12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
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, 2015 and December 31, 2014, 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. Upon closing of the sales transaction completed on November 2, 2015, the Company no longer has this liability. As discussed above in Note 11, “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. The Cavalier Agreement was terminated in September 2014 pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 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 no assurance can be given 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 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 a purported Company stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this derivative action, captioned Arsenault v. Berrard, et al., 1:12-cv-4028, the plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of the Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Board of Director's 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 August 13, 2012, the Arsenault derivative action, along with a related putative securities class action pending in the Southern District of New York, was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina where other related putative securities class actions were pending. All actions were consolidated under the caption In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2384. 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 Arsenault derivative action, pending the outcome of the securities class actions. On August 6, 2014, following a hearing, the Western District of North Carolina approved a settlement of the securities class actions, and issued an Order and Final Judgment that, among other things, dismissed the securities class actions pending in the United States with prejudice and provided for full and complete releases to defendants. The Arsenault derivative action is still pending. On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the United States 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 the Company's restatement of its financial statements, were false. On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("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 "Miller 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 Miller 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 Miller CTO should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on March 20, 2014. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on May 12, 2014. On June 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Western District of North Carolina seeking a suggestion for remand from that court to the MDL Panel. Briefing on that motion was completed on June 26, 2014. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss and motion for suggestion for remand were heard on July 22, 2014. On August 5, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' motion for suggestion for remand. On October 22, 2014, the Company filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to the notice of supplemental authority. On July 8, 2015, the Western District of North Carolina ruled on the motions to dismiss. The Western District of North Carolina dismissed plaintiffs' federal securities claims and certain of their state law claims. All claims against the former CFO were dismissed. After issuing its ruling, the Western District of North Carolina recommended by letter to the MDL Panel that the action be transferred back to the Southern District of Florida. On July 16, 2015, the Western District of North Carolina issued an order staying all proceedings in the action pending a determination by the MDL Panel on its recommendation. Thereafter, the MDL Panel issued a Conditional Remand Order, remanding the action to the Southern District of Florida, which was finalized and filed on July 28, 2015. On September 4, 2015, as requested by the Southern District of Florida, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report. On September 9, 2015, the Southern District of Florida issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the remaining state law claims should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). On September 18, 2015, the parties filed their respective responses to the Order to Show Cause. On September 21, 2015, the Southern District of Florida issued an order dismissing the remaining state law claims in the action without prejudice on subject matter jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). On November 6, 2015, the parties reached a settlement of the matter. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The Company's financial obligation under the settlement will be covered by insurance and accordingly, the terms of the settlement did not have a material effect on the Company's financial position. On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc.’s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the USAO, the individual defendants embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off Swisher International, Inc.’s assets and to liquidate Swisher Hygiene Inc., (ii) the individual defendants, through an alleged insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene Inc. to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene Inc’s. Board of Directors is interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was materially misleading and/or incomplete. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to disclose, and (iii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff primarily seeks to enjoin the consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until defendants provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and the plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law for the plaintiff. This summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the Court. The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against them. On September 11, 2015, a derivative lawsuit (Malka Raul v. Swisher Hygiene Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CVS-16703 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina)) seeking to be certified as a class was filed in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by Malka Raul, derivatively on behalf of Swisher Hygiene Inc., and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc’s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) the sale of Swisher International, Inc. to Ecolab contemplated by the purchase agreement is unfair and inequitable to the Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders and constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of the directors in the sale of Swisher International, Inc. (ii) defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the Sale Transaction with deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Swisher International, Inc. and preclude stockholders from voting against the Sale Transaction, (iii) the Sale Transaction will divest the Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders of their ownership interest in Swisher International, Inc. for inadequate consideration; (iv) each of the defendants violated and continues to violate applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding and abetting the defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealings, (v) the Sale Transaction is the product of a flawed process that was designed to sell Swisher International, Inc. to Ecolab on terms detrimental to plaintiff and the other Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders, (vi) the proxy statement fails to provide Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information and (vii) the proxy statement fails to provide Swisher Hygiene Inc.’s stockholders with all material information concerning the financial analysis of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants, (ii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Ecolab, (iii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duties against the individual defendants, and (iv) a derivative claim for unjust enrichment against the individual defendants. The plaintiff primarily seeks to (i) enjoin defendants from consummating the Sale Transaction unless and until the individual defendants adopt and implement a fair procedure or process to sell Swisher International, Inc. (ii) direct the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of Swisher Hygiene Inc. and its stockholders and (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the purchase agreement or any of the terms thereof. The plaintiff also seeks costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts fees, and such other equitable and/or injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the Court. The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against them. Other Matters On October 7, 2015, the Company entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “DPA”) with the USAO relating to the USAO’s investigation of the Company’s accounting practices. Under the terms of the DPA, the USAO filed, but deferred prosecution of, a criminal information charging Swisher Hygiene Inc. with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and other charges relating to the Company’s accounting and financial reporting practices reflected in the Company's originally filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 2011. Pursuant to the DPA, the Company agreed to pay a $2 million fine to the USAO payable in four annual installments of $500,000 each if the Company is financially able to do so. Pursuant to the terms of the DPA, the fine became immediately due and payable in full on November 2, 2015 upon a change in control of the Company. As a result, the fine was paid in full upon the closing of the Sale Transaction, and was accrued at September 30, 2015 in other expenses. The Company has been contacted by the staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the SEC after the Company's March 28, 2012 public announcement of the Audit Committee's internal review and the delays in filing its periodic reports. The Company has been asked to make certain individuals available and to provide certain information about these matters to the SEC. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC. Any action by the SEC or other government agency could result in fines and/or criminal or civil sanctions against the Company and/or certain of its current or former officers, directors or employees.

