Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Contingencies	K. Contingencies From time to time, we become involved in various investigations, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters may relate to product liability, employment, intellectual property, tax, regulation, contract or other matters. The resolution of these matters as they arise will be subject to various uncertainties and, even if such claims are without merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. While unfavorable outcomes are possible, based on available information, we generally do not believe the resolution of these matters will result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or results of operation. However, a settlement payment or unfavorable outcome could adversely impact our results of operation. Our evaluation of the likely impact of these actions could change in the future and we could have unfavorable outcomes that we do not expect. On August 20, 2009, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc. (VPX) and DNP International Co., Inc. (DNP) of infringing certain patents owned by NAI relating to the ingredient known as beta-alanine marketed and sold under the CarnoSyn^® trade name. On August 8, 2011, a settlement agreement was reached between NAI and VPX. On August 3, 2011, NAI and CSI filed an amended and supplemental complaint against DNP reasserting claims for unfair competition and violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On September 8, 2011, NAI and CSI filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the amended and supplemental complaint against DNP and filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging similar claims of unfair competition, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interference with business relations. On December 22, 2011, DNP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against NAI and CSI for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of three of NAI’s patents. On January 27, 2012, DNP amended its complaint to add declaratory judgment claims against a fourth NAI patent (‘381 patent). On February 6, 2012, the Company and CSI moved to dismiss the cases related to the three previously asserted patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement by DNP of the ‘381 patent. DNP subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss CSI from the lawsuit. On March 2, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of CSI. The Company’s motion is still pending before the Court. On December 21, 2011, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, accusing Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, also known as Cellucor (Woodbolt), Vitaquest International, Inc., d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals (Garden State) and F.H.G. Corporation, d/b/a Integrity Nutraceuticals (Integrity), of infringing NAI’s ‘381 patent. The complaint alleges that Woodbolt sells nutritional supplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine such as C4 Extreme™, M5 Extreme™, and N-Zero Extreme™, that infringe the ‘381 patent. Woodbolt, in turn, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘381 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 17, 2012, Woodbolt filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging its original claims against the Company and asserting new claims of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. The Company reasserted the arguments in its prior motion to dismiss and moved to dismiss the new claims asserted by Woodbolt. On January 23, 2013, the Delaware Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Woodbolt’s case. On June 5, 2012, the Court in the above-referenced Texas case consolidated the pending suit with a second patent infringement case filed against Woodbolt by the Company on May 3, 2012, asserting infringement its ‘422 patent. On November 9, 2012, NAI filed a supplemental complaint adding allegations of infringement of Woodbolt’s Cellucor Cor –Performance ß-BCAA™ and Cellucor Cor –Performance™ Creatine products. Woodbolt has also requested inter partes reexamination of the ‘381 and ‘422 patents by the USPTO. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to reexam the ‘381 patent and on August 17, 2012 the USPTO accepted the request to re-exam the ‘422 patent. A declaration of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of certain of our patents could have a material adverse impact upon our business results, operations, and financial condition.

K. Contingencies

From time to time, we become involved in various investigations, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters may relate to product liability, employment, intellectual property, tax, regulation, contract or other matters. The resolution of these matters as they arise will be subject to various uncertainties and, even if such claims are without merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. While unfavorable outcomes are possible, based on available information, we generally do not believe the resolution of these matters will result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or results of operation. However, a settlement payment or unfavorable outcome could adversely impact our results of operation. Our evaluation of the likely impact of these actions could change in the future and we could have unfavorable outcomes that we do not expect.

On August 20, 2009, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc. (VPX) and DNP International Co., Inc. (DNP) of infringing certain patents owned by NAI relating to the ingredient known as beta-alanine marketed and sold under the CarnoSyn^® trade name. On August 8, 2011, a settlement agreement was reached between NAI and VPX. On August 3, 2011, NAI and CSI filed an amended and supplemental complaint against DNP reasserting claims for unfair competition and violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On September 8, 2011, NAI and CSI filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the amended and supplemental complaint against DNP and filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging similar claims of unfair competition, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interference with business relations. On December 22, 2011, DNP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against NAI and CSI for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of three of NAI’s patents. On January 27, 2012, DNP amended its complaint to add declaratory judgment claims against a fourth NAI patent (‘381 patent). On February 6, 2012, the Company and CSI moved to dismiss the cases related to the three previously asserted patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement by DNP of the ‘381 patent. DNP subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss CSI from the lawsuit. On March 2, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of CSI. The Company’s motion is still pending before the Court.

On December 21, 2011, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, accusing Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, also known as Cellucor (Woodbolt), Vitaquest International, Inc., d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals (Garden State) and F.H.G. Corporation, d/b/a Integrity Nutraceuticals (Integrity), of infringing NAI’s ‘381 patent. The complaint alleges that Woodbolt sells nutritional supplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine such as C4 Extreme™, M5 Extreme™, and N-Zero Extreme™, that infringe the ‘381 patent. Woodbolt, in turn, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘381 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 17, 2012, Woodbolt filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging its original claims against the Company and asserting new claims of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. The Company reasserted the arguments in its prior motion to dismiss and moved to dismiss the new claims asserted by Woodbolt. On January 23, 2013, the Delaware Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Woodbolt’s case. On June 5, 2012, the Court in the above-referenced Texas case consolidated the pending suit with a second patent infringement case filed against Woodbolt by the Company on May 3, 2012, asserting infringement its ‘422 patent. On November 9, 2012, NAI filed a supplemental complaint adding allegations of infringement of Woodbolt’s Cellucor Cor –Performance ß-BCAA™ and Cellucor Cor –Performance™ Creatine products. Woodbolt has also requested inter partes reexamination of the ‘381 and ‘422 patents by the USPTO. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to reexam the ‘381 patent and on August 17, 2012 the USPTO accepted the request to re-exam the ‘422 patent.

A declaration of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of certain of our patents could have a material adverse impact upon our business results, operations, and financial condition.