Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12 Commitments and contingencies: 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. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over Jan Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states, including California, who purchased Radiancy’s no!no! hair products and 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 Company’s Motion to Remove the Cantley case has been stayed pending resolution of the Mouzon litigation. 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. See Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies, in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2015 for further information on pending legal actions involving the Company and its subsidiaries.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12

Commitments and contingencies:

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. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over Jan Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states, including California, who purchased Radiancy’s no!no! hair products and 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 Company’s Motion to Remove the Cantley case has been stayed pending resolution of the Mouzon litigation. 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.

See Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies, in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2015 for further information on pending legal actions involving the Company and its subsidiaries.