Income Taxes	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Income Taxes [Abstract]
Income Taxes	Note 9 — Income Taxes As part of the process of preparing our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our full-year income and the related income tax expense in each jurisdiction in which we operate. Changes in the geographical mix or estimated level of annual pretax income can impact our effective tax rate or income taxes as a percentage of pretax income (the "Effective Rate"). This process involves estimating our current tax liabilities in each jurisdiction in which we operate, including the impact, if any, of additional taxes resulting from tax examinations, as well as making judgments regarding the recoverability of deferred tax assets. Our provision for income taxes is subject to volatility and could be adversely impacted by earnings being lower than anticipated in countries that have lower tax rates and higher than anticipated in countries that have higher tax rates. Tax liabilities can involve complex issues and may require an extended period to resolve. To the extent that the recovery of deferred tax assets does not reach the threshold of "more likely than not" based on our estimate of future taxable income in each jurisdiction, a valuation allowance is established. The assessment of the amount and timing of future taxable income involves significant estimates and management judgment. While we have considered future taxable income and the existence of prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance, in the event we were to determine that we would not be able to realize all or part of our net deferred tax assets in the future, we would charge to income an adjustment resulting from the establishment of a valuation allowance in the period such a determination was made and such adjustment may be material. For the three months ended September 30, 2011, a $0.3 million valuation allowance was recorded against certain state tax credits that we do not anticipate will be utilized prior to expiration. This is in addition to the valuation allowance established in the second quarter of 2011 of $0.9 million for certain foreign tax credits. We conduct business globally, and as a result, one or more of our subsidiaries file income tax returns in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions. In the normal course of business we are subject to examination by taxing authorities throughout the world. During 2008, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") completed an examination of tax years 2004 through 2006; therefore, our U.S. federal income tax returns for tax years prior to 2007 are generally no longer subject to adjustment. In the first quarter of 2011, the IRS commenced its examination of tax years 2007 through 2009 as a result of a refund claim filed in 2010 that related to a capital loss generated in 2009. As a result, we have extended the statute of limitations for our 2007 tax year. With respect to our U.S. state tax returns, we are generally no longer subject to examination of tax years prior to 2007 in our primary state tax jurisdictions, other than the state of North Carolina's re-examination of our 2006 tax year as a result of a refund claim filed during 2010. During the second quarter of 2011 we favorably settled an examination by the state of North Carolina relating to a refund claim filed with respect to our 2007 and 2008 tax years. Our foreign income tax returns are generally no longer subject to examination for tax periods prior to 2004. Additionally, we have recently been notified that the French tax authorities will begin an examination of the corporate tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2010. Although it is possible that certain tax examinations, including the IRS examination, could be resolved during the next 12 months, the timing and outcomes are uncertain. With respect to tax years that remain open to federal, state and foreign examination, we believe that we have made adequate provision in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential adjustments the IRS or other taxing authority may propose with respect to income tax returns filed. We may, however, receive an assessment related to an audit of our U.S. federal, state or foreign income tax returns that exceeds amounts provided for by us. In the event of such an assessment, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our results of operations for the period in which the matter is ultimately resolved or an unfavorable outcome is determined to be more likely than not to occur. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, our effective tax rate was 77% and 25%, respectively. For the three months ended September 30, 2011, the effective rate of 77% differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to a shift in our jurisdictional forecasts. The effect of this shift is amplified in the effective tax rate calculation due to the relatively low pre-tax income for the third quarter of 2011. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, the effective rate of 25% differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the tax benefit of our overall forecasted loss for the year as well as a discrete benefit relating to the recognition of certain previously unrecognized tax benefits resulting from the completion of studies related to our global transfer pricing policies. These benefits are partially offset by the recognition of $3.6 million in discrete tax expense resulting from the expiration and vesting of employee stock-based compensation and the required tax treatment under the authoritative guidance. For the three months ended September 30, 2010 we had a tax benefit of ($0.5) million or an effective tax benefit of 80%. For the nine months ended September 30, 2010 we had tax expense of $9.4 million or an effective tax rate of 29%. The effective rate for the three months ended September 30, 2010 differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to a higher percentage of our projected income for the full year being derived from international locations with lower tax rates than the U.S. coupled with the cumulative effect of the change in estimate of the jurisdictional split of taxable income. While the impact in terms of absolute dollars of shifting additional income to jurisdictions with lower tax rates was insignificant, due to the low amount of taxable income this shift had a disproportional impact on our overall effective tax rate, resulting in the unusually high effective tax benefit of 80% during the third quarter of 2010. For the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the effective rate differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the international impact discussed above as well as a discrete tax benefit of $1.0 million recognized as the result of certain amended state tax filings, offset by tax expense resulting from nondeductible expenses related to our acquisitions of Camiant and Blueslice and incurred during the second quarter of 2010. We no longer have a "pool of windfall tax benefits" as defined by the authoritative guidance for stock-based compensation. As a result, future cancellations or exercises that result in a tax deduction that is less than the related deferred tax asset recognized under the authoritative guidance will negatively impact our effective tax rate and increase its volatility, resulting in a reduction of our earnings. The authoritative guidance for stock-based compensation requires that the impact of such events be recorded as discrete items in the quarter in which the event occurs. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, we recorded a discrete tax expense of $0.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively, as compared to $0.3 million and $1.4 million recorded for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, associated with our stock compensation plans.

