14. Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Guarantees In connection with a distribution agreement entered into in December 2010, the Company provided a guarantee that the distributor's operating cash flows associated with the agreement would not fall below certain agreed-to minimums, subject to certain pre-defined conditions, over the ten year term of the distribution agreement. If the distributor's annual operating cash flow does fall below the agreed-to annual minimums, the Company will reimburse the distributor for any such short fall up to a pre-designated amount. No value was assigned to the fair value of the guarantee at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 based on a probability assessment of the projected cash flows. Management currently does not believe that it is probable that any amounts will be paid under this agreement and thus there is no amount accrued for the guarantee in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. This liability would be considered a Level 3 financial instrument given the unobservable inputs used in the projected cash flow model. See Note 8, “Fair Value Measurements and Financial Instruments,” for the fair value hierarchy. As discussed above in Note 13, “Related Party Transactions,” the Company entered into the Cavalier Agreement. The agreement, which was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, was extended for an additional two year period with an automatic 18-month renewal term and a six month termination provision. The agreement provides for pricing adjustments, up or down, on the first of each month based on the vendor's actual average product costs incurred during the prior month. Additional product payments made by the Company due to the vendors pricing adjustment as a result of this agreement have not been significant and have not represented costs materially above the going market price for such product Audit Committee Review and Restatements On March 21, 2012, Swisher's Board of Directors (the “Board”) determined that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011, and the other financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended should no longer be relied upon. Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, the Audit Committee concluded that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 should no longer be relied upon. The Board and Audit Committee made these determinations in connection with the Audit Committee's then ongoing review into certain accounting matters. On May 17, 2012, the Company announced that the Audit Committee had substantially completed the investigative portion of its internal review. On February 19, 20, and 21, 2013, respectively, the Company filed amended quarterly reports on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 2011 (the “Affected Periods”), including restated financial statements for the Affected Periods, to reflect adjustments to previously reported financial information. On February 26, 2013, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. On March 11, 15 and 18, 2013, respectively, the Company filed quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012. On May 1, 2013, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. Legal Matters We may be involved in litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and we cannot assure you that the ultimate resolution of any legal or administrative proceedings or disputes will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. *Securities Litigation* There have been six stockholder lawsuits filed in federal courts in North Carolina and New York asserting claims relating to the Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Company's Board conclusion that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011, and the other financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended, should no longer be relied upon and that an internal review by the Company's Audit Committee primarily relating to possible adjustments to the Company's financial statements was ongoing. On March 30, 2012, a purported Company stockholder commenced a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the former President and Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and the former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("former CFO"). The plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings. In April and May 2012, four more putative securities class actions were filed by purported Company stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the same set of defendants. The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings. In each of the putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs seek damages for losses suffered by the putative class of investors who purchased Swisher common stock. On May 21, 2012, a stockholder derivative action was brought against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's then directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another purported Company stockholder in the Southern District of New York. In this derivative action, the plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of the then possible restatement of the Company's financial statements. On May 30, 2012, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the cases in the Western District of North Carolina by requesting that the actions filed in the Southern District of New York be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. In light of the motion to centralize the cases in the Western District of North Carolina, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO requested from both courts a stay of all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On June 4, 2012, the Southern District of New York adjourned all pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer filed before the MDL Panel. On June 13, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued a stay of proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel. On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to centralize, transferring the actions filed in the Southern District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina as part of MDL No. 2384, captioned In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation. In response, on August 21, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued an order governing the practice and procedure in the actions transferred to the Western District of North Carolina as well as the actions originally filed there. On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated class action complaint. The Western District of North Carolina stayed the derivative action pending the outcome of the securities class actions. On April 24, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") asserting similar claims as those previously alleged as well as additional allegations stemming from the Company's restated financial statements. The Class Action Complaint also names the Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer as an additional defendant. On June 24, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the Class Action Complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on August 9, 2013. On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Miller, et al. v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., No. 0:13-CV-61292-JAL, against the Company, its former CEO and former CFO, and a former Company director, bringing state and federal