Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Legal Proceedings Litigation On June 21, 2006, the Company was served with a stockholder derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida by NECA-IBEW Pension Fund, purporting to act derivatively on behalf of the Company. The Derivative Action named Parlux Fragrances, Inc. as a defendant, along with Ilia Lekach, Frank A. Buttacavoli, Glenn Gopman, Esther Egozi Choukroun, David Stone, Jaya Kader Zebede and Isaac Lekach, each of whom at that date was one of our directors. The Derivative Action related to the June 2006 proposal from PF Acquisition of Florida LLC (“PFA”), which was owned by Ilia Lekach, to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock for $29.00 ($14.50 after the Company's June 16, 2006, Stock Split) per share in cash (the “Proposal”). The original Derivative Action sought to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and other violations of law and sought injunctive relief from the Court appointing a receiver or other truly neutral third party to conduct and/or oversee any negotiations regarding the terms of the Proposal, or any alternative transaction, on behalf of Parlux and its public shareholders, and to report to the Court and plaintiff's counsel regarding the same. The Derivative Action alleged that the unlawful plan to attempt to buy out the public shareholders of Parlux without having proper financing in place, and for inadequate consideration, violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, causing the complete waste of corporate assets, and constituting an abuse of control by the defendants. Before any response to the original complaint was due, counsel for plaintiffs indicated that an amended complaint would be filed. That First Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") was served to the Company's counsel on August 17, 2006. The Amended Complaint continued to name the then Board of Directors as defendants along with Parlux, as a nominal defendant. The Amended Complaint was largely a collection of claims previously asserted in a 2003 derivative action, which the plaintiffs in that action, when provided with additional information, simply elected not to pursue. It added to those claims, assertions regarding a 2003 buy-out effort and an abandoned buy-out effort of PFA. It also contained allegations regarding the prospect that the Company's stock might be delisted because of a delay in meeting SEC filing requirements. The Company and the other defendants engaged Florida securities counsel, including the counsel who successfully represented the Company in the previous failed derivative action, and on September 18, 2006, moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 26, 2006, which added alleged violations of securities laws, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 1, 2006. A hearing on the dismissal was held on March 8, 2007. On March 22, 2007, the motion to dismiss was denied and the defendants were provided twenty (20) days to respond, and a response was filed on March 29, 2007. During fiscal year 2008, there followed extremely limited discovery. A number of the factual allegations upon which the various complaints were based have fallen away, simply by operation of time. The Company was then advised that one of the two plaintiffs was withdrawing from the case. No explanation was given. The remaining plaintiff then spent several months obtaining documents. The Company believes the documents provide no support for any of the claims. The Company then sought to take the deposition of the remaining plaintiff, who lives in Seattle. He declined to travel due to a long-standing “fear of flying” and filed a motion on August 4, 2008, for a protective order from the Court. The Court denied the motion and required him to appear in Florida for his deposition. As a consequence of this ruling, his counsel then informed us that this plaintiff, too, was withdrawing from the case due to this travel requirement, leaving no plaintiff. The Company was then served with a motion on September 15, 2008, to further amend the complaint by inserting a new plaintiff. Our counsel opposed that motion on the grounds that a person not a party to the case has no standing to move to amend the complaint. A hearing on that motion was held on December 19, 2008, and the motion to amend was denied by the Court. The plaintiff's counsel was given leave to amend the complaint and intervene on behalf of a new plaintiff. Counsel also moved to amend the complaint yet again. After a lengthy hearing, the Court permitted the new plaintiff to intervene and to file a Third Amended Complaint on July 29, 2009. The Third Amended Complaint claims damages to the Company based on allegations of (1) insider trading; (2) failing to have proper internal controls resulting in delays in the filing of an Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2006 and a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for June 2006 and (3) intentionally stifling Parlux's independent outside auditors in the commencement of the Company's Sarbanes-Oxley review. Based on that preliminary review and discussions with the directors and detailed discussions with the Company's counsel, the Company believes that there are meaningful defenses to the claims although discovery will be required to reach a final conclusion as to these matters. An answer was filed to the Third Amended Complaint on September 14, 2009, essentially denying the substantive allegations. Discovery has commenced. A number of depositions were taken of the brokerage firms through which the stock trades were conducted by the then Board of Directors. Two representatives of the Company's former independent outside auditors, as well as one of the Company's consultants have been deposed. A deposition of the new plaintiff was completed in February 2010. The new plaintiff had no personal knowledge of any of the basic factual allegations and was simply unhappy that the Company's stock declined in value. Depositions of the Company's Board of Directors, both former and current, named in the suit were commenced. No completion date has been scheduled and there has been no effort by the plaintiff to complete their depositions. On January 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file under seal a motion for partial summary judgment. That motion was granted. The motion for partial summary judgment was filed and was initially scheduled for a hearing on June 25, 2010. That hearing was postponed until September 17, 2010, and then postponed again until January 7, 2011. The hearing scheduled for January 7, 2011, was postponed as well. A hearing was conducted on June 9, 2011. The motion seeks a ruling that one of the Company's directors engaged in insider trading. A comprehensive opposing memorandum was filed on behalf of the director prior to the hearing. It directly rebuts the facts upon which the motion was based. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted to the Court following the hearing on July 8, 2011. The Court has not yet issued its ruling. Based on the manner in which this case has been conducted to date, and based on the investigations into the earlier complaint the Company feels the Third Amended Complaint is without merit and subject to challenge and to an effective defense. The plaintiffs have informally initiated settlement inquiries. Discussions with the Company and the insurer were undertaken by counsel. Neither the Company nor the insurer believed that the settlement demand was reasonable under the facts as presently known. While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of the legal proceedings described above, based on current knowledge management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. Other To the best of the Company's knowledge, there are no other proceedings threatened or pending against the Company, which, if determined adversely to the Company, would have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations and cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