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2015

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, 2015 and December 31, 2014, 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. Upon closing of the sales transaction completed on November 2, 2015, the Company no longer has this liability.

As discussed above in Note 11, “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. The Cavalier Agreement was terminated in September 2014 pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

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 no assurance can be given 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

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 a purported Company stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this derivative action, captioned Arsenault v. Berrard, et al., 1:12-cv-4028, the plaintiff seeks to recover for the Company damages arising out of the Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Board of Director's 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 August 13, 2012, the Arsenault derivative action, along with a related putative securities class action pending in the Southern District of New York, was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina where other related putative securities class actions were pending. All actions were consolidated under the caption In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2384. 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 Arsenault derivative action, pending the outcome of the securities class actions.

On August 6, 2014, following a hearing, the Western District of North Carolina approved a settlement of the securities class actions, and issued an Order and Final Judgment that, among other things, dismissed the securities class actions pending in the United States with prejudice and provided for full and complete releases to defendants. The Arsenault derivative action is still pending.

On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the United States 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 the Company's restatement of its financial statements, were false. On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("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 "Miller 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 Miller 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 Miller CTO should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on March 20, 2014. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on May 12, 2014. On June 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Western District of North Carolina seeking a suggestion for remand from that court to the MDL Panel. Briefing on that motion was completed on June 26, 2014. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss and motion for suggestion for remand were heard on July 22, 2014. On August 5, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina denied plaintiffs' motion for suggestion for remand. On October 22, 2014, the Company filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to the notice of supplemental authority. On July 8, 2015, the Western District of North Carolina ruled on the motions to dismiss. The Western District of North Carolina dismissed plaintiffs' federal securities claims and certain of their state law claims. All claims against the former CFO were dismissed. After issuing its ruling, the Western District of North Carolina recommended by letter to the MDL Panel that the action be transferred back to the Southern District of Florida. On July 16, 2015, the Western District of North Carolina issued an order staying all proceedings in the action pending a determination by the MDL Panel on its recommendation. Thereafter, the MDL Panel issued a Conditional Remand Order, remanding the action to the Southern District of Florida, which was finalized and filed on July 28, 2015. On September 4, 2015, as requested by the Southern District of Florida, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report. On September 9, 2015, the Southern District of Florida issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the remaining state law claims should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). On September 18, 2015, the parties filed their respective responses to the Order to Show Cause. On September 21, 2015, the Southern District of Florida issued an order dismissing the remaining state law claims in the action without prejudice on subject matter jurisdiction grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). On November 6, 2015, the parties reached a settlement of the matter. The terms of the settlement are confidential. The Company's financial obligation under the settlement will be covered by insurance and accordingly, the terms of the settlement did not have a material effect on the Company's financial position.