claims founded on the allegations that in deciding to sell their company to the Company, plaintiffs relied on defendants' statements about such things as the Company's accounting and internal controls, which, in light of Swisher's restatement of its financial statements, were false. On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the MDL Panel of this action, and requested that it be transferred and centralized in the Western District of North Carolina with the other actions pending there. On July 23, 2013, the MDL Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order (the "CTO"), conditionally transferring the case to the Western District of North Carolina. On July 29, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL Panel that they would seek to vacate the CTO. In light of the proceedings in the MDL Panel, defendants requested that the Southern District of Florida stay all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On August 6, 2013, the Southern District of Florida issued a stay of all proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel. On October 2, 2013, following briefing on the issue of whether the CTO should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina. *Derivative Litigation* On April 11, 2012 and May 11, 2012, the Company's Board received demand letters (the “Demands”) from two of the Company’s purported stockholders. In general, the Demands ask the Board to undertake an independent investigation into potential violations of Delaware and federal law relating to the Company's March 28, 2012 disclosure that its previously issued financial results should no longer be relied upon, and to initiate claims against responsible parties and/or implement therapeutic changes as needed. By letters delivered on May 17, 2013, the Board informed counsel for the purported stockholders that the Board had considered these Demands and, after consultation with counsel, determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims outlined in the Demands. On July 11, 2013, one of the purported stockholders filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, captioned Borthwick v. Berrard, et. al., No. 13-CVS-12397. The action asserts claims against the Company as a nominal defendant, its former CEO and former CFO, and certain former and current Company directors for breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting thereof, in connection with the Company's restatement of its financial statements. Among other things, the action seeks damages on behalf of the Company and an order directing the Company to implement corporate governance reforms. On August 7, 2013, the Company filed a notice to remove the action from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County to the Western District of North Carolina. On August 30, 2013, the Company moved to consolidate this action with the actions previously consolidated before the Western District of North Carolina, and to stay the action. On September 25, 2013, the Western District of North Carolina granted the Company's motion. *Other Litigation* Under the terms of an agreement pursuant to which the Company sold one of its businesses, the Company accepted responsibility for resolving a contractual dispute involving that business. The dispute involves a third party plaintiff that contends it is owed a sales commission or royalty under a purported contract with the Company’s former business. The Company disputes the validity of the purported contract, the amounts claimed, believes that plaintiff’s position is without merit and is vigorously defending the action. The parties have participated in an unsuccessful mediation, and trial on the matter has been set for December 2013. Given the facts and circumstances currently known, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of the pending dispute or provide an estimate of the range of potential loss, if any. *Other Matters* The Company has been contacted by the staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the SEC and by the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina (the "U.S. Attorney's Office") after publicly announcing the Audit Committee's internal review and the delays in filing our periodic reports. The Company has been asked to make certain individuals available and to provide certain information about these matters on a voluntary basis to the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Any action by the SEC, the U.S. Attorney's Office or other government agency could result in criminal or civil sanctions against the Company and/or certain of its current or former officers, directors or employees. On July 17, 2013, the Company received a written notice (the “Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications department of The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq") indicating that the Company is not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement of $1.00 per share set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) for continued listing on The Nasdaq Global Select Market. The Nasdaq Listing Rules require listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share and, based upon the closing bid price for the 30 consecutive business days ended July 16, 2013, the Company did not meet this requirement. The Company will be provided a 180 day period in which to regain compliance. If at any time during this period the closing bid price of the Company’s common stock is at least $1.00 for a minimum of ten consecutive business days, the Company will receive a written confirmation of compliance from Nasdaq and the matter will be closed. In addition, following the initial 180 day period, the Company may be eligible for an additional 180 day period to regain compliance, subject to the Company, at that time, transferring its securities to The Nasdaq Capital Market and confirming that the Company will, if necessary to cure the deficiency, effect a reverse stock split during the second 180 day compliance period. At present, the Company will work to regain compliance during the initial 180 day compliance period and will actively monitor its performance with respect to the listing standards. As previously disclosed, on September 16, 2013, William M. Pierce was appointed the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, effective September 10, 2013. As a result of his appointment, Mr. Pierce is no longer considered an "independent" director for purposes of Audit Committee membership, and as such, Mr. Pierce resigned as a member of the Company’s Audit Committee, effective September 10, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Company received a notification from Nasdaq that, as a result of Mr. Pierce's resignation from the Audit Committee, the Company was no longer in compliance with Nasdaq’s audit committee requirements as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605, which requires the Audit Committee be composed of at least three members. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(4), the Company has until the earlier of the Company's next annual shareholders' meeting or September 10, 2014 to regain compliance with the Audit Committee membership requirement, however, if the next annual shareholders' meeting is held before March 10, 2014, then the Company must evidence compliance no later than March 10, 2014. The Company expects to appoint an additional independent director to serve on the Audit Committee during the cure period.