Note 9 — Income Taxes

As part of the process of preparing our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our full-year income and the related income tax expense in each jurisdiction in which we operate. Changes in the geographical mix or estimated level of annual pretax income can impact our effective tax rate or income taxes as a percentage of pretax income (the "Effective Rate"). This process involves estimating our current tax liabilities in each jurisdiction in which we operate, including the impact, if any, of additional taxes resulting from tax examinations, as well as making judgments regarding the recoverability of deferred tax assets. Our provision for income taxes is subject to volatility and could be adversely impacted by earnings being lower than anticipated in countries that have lower tax rates and higher than anticipated in countries that have higher tax rates.

Tax liabilities can involve complex issues and may require an extended period to resolve. To the extent that the recovery of deferred tax assets does not reach the threshold of "more likely than not" based on our estimate of future taxable income in each jurisdiction, a valuation allowance is established. The assessment of the amount and timing of future taxable income involves significant estimates and management judgment. While we have considered future taxable income and the existence of prudent and feasible tax planning strategies in assessing the need for a valuation allowance, in the event we were to determine that we would not be able to realize all or part of our net deferred tax assets in the future, we would charge to income an adjustment resulting from the establishment of a valuation allowance in the period such a determination was made and such adjustment may be material. For the three months ended September 30, 2011, a $0.3 million valuation allowance was recorded against certain state tax credits that we do not anticipate will be utilized prior to expiration. This is in addition to the valuation allowance established in the second quarter of 2011 of $0.9 million for certain foreign tax credits.

We conduct business globally, and as a result, one or more of our subsidiaries file income tax returns in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions. In the normal course of business we are subject to examination by taxing authorities throughout the world. During 2008, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") completed an examination of tax years 2004 through 2006; therefore, our U.S. federal income tax returns for tax years prior to 2007 are generally no longer subject to adjustment. In the first quarter of 2011, the IRS commenced its examination of tax years 2007 through 2009 as a result of a refund claim filed in 2010 that related to a capital loss generated in 2009. As a result, we have extended the statute of limitations for our 2007 tax year. With respect to our U.S. state tax returns, we are generally no longer subject to examination of tax years prior to 2007 in our primary state tax jurisdictions, other than the state of North Carolina's re-examination of our 2006 tax year as a result of a refund claim filed during 2010. During the second quarter of 2011 we favorably settled an examination by the state of North Carolina relating to a refund claim filed with respect to our 2007 and 2008 tax years. Our foreign income tax returns are generally no longer subject to examination for tax periods prior to 2004. Additionally, we have recently been notified that the French tax authorities will begin an examination of the corporate tax returns for tax years 2008 through 2010. Although it is possible that certain tax examinations, including the IRS examination, could be resolved during the next 12 months, the timing and outcomes are uncertain.

With respect to tax years that remain open to federal, state and foreign examination, we believe that we have made adequate provision in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for any potential adjustments the IRS or other taxing authority may propose with respect to income tax returns filed. We may, however, receive an assessment related to an audit of our U.S. federal, state or foreign income tax returns that exceeds amounts provided for by us. In the event of such an assessment, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our results of operations for the period in which the matter is ultimately resolved or an unfavorable outcome is determined to be more likely than not to occur.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, our effective tax rate was 77% and 25%, respectively. For the three months ended September 30, 2011, the effective rate of 77% differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to a shift in our jurisdictional forecasts. The effect of this shift is amplified in the effective tax rate calculation due to the relatively low pre-tax income for the third quarter of 2011. For the nine months ended September 30, 2011, the effective rate of 25% differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the tax benefit of our overall forecasted loss for the year as well as a discrete benefit relating to the recognition of certain previously unrecognized tax benefits resulting from the completion of studies related to our global transfer pricing policies. These benefits are partially offset by the recognition of $3.6 million in discrete tax expense resulting from the expiration and vesting of employee stock-based compensation and the required tax treatment under the authoritative guidance.

For the three months ended September 30, 2010 we had a tax benefit of ($0.5) million or an effective tax benefit of 80%. For the nine months ended September 30, 2010 we had tax expense of $9.4 million or an effective tax rate of 29%. The effective rate for the three months ended September 30, 2010 differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to a higher percentage of our projected income for the full year being derived from international locations with lower tax rates than the U.S. coupled with the cumulative effect of the change in estimate of the jurisdictional split of taxable income. While the impact in terms of absolute dollars of shifting additional income to jurisdictions with lower tax rates was insignificant, due to the low amount of taxable income this shift had a disproportional impact on our overall effective tax rate, resulting in the unusually high effective tax benefit of 80% during the third quarter of 2010.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the effective rate differs from the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the international impact discussed above as well as a discrete tax benefit of $1.0 million recognized as the result of certain amended state tax filings, offset by tax expense resulting from nondeductible expenses related to our acquisitions of Camiant and Blueslice and incurred during the second quarter of 2010.

We no longer have a "pool of windfall tax benefits" as defined by the authoritative guidance for stock-based compensation. As a result, future cancellations or exercises that result in a tax deduction that is less than the related deferred tax asset recognized under the authoritative guidance will negatively impact our effective tax rate and increase its volatility, resulting in a reduction of our earnings. The authoritative guidance for stock-based compensation requires that the impact of such events be recorded as discrete items in the quarter in which the event occurs. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, we recorded a discrete tax expense of $0.4 million and $3.6 million, respectively, as compared to $0.3 million and $1.4 million recorded for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, associated with our stock compensation plans.