Litigation

On June 21, 2006, the Company was served with a stockholder derivative action (the “Derivative Action”) filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida by NECA-IBEW Pension Fund, purporting to act derivatively on behalf of the Company.

The Derivative Action named Parlux Fragrances, Inc. as a defendant, along with Ilia Lekach, Frank A. Buttacavoli, Glenn Gopman, Esther Egozi Choukroun, David Stone, Jaya Kader Zebede and Isaac Lekach, each of whom at that date was one of our directors. The Derivative Action related to the June 2006 proposal from PF Acquisition of Florida LLC (“PFA”), which was owned by Ilia Lekach, to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock for $29.00 ($14.50 after the Company's June 16, 2006, Stock Split) per share in cash (the “Proposal”).

The original Derivative Action sought to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and other violations of law and sought injunctive relief from the Court appointing a receiver or other truly neutral third party to conduct and/or oversee any negotiations regarding the terms of the Proposal, or any alternative transaction, on behalf of Parlux and its public shareholders, and to report to the Court and plaintiff's counsel regarding the same. The Derivative Action alleged that the unlawful plan to attempt to buy out the public shareholders of Parlux without having proper financing in place, and for inadequate consideration, violated applicable law by directly breaching and/or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing, causing the complete waste of corporate assets, and constituting an abuse of control by the defendants. Before any response to the original complaint was due, counsel for plaintiffs indicated that an amended complaint would be filed. That First Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") was served to the Company's counsel on August 17, 2006.

The Amended Complaint continued to name the then Board of Directors as defendants along with Parlux, as a nominal defendant. The Amended Complaint was largely a collection of claims previously asserted in a 2003 derivative action, which the plaintiffs in that action, when provided with additional information, simply elected not to pursue. It added to those claims, assertions regarding a 2003 buy-out effort and an abandoned buy-out effort of PFA. It also contained allegations regarding the prospect that the Company's stock might be delisted because of a delay in meeting SEC filing requirements.