14. Commitments And Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Guarantees

In connection with a distribution agreement entered into in December 2010, the Company provided a guarantee that the distributor's operating cash flows associated with the agreement would not fall below certain agreed-to minimums, subject to certain pre-defined conditions, over the ten year term of the distribution agreement. If the distributor's annual operating cash flow does fall below the agreed-to annual minimums, the Company will reimburse the distributor for any such short fall up to a pre-designated amount. No value was assigned to the fair value of the guarantee at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 based on a probability assessment of the projected cash flows. Management currently does not believe that it is probable that any amounts will be paid under this agreement and thus there is no amount accrued for the guarantee in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. This liability would be considered a Level 3 financial instrument given the unobservable inputs used in the projected cash flow model. See Note 8, “Fair Value Measurements and Financial Instruments,” for the fair value hierarchy.

As discussed above in Note 13, “Related Party Transactions,” the Company entered into the Cavalier Agreement. The agreement, which was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, was extended for an additional two year period with an automatic 18-month renewal term and a six month termination provision. The agreement provides for pricing adjustments, up or down, on the first of each month based on the vendor's actual average product costs incurred during the prior month. Additional product payments made by the Company due to the vendors pricing adjustment as a result of this agreement have not been significant and have not represented costs materially above the going market price for such product

Audit Committee Review and Restatements

On March 21, 2012, Swisher's Board of Directors (the “Board”) determined that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011, and the other financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended should no longer be relied upon. Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, the Audit Committee concluded that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 should no longer be relied upon. The Board and Audit Committee made these determinations in connection with the Audit Committee's then ongoing review into certain accounting matters. On May 17, 2012, the Company announced that the Audit Committee had substantially completed the investigative portion of its internal review.

On February 19, 20, and 21, 2013, respectively, the Company filed amended quarterly reports on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 2011 (the “Affected Periods”), including restated financial statements for the Affected Periods, to reflect adjustments to previously reported financial information. On February 26, 2013, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. On March 11, 15 and 18, 2013, respectively, the Company filed quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012. On May 1, 2013, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Legal Matters

We may be involved in litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty and we cannot assure you that the ultimate resolution of any legal or administrative proceedings or disputes will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Securities Litigation

There have been six stockholder lawsuits filed in federal courts in North Carolina and New York asserting claims relating to the Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Company's Board conclusion that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011, and the other financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods then ended, should no longer be relied upon and that an internal review by the Company's Audit Committee primarily relating to possible adjustments to the Company's financial statements was ongoing.

On March 30, 2012, a purported Company stockholder commenced a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the former President and Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and the former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("former CFO"). The plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings. In April and May 2012, four more putative securities class actions were filed by purported Company stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the same set of defendants. The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings. In each of the putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs seek damages for losses suffered by the putative class of investors who purchased Swisher common stock.

On May 21, 2012, a stockholder derivative action was brought against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's then directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another purported Company stockholder in the Southern District of New York. In this derivative action, the plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of the then possible restatement of the Company's financial statements.

On May 30, 2012, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the cases in the Western District of North Carolina by requesting that the actions filed in the Southern District of New York be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.

In light of the motion to centralize the cases in the Western District of North Carolina, the Company, and its former CEO and former CFO requested from both courts a stay of all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On June 4, 2012, the Southern District of New York adjourned all pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer filed before the MDL Panel. On June 13, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued a stay of proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel.

On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to centralize, transferring the actions filed in the Southern District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina as part of MDL No. 2384, captioned In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation. In response, on August 21, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina issued an order governing the practice and procedure in the actions transferred to the Western District of North Carolina as well as the actions originally filed there.

On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated class action complaint. The Western District of North Carolina stayed the derivative action pending the outcome of the securities class actions.

On April 24, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") asserting similar claims as those previously alleged as well as additional allegations stemming from the Company's restated financial statements. The Class Action Complaint also names the Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer as an additional defendant. On June 24, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the Class Action Complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on August 9, 2013.

On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Miller, et al. v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., No. 0:13-CV-61292-JAL, against the Company, its former CEO and former CFO, and a former Company director, bringing state and federal claims founded on the allegations that in deciding to sell their company to the Company, plaintiffs relied on defendants' statements about such things as the Company's accounting and internal controls, which, in light of Swisher's restatement of its financial statements, were false. On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the MDL Panel of this action, and requested that it be transferred and centralized in the Western District of North Carolina with the other actions pending there. On July 23, 2013, the MDL Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order (the "CTO"), conditionally transferring the case to the Western District of North Carolina. On July 29, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL Panel that they would seek to vacate the CTO. In light of the proceedings in the MDL Panel, defendants requested that the Southern District of Florida stay all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On August 6, 2013, the Southern District of Florida issued a stay of all proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel. On October 2, 2013, following briefing on the issue of whether the CTO should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina.