On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class action (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015 CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)) was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division by Paul Berger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc.’s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the USAO, the individual defendants embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off Swisher International, Inc.’s assets and to liquidate Swisher Hygiene Inc., (ii) the individual defendants, through an alleged insufficient process, caused Swisher Hygiene Inc. to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of Swisher Hygiene Inc’s. Board of Directors is interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was materially misleading and/or incomplete. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim for failure to disclose, and (iii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff primarily seeks to enjoin the consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until defendants provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and the plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law for the plaintiff. This summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the Court. The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against them.

On September 11, 2015, a derivative lawsuit (Malka Raul v. Swisher Hygiene Inc. et al., Case No. 15-CVS-16703 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina)) seeking to be certified as a class was filed in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina by Malka Raul, derivatively on behalf of Swisher Hygiene Inc., and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Swisher Hygiene Inc., the members of Swisher Hygiene Inc’s board of directors, individually, and Ecolab in connection with the Sale Transaction. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) the sale of Swisher International, Inc. to Ecolab contemplated by the purchase agreement is unfair and inequitable to the Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders and constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of the directors in the sale of Swisher International, Inc. (ii) defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the Sale Transaction with deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Swisher International, Inc. and preclude stockholders from voting against the Sale Transaction, (iii) the Sale Transaction will divest the Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders of their ownership interest in Swisher International, Inc. for inadequate consideration; (iv) each of the defendants violated and continues to violate applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding and abetting the defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealings, (v) the Sale Transaction is the product of a flawed process that was designed to sell Swisher International, Inc. to Ecolab on terms detrimental to plaintiff and the other Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders, (vi) the proxy statement fails to provide Swisher Hygiene Inc’s stockholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information and (vii) the proxy statement fails to provide Swisher Hygiene Inc.’s stockholders with all material information concerning the financial analysis of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i) a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants, (ii) a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Ecolab, (iii) a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duties against the individual defendants, and (iv) a derivative claim for unjust enrichment against the individual defendants. The plaintiff primarily seeks to (i) enjoin defendants from consummating the Sale Transaction unless and until the individual defendants adopt and implement a fair procedure or process to sell Swisher International, Inc. (ii) direct the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of Swisher Hygiene Inc. and its stockholders and (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the purchase agreement or any of the terms thereof. The plaintiff also seeks costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts fees, and such other equitable and/or injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This summary is qualified by reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the Court. The Company believes the claims alleged by the plaintiff are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against them.

Other Matters

On October 7, 2015, the Company entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “DPA”) with the USAO relating to the USAO’s investigation of the Company’s accounting practices. Under the terms of the DPA, the USAO filed, but deferred prosecution of, a criminal information charging Swisher Hygiene Inc. with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and other charges relating to the Company’s accounting and financial reporting practices reflected in the Company's originally filed Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, and September 30, 2011. Pursuant to the DPA, the Company agreed to pay a $2 million fine to the USAO payable in four annual installments of $500,000 each if the Company is financially able to do so. Pursuant to the terms of the DPA, the fine became immediately due and payable in full on November 2, 2015 upon a change in control of the Company. As a result, the fine was paid in full upon the closing of the Sale Transaction, and was accrued at September 30, 2015 in other expenses.

The Company has been contacted by the staff of the Atlanta Regional Office of the SEC after the Company's March 28, 2012 public announcement of the Audit Committee's internal review and the delays in filing its periodic reports. The Company has been asked to make certain individuals available and to provide certain information about these matters to the SEC. The Company is fully cooperating with the SEC. Any action by the SEC or other government agency could result in fines and/or criminal or civil sanctions against the Company and/or certain of its current or former officers, directors or employees.