocs products in the UK from 2005 until Crocs Europe terminated the relationship on July 3, 2008 due to Spectrum’s breach of its duty to act in good faith towards Crocs Europe. Spectrum alleges that Crocs Europe unlawfully terminated the agency relationship and failed to pay certain sales commissions. A trial on the liability, not quantum (compensation and damages), was held at the High Court in London from November 30, 2011 to December 5, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the High Court of Justice issued a judgment that found that although Spectrum’s actions were a breach of its duty to act in good faith towards Crocs Europe the breach was not sufficiently severe to justify termination. We believe that the trial judge erred in his findings and subsequently appealed the judgment. On October 30, 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment confirming the trial judge’s findings. We submitted a request to the Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal. On April 24, 2013 the Supreme Court declined to grant permission to appeal. Given that this phase of the proceedings only pertains to liability, there have been no findings in relation to the amount of compensation or damages other than with respect to legal fees. Under English law, the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable legal fees incurred in the proceedings. We expect that Spectrum will now request to move to the damages phase via a case management conference, during which the Court will provide instructions and schedules leading up to the trial on damages. Spectrum has not quantified its claim for compensation and damages and the amount will be assessed later in the proceedings. A judgment on damages could take up to 12 months. We are currently subject to an audit by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) in respect of the period from 2006 to 2010. CBP issued a draft audit report to which we filed comments and objections. We believe that a final report (and notice of a formal claim) will not be issued until sometime in the second half of 2013. CBP has provided us with preliminary projections and a draft audit report that reflect unpaid duties totaling approximately $14.3 million during the period under review. We have responded that these projections are erroneous and provided arguments that demonstrate the amount due in connection with this matter is considerably less than the preliminary projection. CBP is currently reviewing this response. It is not possible at this time to predict whether our arguments will be successful in eliminating or reducing the amount in dispute. Likewise, it is not possible to predict whether CBP may seek to assert a claim for penalties in addition to any loss of revenue claim. Mexico’s Federal Tax Authority (“SAT”) audited the period from January 2006 to July 2011. There were two phases to the audit, the first for capital equipment and finished goods and the second for raw materials. The first phase was completed and no major discrepancies were noted by the SAT. On January 9, 2013, Crocs received a notice for the second phase in which the SAT issued a tax assessment (taxes and penalties) of roughly 280.0 million pesos (approximately $22.0 million) based on the value of all of Crocs’ imported raw materials during the audit period. We believe that the proposed penalty amount is unfounded and without merit. We filed an appeal in March 2013. We have argued that the amount due in connection with the matter, if any, is substantially less than that proposed by the SAT. In connection with the appeal, the SAT required us to post an appeal surety bond in the amount of roughly 321.0 million pesos (approximately $26.0 million), which amount reflects estimated additional penalties and interest if we are not successful on our appeal. This amount will be adjusted on an annual basis. We expect it to take between two and three years for resolution of this matter in the Mexican courts. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate any potential loss. As of June 30, 2013, we have accrued a total of $5.9 million relating to these litigation matters and other disputes. We estimate that the ultimate resolution of these litigation matters and other disputes could result in a loss that is reasonably possible between $0 and $10.4 million in the aggregate, in excess of the amount accrued. Although we are subject to other litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of business, including employment, intellectual property and product liability claims, we are not party to any other pending legal proceedings that we believe will have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

14. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We and certain current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in complaints filed by investors in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The first complaint was filed in November 2007 and several other complaints were filed shortly thereafter. These actions were consolidated and, in September 2008, the district court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2008. The amended complaint purports to state claims under Section 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 2, 2007 and April 14, 2008 (the “Class Period”). The amended complaint also added our independent auditor as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading public statements about us and our business and prospects and, as a result, the market price of our common stock was artificially inflated. The amended complaint also claims that certain current and former officers and directors traded in our common stock on the basis of material non-public information. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, including interest, and also added attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. On February 28, 2011, the District Court granted motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and dismissed all claims. A final judgment was thereafter entered. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. We and those current and former officers and directors named as defendants have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs that would, if approved by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, resolve all claims asserted against us by the plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class, and plaintiffs’ appeal would be dismissed. Our independent auditor is not a party to the Stipulation of Settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including preliminary court approval, and final court approval following notice to stockholders. If the settlement becomes final, all amounts required by the settlement will be paid by our insurers. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finally approved by the District Court, or that approval by the District Court will, if challenged, be upheld by the Tenth Circuit.

