Subsequent event	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Subsequent Event [Abstract]
Subsequent event	14. Subsequent event In December 2010, the Company received a demand letter from counsel from a Company stockholder alleging that Phoenix Venture Fund, LLC ("PVF") and its affiliates may be liable to the Company for short swing profits in connection with the cashless exercise of certain warrants issued to PVF by the Company in connection with the Credit Agreement (the "Warrants"), pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934 Act). In January 2011 the Company received a letter from PVF concluding that the issuance (and/or modification) and cashless exercise of the Warrants were exempt transactions from Section 16(b) pursuant to Rules 16b-3(d) and (e) on the basis that PVF was a director by deputation since its co-managing members were Company board observers and thus functional directors. The Company's Board of Directors convened a Special Committee of Independent Directors (the "Special Committee") to investigate the allegations and the Special Committee retained special independent counsel. After analyzing the transactions identified in the demand letter, and receiving advice from the special independent counsel, the Special Committee concluded that PVF and its affiliates were deemed to be directors for purposes of Rule 16(b) under the 1934 Act as a result of their activities with the Company during the time period 2007 to 2009. The full Board ratified the Special Committee's conclusion that the transactions were exempt from Section 16(b), and the Company informed the stockholder that CIC would not commence litigation to recover the profit referred to in the demand letter. In April 2011, despite the Special Committee's finding, the stockholder commenced a civil action against PVF, an affiliate of PVF and the two co-manager of the managing member of PVF for alleged violations of Section 16(b) and included the Company as a nominal defendant. In December 2011, in order to avoid further significant costs and expenses, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing or the lack of merit in any defense, PVF and its affiliates and the Company settled the action, and, in January 2012, PVF paid the Company $500 in the aggregate, consisting of $175 in cash and 6.5 million shares of the Company's Common Stock valued at $325. In January 2012, PVF requested indemnification from the Company for all costs and expenses incurred and amounts paid in settlement, net of any insurance payments received pursuant to the Company's 1986 By-laws, as amended (the "By-laws"), and the June 5, 2008, Credit Agreement, as amended on May 28, 2009 (the Credit Agreement"). In January 2012, the Board requested that the Special Committee review PVF's request for indemnification and make a recommendation to the Board. The Special Committee retained special independent counsel and, after receiving advice from such counsel, negotiated with PVF and settled the claim to avoid further costs and expenses, subject to the approval of the Board. In February 2012, the Board approved the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company issued 277,957 shares of its Series C Preferred Stock to PVF and the Company and PVF exchanged mutual releases relating to the indemnification claim and the litigation. The shares of Series C Preferred Stock issued in connection with the settlement had an approximate of $417. The Company has combined the PVF settlement with the cost of indemnification, and has recorded a net charge to expense of $71 at December 31, 2011.

Subsequent event

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

14. Subsequent event

In December 2010, the Company received a demand letter from counsel from a Company stockholder alleging that Phoenix Venture Fund, LLC ("PVF") and its affiliates may be liable to the Company for short swing profits in connection with the cashless exercise of certain warrants issued to PVF by the Company in connection with the Credit Agreement (the "Warrants"), pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "1934 Act).

In January 2011 the Company received a letter from PVF concluding that the issuance (and/or modification) and cashless exercise of the Warrants were exempt transactions from Section 16(b) pursuant to Rules 16b-3(d) and (e) on the basis that PVF was a director by deputation since its co-managing members were Company board observers and thus functional directors.

The Company's Board of Directors convened a Special Committee of Independent Directors (the "Special Committee") to investigate the allegations and the Special Committee retained special independent counsel. After analyzing the transactions identified in the demand letter, and receiving advice from the special independent counsel, the Special Committee concluded that PVF and its affiliates were deemed to be directors for purposes of Rule 16(b) under the 1934 Act as a result of their activities with the Company during the time period 2007 to 2009. The full Board ratified the Special Committee's conclusion that the transactions were exempt from Section 16(b), and the Company informed the stockholder that CIC would not commence litigation to recover the profit referred to in the demand letter.

In April 2011, despite the Special Committee's finding, the stockholder commenced a civil action against PVF, an affiliate of PVF and the two co-manager of the managing member of PVF for alleged violations of Section 16(b) and included the Company as a nominal defendant. In December 2011, in order to avoid further significant costs and expenses, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing or the lack of merit in any defense, PVF and its affiliates and the Company settled the action, and, in January 2012, PVF paid the Company $500 in the aggregate, consisting of $175 in cash and 6.5 million shares of the Company's Common Stock valued at $325.

In January 2012, PVF requested indemnification from the Company for all costs and expenses incurred and amounts paid in settlement, net of any insurance payments received pursuant to the Company's 1986 By-laws, as amended (the "By-laws"), and the June 5, 2008, Credit Agreement, as amended on May 28, 2009 (the Credit Agreement").

In January 2012, the Board requested that the Special Committee review PVF's request for indemnification and make a recommendation to the Board. The Special Committee retained special independent counsel and, after receiving advice from such counsel, negotiated with PVF and settled the claim to avoid further costs and expenses, subject to the approval of the Board.

In February 2012, the Board approved the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company issued 277,957 shares of its Series C Preferred Stock to PVF and the Company and PVF exchanged mutual releases relating to the indemnification claim and the litigation. The shares of Series C Preferred Stock issued in connection with the settlement had an approximate of $417.

The Company has combined the PVF settlement with the cost of indemnification, and has recorded a net charge to expense of $71 at December 31, 2011.