Note 11

Commitments and Contingencies:

Leases

The Company has entered into various non-cancelable operating lease agreements for real property and one minor operating lease for personal property. These arrangements expire at various dates through 2017. Rent expense was $4,708 (including $3,690 from LCA), $1,002 and $908 for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Not included in the table below is $17,916 related to LCA, which was sold as of January 31, 2015. The future annual minimum payments under these leases, relating to our continuing operations are as follows:

Year Ending December 31,
2015	$	814
2016		472
2017		176
Thereafter		366
Total	$	1,828

Litigation

During the year ended December 31, 2013, Radiancy, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex, commenced legal action against Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., over Viatek's Pearl and Samba hair removal products which Radiancy believes infringe the intellectual property covering its no!no! hair removal devices. The first suit, which was filed in the United States Federal Court, Southern District of New York, includes claims against Viatek for patent infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. A second suit against Viatek was filed in Canada, where the Pearl is offered on that country's The Shopping Channel, alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, and false and misleading advertising. Viatek's response contains a variety of counterclaims and affirmative defenses against both Radiancy and its parent company PhotoMedex, including, among other counts, claims regarding the invalidity of Radiancy's patents and antitrust allegations regarding Radiancy's conduct.

Radiancy, and PhotoMedex, had moved to dismiss PhotoMedex from the case, and to dismiss the counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek. On March 28, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed PhotoMedex from the lawsuit. The Court also dismissed certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses asserted by Viatek, including Viatek's counterclaims against Radiancy for antitrust, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relationships and Viatek's affirmative defenses of unclean hands and inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring its patent. Radiancy also moved for sanctions against Viatek for failure to provide meaningful and timely responses to Radiancy's discovery requests; on April 1, 2014, the Court granted that motion. Viatek appealed both the sanctions ruling and the dismissal of Viatek's counterclaims and defenses from the case, as well as PhotoMedex's dismissal as a plaintiff; the Court has denied those appeals. The Court has appointed a Special Master to oversee discovery. A Markman hearing on the patents at issue was held on March 2, 2015. Viatek has requested an opportunity to supplement its patent invalidity contentions in the US case; Radiancy opposes that request. Radiancy has been granted permission by the US Court to supplement its earlier sanctions motion to include the legal fees and costs associated with preparing and prosecuting that motion. As of December 31, 2014, discovery and related court hearings continue in both the US and the Canadian cases. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case is still in the early stages of discovery to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by Viatek. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to this particular legal matter. However, in the future, as the case progresses, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for this matter.

On December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The suit alleged various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013. A mediation on possible settlement of this action was held on November 10, 2014; the parties including the Company's insurance carrier have agreed on a possible settlement. The Company has paid its own legal fees up to the deductible cap on its insurance policy, and all amounts to be paid to plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel will be paid by the carrier of the insurance policy. This settlement is subject to review and approval by the District Court, which has not yet rendered its opinion.

The Company was served on July 29, 2014 with an application to certify a class action, filed in Israel District Court for Tel Aviv against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiff's who initiated this complaint have agreed to be part of, and be bound by, the possible settlement reached in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and the same two top executives.

There were multiple class-action lawsuits filed in connection with PhotoMedex's proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. All cases asserted claims against LCA-Vision, Inc., and a mix of other defendants, including LCA's chief executive officer and directors, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex. The complaints generally allege that the proposed acquisition undervalued LCA and deprived LCA's shareholders of the opportunity to participate in LCA's long-term financial prospects, that the "go shop" and "deal-protection" provisions of the Merger Agreement were designed to prevent LCA from soliciting or receiving competing offers, that LCA's Board breached its fiduciary duties and failed to maximize that company's stockholder value, and that LCA, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade aided and abetted the LCA defendants' alleged breaches of duty. The parties have reached a possible settlement in these suits, with the Company contributing less than $100,000 to the settlement, plus the payment of its legal fees, and the remainder of the settlement being covered by the insurance carriers. This settlement is subject to review and approval by the state court, which has not yet rendered its opinion.

On April 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this case; that motion is pending before the Court. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters.

From time to time in the ordinary course of our business, we and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in certain other legal actions and claims, including product liability, consumer, commercial, tax and governmental matters, and claims regarding false advertising and product efficacy against the no!no! Hair products which were already raised and reviewed in the Tria litigation. We believe, based on discussions with legal counsel, that these other litigations and claims will likely be resolved without a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can result from litigation. Although we believe we have substantial defenses in these matters, we may, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in a particular period.

Employment Agreements

The Company has severance agreements with certain key executives and employees that create certain liabilities in the event of their termination of employment by the company without cause, or following a change in control of the Company. The aggregate commitment under these executive severance agreements, should all covered executives and employees be terminated other than for cause, was approximately $10,073 as of December 31, 2014, based on 2014 salary levels. Should all covered executives and certain key employees be terminated following a change in control of the Company, the aggregate commitment under these executive severance agreements at December 31, 2014 was approximately $9,820, based on 2014 salary levels.