Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	16. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company has in the past been, and may in the future be, subject to investigations by governmental and regulatory authorities, which expose it to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory or other proceedings, as a result of which the Company could be required to pay significant fines or penalties. The outcome of litigation, regulatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had no material ongoing litigation in which the Company was a defendant or any material ongoing regulatory or other proceedings and had no knowledge of any investigations by government or regulatory authorities in which the Company is a target that could have a material adverse effect on its current business. On December 16, 2010, LMI filed suit against one of its insurance carriers seeking to recover business interruption losses associated with the NRU reactor shutdown and the ensuing global Moly supply shortage. The claim is the result of the shutdown of the NRU reactor in Chalk River, Ontario. The NRU reactor was off-line from May 2009 until August 2010. The defendant answered the complaint on January 21, 2011, denying substantially all of the allegations, presenting certain defenses and requesting dismissal of the case with costs and disbursements. Discovery, including international discovery and related motion practice, has been on-going for more than three years. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2014. The Company filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2014. The defendant filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2014. Expert witness discovery was completed on October 31, 2014. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On September 4, 2015, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 4, 2015, the defendant filed an answer brief to the Company’s appeal, and on December 18, 2015, the Company filed a reply brief to the defendant’s answer. On April 21, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments of the Company and the defendant in connection with the Company’s appeal. On May 25, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order affirming the judgment of the United States District Court which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Company considers this matter closed.

16. Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company has in the past been, and may in the future be, subject to investigations by governmental and regulatory authorities, which expose it to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory or other proceedings, as a result of which the Company could be required to pay significant fines or penalties. The outcome of litigation, regulatory or other proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, and some lawsuits, claims, actions or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to the Company. In addition, intellectual property disputes often have a risk of injunctive relief which, if imposed against the Company, could materially and adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had no material ongoing litigation in which the Company was a defendant or any material ongoing regulatory or other proceedings and had no knowledge of any investigations by government or regulatory authorities in which the Company is a target that could have a material adverse effect on its current business.

On December 16, 2010, LMI filed suit against one of its insurance carriers seeking to recover business interruption losses associated with the NRU reactor shutdown and the ensuing global Moly supply shortage. The claim is the result of the shutdown of the NRU reactor in Chalk River, Ontario. The NRU reactor was off-line from May 2009 until August 2010. The defendant answered the complaint on January 21, 2011, denying substantially all of the allegations, presenting certain defenses and requesting dismissal of the case with costs and disbursements. Discovery, including international discovery and related motion practice, has been on-going for more than three years. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2014. The Company filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2014. The defendant filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2014. Expert witness discovery was completed on October 31, 2014. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On September 4, 2015, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 4, 2015, the defendant filed an answer brief to the Company’s appeal, and on December 18, 2015, the Company filed a reply brief to the defendant’s answer. On April 21, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments of the Company and the defendant in connection with the Company’s appeal. On May 25, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order affirming the judgment of the United States District Court which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Company considers this matter closed.