NOTE 10.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

We are obligated under various operating leases for our facilities and certain equipment, most notably a lease for a manufacturing and warehouse facility in St. Petersburg, Florida that requires monthly payments of approximately $13,000 and expires on October 31, 2013. The following is a schedule of approximate future minimum lease payments under operating leases having remaining terms in excess of one year as of September 30, 2012 for the calendar years ended December 31, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (in thousands):

2012	$	64
2013		228
2014		12
2015		--

Total	$	304

Rent expense approximated $139,000 and $148,000 for the nine month periods ending September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Additionally, we amended the manufacturing agreement with our Bulgarian foreign supplier which, as of March 1, 2012, provides for certain contingent liabilities on our part if we terminate our arrangement prior to July 1, 2014. The table below reflects our approximate contingent liability for the calendar years ended December 31, 2012, 2013, and 2014 (in thousands):

2012	$	29
2013		128
2014		73

Total	$	230

Livneh/Lican Development Settlement

As previously reported, in December 2011, a settlement related to a litigation we were involved in with Steve Livneh ("Livneh") a former director and certain entities owned by him, was structured and subsequently entered into on February 22, 2012. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), the Company will, among other things, perform the following: (i) make a $250,000 lump sum payment to Livneh ($50,000 of which was previously recorded and expensed), (ii) make 18 installment payments to Livneh in the amount of $23,222.22 per month, (iii) reimburse Livneh for all unpaid expenses that Livneh incurred on behalf of the Company during the period of his employment and/or consultancy (from October 1, 2006 through August 11, 2010), (iv) pay Livneh $14,700, which represents the balance of the amounts due to Henvil Corp. Ltd. under a certain bill of sale, dated April 12, 2010, (v) transfer to Livneh the title of a certain automobile, (vi) transfer to Livneh all of the Company's right and interest in certain Intellectual Property (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) pertaining to the Modular Ergonomic Grip ("MEG"), Modullion, RF Skin Resurfacing, Scannula, Double Jaw Forceps and Tip-On-Tube designs and trade name (collectively, the "Assigned Patents"), (vi) transfer to Livneh certain parts for the MEG device, (vii) grant Livneh an exclusive license to produce, market and sell the Seal-N-Cut device in the People's Republic of China, (viii) pay to Livneh royalty payments of 3% on the Company's Net Sales (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) of the Seal-N-Cut device outside the People's Republic of China, and (ix) pay to Livneh a one-time royalty payment of 5% upon the closing of any sale by the Company of its right or interest in any Intellectual Property pertaining to the Seal-N-Cut device. To secure the Company's obligations, the Company granted Livneh a security interest in all of its rights and interest of the Company in the Seal-N-Cut device, including all Intellectual Property pertaining thereto. Since the loss was quantifiable and known in December 2011, we recognized this settlement loss in 2011 and all payments hereunder were accrued during the fourth quarter.

In exchange, Livneh agreed, among other things, to perform the following: (i) pay to the Company royalty payments of 3% on Livneh's Net Sales of the Assigned Patents, excluding any Net Sales of the RF Skin Resurfacing or Tip-On-Tube, (ii) pay to the Company a one-time royalty payment of 5% upon the closing of any sale by Livneh, Henvil or Lican Development Ltd. of their right or interest in any Intellectual Property pertaining to the Assigned Patents, and (iii) pay to the Company royalty payments of 3% on Livneh's Net Sales of the Seal-N-Cut device in the People's Republic of China.

The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party to the litigation. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company, Mr. Makrides, Mr. Citronowicz, Livneh, Henvil and Lican agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and they fully and finally released all claims known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen, which they had against each other through the date of the Settlement Agreement.

Our future installment payment obligations related to this settlement as of September 30, 2012 for the calendar years

ended December 31, 2012 and 2013 (in thousands):

Current	$	279
Long Term		23

Total	$	302

As previously reported, the Company's position is that we have complied with the Settlement Agreement by having paid the initial $250,000 lump sum and the $14,700 due to Henvil, transferred the related inventory, initiated the transfer of other assets and patents as outlined in the Settlement Agreement, and by making installment payments commencing on May 1, 2012.