On October 27, 2010, Spectrum Agencies (“Spectrum”) filed suit against our subsidiary, Crocs Europe B.V. (“Crocs Europe”), in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice in London, United Kingdom (“UK”). Spectrum acted as an agent for Crocs products in the UK from 2005 until Crocs Europe terminated the relationship on July 3, 2008 due to Spectrum’s breach of its duty to act in good faith towards Crocs Europe. Spectrum alleges that Crocs Europe unlawfully terminated the agency relationship and failed to pay certain sales commissions. A trial on the liability, not quantum (compensation and damages), was held at the High Court in London from November 30, 2011 to December 5, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the High Court of Justice issued a judgment that found that although Spectrum’s actions were a breach of its duty to act in good faith towards Crocs Europe the breach was not sufficiently severe to justify termination. We believe that the trial judge erred in his findings and subsequently appealed the judgment. On October 30, 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment confirming the trial judge’s findings. We submitted a request to the Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal. On April 24, 2013 the Supreme Court declined to grant permission to appeal. Given that this phase of the proceedings only pertains to liability, there have been no findings in relation to the amount of compensation or damages other than with respect to legal fees. Under English law, the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable legal fees incurred in the proceedings. We expect that Spectrum will now request to move to the damages phase via a case management conference, during which the Court will provide instructions and schedules leading up to the trial on damages. Spectrum has not quantified its claim for compensation and damages and the amount will be assessed later in the proceedings. A judgment on damages could take up to 12 months.

We are currently subject to an audit by U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) in respect of the period from 2006 to 2010. CBP issued a draft audit report to which we filed comments and objections. We believe that a final report (and notice of a formal claim) will not be issued until sometime in the second half of 2013. CBP has provided us with preliminary projections and a draft audit report that reflect unpaid duties totaling approximately $14.3 million during the period under review. We have responded that these projections are erroneous and provided arguments that demonstrate the amount due in connection with this matter is considerably less than the preliminary projection. CBP is currently reviewing this response. It is not possible at this time to predict whether our arguments will be successful in eliminating or reducing the amount in dispute. Likewise, it is not possible to predict whether CBP may seek to assert a claim for penalties in addition to any loss of revenue claim.

Mexico’s Federal Tax Authority (“SAT”) audited the period from January 2006 to July 2011. There were two phases to the audit, the first for capital equipment and finished goods and the second for raw materials. The first phase was completed and no major discrepancies were noted by the SAT. On January 9, 2013, Crocs received a notice for the second phase in which the SAT issued a tax assessment (taxes and penalties) of roughly 280.0 million pesos (approximately $22.0 million) based on the value of all of Crocs’ imported raw materials during the audit period. We believe that the proposed penalty amount is unfounded and without merit. We filed an appeal in March 2013. We have argued that the amount due in connection with the matter, if any, is substantially less than that proposed by the SAT. In connection with the appeal, the SAT required us to post an appeal surety bond in the amount of roughly 321.0 million pesos (approximately $26.0 million), which amount reflects estimated additional penalties and interest if we are not successful on our appeal. This amount will be adjusted on an annual basis. We expect it to take between two and three years for resolution of this matter in the Mexican courts. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate any potential loss.

As of June 30, 2013, we have accrued a total of $5.9 million relating to these litigation matters and other disputes. We estimate that the ultimate resolution of these litigation matters and other disputes could result in a loss that is reasonably possible between $0 and $10.4 million in the aggregate, in excess of the amount accrued.

Although we are subject to other litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of business, including employment, intellectual property and product liability claims, we are not party to any other pending legal proceedings that we believe will have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.