Derivative Litigation

On April 11, 2012 and May 11, 2012, the Company's Board received demand letters (the “Demands”) from two of the Company’s purported stockholders. In general, the Demands ask the Board to undertake an independent investigation into potential violations of Delaware and federal law relating to the Company's March 28, 2012 disclosure that its previously issued financial results should no longer be relied upon, and to initiate claims against responsible parties and/or implement therapeutic changes as needed. By letters delivered on May 17, 2013, the Board informed counsel for the purported stockholders that the Board had considered these Demands and, after consultation with counsel, determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to pursue the claims outlined in the Demands.

On July 11, 2013, one of the purported stockholders filed a derivative action on behalf of the Company in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, captioned Borthwick v. Berrard, et. al., No. 13-CVS-12397. The action asserts claims against the Company as a nominal defendant, its former CEO and former CFO, and certain former and current Company directors for breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting thereof, in connection with the Company's restatement of its financial statements. Among other things, the action seeks damages on behalf of the Company and an order directing the Company to implement corporate governance reforms. On August 7, 2013, the Company filed a notice to remove the action from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County to the Western District of North Carolina. On August 30, 2013, the Company moved to consolidate this action with the actions previously consolidated before the Western District of North Carolina, and to stay the action. On September 25, 2013, the Western District of North Carolina granted the Company's motion.

Other Litigation

Under the terms of an agreement pursuant to which the Company sold one of its businesses, the Company accepted responsibility for resolving a contractual dispute involving that business. The dispute involves a third party plaintiff that contends it is owed a sales commission or royalty under a purported contract with the Company’s former business. The Company disputes the validity of the purported contract, the amounts claimed, believes that plaintiff’s position is without merit and is vigorously defending the action. The parties have participated in an unsuccessful mediation, and trial on the matter has been set for December 2013. Given the facts and circumstances currently known, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of the pending dispute or provide an estimate of the range of potential loss, if any.

Other Matters

The Company has been contacted by the staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the SEC and by the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina (the "U.S. Attorney's Office") after publicly announcing the Audit Committee's internal review and the delays in filing our periodic reports. The Company has been asked to make certain individuals available and to provide certain information about these matters on a voluntary basis to the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Any action by the SEC, the U.S. Attorney's Office or other government agency could result in criminal or civil sanctions against the Company and/or certain of its current or former officers, directors or employees.

On July 17, 2013, the Company received a written notice (the “Notice”) from the Listing Qualifications department of The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq") indicating that the Company is not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement of $1.00 per share set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) for continued listing on The Nasdaq Global Select Market. The Nasdaq Listing Rules require listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 per share and, based upon the closing bid price for the 30 consecutive business days ended July 16, 2013, the Company did not meet this requirement. The Company will be provided a 180 day period in which to regain compliance. If at any time during this period the closing bid price of the Company’s common stock is at least $1.00 for a minimum of ten consecutive business days, the Company will receive a written confirmation of compliance from Nasdaq and the matter will be closed. In addition, following the initial 180 day period, the Company may be eligible for an additional 180 day period to regain compliance, subject to the Company, at that time, transferring its securities to The Nasdaq Capital Market and confirming that the Company will, if necessary to cure the deficiency, effect a reverse stock split during the second 180 day compliance period. At present, the Company will work to regain compliance during the initial 180 day compliance period and will actively monitor its performance with respect to the listing standards.

As previously disclosed, on September 16, 2013, William M. Pierce was appointed the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, effective September 10, 2013. As a result of his appointment, Mr. Pierce is no longer considered an "independent" director for purposes of Audit Committee membership, and as such, Mr. Pierce resigned as a member of the Company’s Audit Committee, effective September 10, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Company received a notification from Nasdaq that, as a result of Mr. Pierce's resignation from the Audit Committee, the Company was no longer in compliance with Nasdaq’s audit committee requirements as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605, which requires the Audit Committee be composed of at least three members. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(4), the Company has until the earlier of the Company's next annual shareholders' meeting or September 10, 2014 to regain compliance with the Audit Committee membership requirement, however, if the next annual shareholders' meeting is held before March 10, 2014, then the Company must evidence compliance no later than March 10, 2014. The Company expects to appoint an additional independent director to serve on the Audit Committee during the cure period.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details