In July 2012, Steven Livneh and two of his related entities, Henvil Corp. Ltd. and Lican Development Ltd., commenced a new action against the Company, Andrew Makrides, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Moshe Citronowicz, the Company's Senior Vice President of Operations, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa division). The complaint asserts, among other things, that (i) the defendants breached their obligations to the plaintiffs under the Settlement Agreement by allegedly failing to take certain actions that facilitated the plaintiffs' marketing and sale of the Seal-N-Cut products in the People's Republic of China, (ii) that defendants tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' Chinese business relationships and expectations allegedly by, among other things, refusing to provide plaintiffs with an ICON VS generator and (iii) plaintiffs allegedly suffered damages, as a result of defendants' misrepresentations. The complaint seeks, among other things, the following: (i) unspecified compensatory damages in excess of $4 million, (ii) providing plaintiffs with all ICON VS generators, (iii) an assignment to plaintiffs of all patents identified in the Settlement Agreement and (iv) a rescission of the Settlement Agreement. We believe the allegations to be frivolous and without merit and we intend to defend the action vigorously. The outcome of this matter is uncertain, no range of potential loss can be estimated and accordingly no effect has been given to any loss that may result from the resolution of this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

On July 24, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration. The plaintiff opposed the motion, and the motion was subsequently withdrawn as moot due to the non-availability of the stipulated arbitrator.

Stockholder Derivative Action

As previously reported, in September 2011, we were served in a purported stockholder derivative action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and certain of its present and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts, among other things against the individual defendants, breach of fiduciary duties and bad faith in relation to the management of the Company. The complaint seeks, among other things against the individual defendants, unspecified compensatory damages and various forms of equitable relief. The allegations in the derivative action appear to be based largely on the January 10, 2011 Livneh counterclaim described above.

On March 29, 2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove one of the plaintiffs and replace it with another. The amended complaint asserts essentially the same allegations as the original filing. We believe the allegations to be frivolous and without merit and we intend to defend the action vigorously. We are investigating whether there is a collusive connection between the derivative action and the previously settled lawsuit with Livneh. While no claims are asserted directly against the Company, the Company may have certain indemnification obligations to the individual defendants with respect to amounts paid by the individual defendants in connection with the litigation. The outcome of this matter is uncertain, no range of potential loss can be estimated and accordingly no effect has been given to any loss that may result from the resolution of this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

In May 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint based, in part, upon the plaintiff's failure to make demand upon the board as required by applicable law. The motion was denied and the parties are proceeding with discovery.

Keen Action

In February 2012, we received notice that an action had been commenced against us in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, by Leonard Keen, our former Vice President and General Counsel, related to his termination on December 9, 2011 and associated employment contract. Mr. Keen is demanding amounts outlined

under his employment contract which provided for the payment of a base annual salary of not less than $187,500 as well as certain other payments and benefits. The employment agreement also provided for the payment, under certain circumstances, of a lump sum severance payment equal to three times base compensation plus certain other payments and benefits as set forth in the employment agreement under severance payment. Mr. Keen also asserts a claim concerning an alleged violation of the Florida "Whistle Blower's Act" and seeks specific performance of certain indemnification rights under his employment agreement. On April 27, 2012, we filed our answers with counterclaim in this action.

On July 3, 2012, plaintiff amended the complaint to add Andrew Makrides, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint asserts essentially the same allegations as the original filing but asserts additional claims concerning (i) an alleged violation of ERISA and (ii) an alleged tortious interference with the plaintiff's employment contract by Andrew Makrides. We believe we have meritorious defenses against Mr. Keen's claims and are vigorously defending this action. The outcome of this matter is uncertain and accordingly no effect has been given to any loss that may result from the resolution of this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, however the range of potential loss is zero to approximately $600,000 plus possible attorney fees which are not determinable at this time.

On July 16, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2012, the court issued a decision, dismissing the claim against Mr. Makrides as well as the claim alleging breach by the Company of the implied covenant of good faith. Discovery in the action is proceeding on the remaining claims.

In addition to the above, in the normal course of business, we are subject, from time to time, to legal proceedings. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, we are unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of September 30, 2012. These matters could affect the operating results of any one or more quarters when resolved in future periods.

We expense costs of litigation related to contingencies in the periods in which the costs are incurred.