The Company and the other defendants engaged Florida securities counsel, including the counsel who successfully represented the Company in the previous failed derivative action, and on September 18, 2006, moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 26, 2006, which added alleged violations of securities laws, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 1, 2006. A hearing on the dismissal was held on March 8, 2007. On March 22, 2007, the motion to dismiss was denied and the defendants were provided twenty (20) days to respond, and a response was filed on March 29, 2007. During fiscal year 2008, there followed extremely limited discovery. A number of the factual allegations upon which the various complaints were based have fallen away, simply by operation of time. The Company was then advised that one of the two plaintiffs was withdrawing from the case. No explanation was given. The remaining plaintiff then spent several months obtaining documents. The Company believes the documents provide no support for any of the claims.

The Company then sought to take the deposition of the remaining plaintiff, who lives in Seattle. He declined to travel due to a long-standing “fear of flying” and filed a motion on August 4, 2008, for a protective order from the Court. The Court denied the motion and required him to appear in Florida for his deposition. As a consequence of this ruling, his counsel then informed us that this plaintiff, too, was withdrawing from the case due to this travel requirement, leaving no plaintiff. The Company was then served with a motion on September 15, 2008, to further amend the complaint by inserting a new plaintiff. Our counsel opposed that motion on the grounds that a person not a party to the case has no standing to move to amend the complaint. A hearing on that motion was held on December 19, 2008, and the motion to amend was denied by the Court. The plaintiff's counsel was given leave to amend the complaint and intervene on behalf of a new plaintiff. Counsel also moved to amend the complaint yet again. After a lengthy hearing, the Court permitted the new plaintiff to intervene and to file a Third Amended Complaint on July 29, 2009.

The Third Amended Complaint claims damages to the Company based on allegations of (1) insider trading; (2) failing to have proper internal controls resulting in delays in the filing of an Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2006 and a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for June 2006 and (3) intentionally stifling Parlux's independent outside auditors in the commencement of the Company's Sarbanes-Oxley review.

Based on that preliminary review and discussions with the directors and detailed discussions with the Company's counsel, the Company believes that there are meaningful defenses to the claims although discovery will be required to reach a final conclusion as to these matters. An answer was filed to the Third Amended Complaint on September 14, 2009, essentially denying the substantive allegations.

Discovery has commenced. A number of depositions were taken of the brokerage firms through which the stock trades were conducted by the then Board of Directors. Two representatives of the Company's former independent outside auditors, as well as one of the Company's consultants have been deposed. A deposition of the new plaintiff was completed in February 2010. The new plaintiff had no personal knowledge of any of the basic factual allegations and was simply unhappy that the Company's stock declined in value. Depositions of the Company's Board of Directors, both former and current, named in the suit were commenced. No completion date has been scheduled and there has been no effort by the plaintiff to complete their depositions.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file under seal a motion for partial summary judgment. That motion was granted. The motion for partial summary judgment was filed and was initially scheduled for a hearing on June 25, 2010. That hearing was postponed until September 17, 2010, and then postponed again until January 7, 2011. The hearing scheduled for January 7, 2011, was postponed as well. A hearing was conducted on June 9, 2011. The motion seeks a ruling that one of the Company's directors engaged in insider trading. A comprehensive opposing memorandum was filed on behalf of the director prior to the hearing. It directly rebuts the facts upon which the motion was based. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted to the Court following the hearing on July 8, 2011. The Court has not yet issued its ruling.

Based on the manner in which this case has been conducted to date, and based on the investigations into the earlier complaint the Company feels the Third Amended Complaint is without merit and subject to challenge and to an effective defense.

The plaintiffs have informally initiated settlement inquiries. Discussions with the Company and the insurer were undertaken by counsel. Neither the Company nor the insurer believed that the settlement demand was reasonable under the facts as presently known.

While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of the legal proceedings described above, based on current knowledge management believes that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Other

To the best of the Company's knowledge, there are no other proceedings threatened or pending against the Company, which, if determined adversely to the Company, would have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations and cash flows.