FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Fair Value Disclosures [Abstract]

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS [Text Block]

FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS:

ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements, clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. As such, fair value is a market-based measurement that should be determined based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. As a basis for considering such assumptions, ASC 820-10 establishes a three-tier value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value as follows: (Level 1) observable inputs such as quoted prices for identical assets in active markets; (Level 2) inputs other than the quoted prices in active markets that are observable either directly or indirectly; and (Level 3) unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which requires the Company to develop its own assumptions. This hierarchy requires the Company to use observable market data, when available, and to minimize the use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value.

The Company's cash and investment instruments are classified within Level 1 or Level 2 of the fair-value hierarchy because they are valued using quoted market prices, broker or dealer quotations, or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. The type of instrument valued based on quoted market prices in active markets primarily includes money market securities. This type of instrument is generally classified within Level 1 of the fair-value hierarchy. The types of instruments valued based on other observable inputs (Level 2 of the fair-value hierarchy) include investment-grade corporate bonds and government, state, municipal and provincial obligations. Such types of investments are valued by using a multi-dimensional relational model, the inputs are primarily benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two-sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers, and reference data including market research publications. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company changed its investment policy to allow the sale of long-term and short-term marketable securities prior to their stated maturity date. The Company principally holds securities until maturity; however, they may be sold under certain circumstances, including, but not limited to, the funding of acquisitions and other strategic investments. As a result of this change in policy the Company classified its investment portfolio as available-for-sale as opposed to held-to-maturity as of March 31, 2012. The Company's investments classified as Level 1 and Level 2 are available-for-sale investments, and were recorded at fair market value.

The fair value hierarchy of the Company's marketable securities at September 30, 2012, and December 31, 2011, was as follows (in thousands):

	Fair Value Measurement at
	September 30, 2012
Description	September 30, 2012		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Money market funds	$	147	$	147	$	—
Commercial paper	12,922		—		12,922
Corporate securities	35,605		—		35,605
Total	$	48,674	$	147	$	48,527

	Fair Value Measurement at
	December 31, 2011
Description	December 31, 2011		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)
Commercial paper	$	9,849	$	—	$	9,849
Money market funds	30,190		30,190		—
Certificates of deposit	10,000		—		10,000
Corporate securities	62,940		—		62,940
Total	$	112,979	$	30,190	$	82,789

The Company did not transfer any investments between Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair-value hierarchy in the nine months ended September 30, 2012, and the twelve months ended December 31, 2011.

On October 22, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with a privately held company, SemiSouth Laboratories ("SemiSouth"), as amended, pursuant to which the Company would be obligated to acquire SemiSouth if SemiSouth met certain financial performance conditions on or before December 31, 2013. At September 30, 2012, the Company determined the fair value of this potential obligation to be zero. The Company developed its own assumptions using Level 2 inputs in its fair-market valuation using a market approach valuation technique to determine the fair value of this obligation. The Company updated the estimated fair value of this potential obligation quarterly. Any changes are recorded in its unaudited condensed consolidated statements of income. In March 2012, in consideration for the loan agreement discussed below, the Company entered into an amended agreement with SemiSouth which established a maximum purchase price related to both the Company's option to acquire SemiSouth ("Purchase Option") and its potential obligation to acquire SemiSouth (as discussed above). The Company used Level 3 inputs in its fair-market valuation utilizing the income-approach valuation technique. The Company prepared a discounted cash flow analysis using the following unobservable inputs: weighted average cost of capital, long-term revenue growth, control premium, and discount for lack of marketability. The Company then used the Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair value of the Company's purchase option to be approximately $6.2 million. The Company's valuation technique derived inputs principally from comparable company market data (i.e., correlation values). In October 2012, information became known to the Company that provided evidence that its SemiSouth Purchase Option was other than temporarily impaired as of September 30, 2012, and as a result the fair value of the SemiSouth Purchase Option was deemed to be zero and written off. The charge is reflected in the Company's condensed consolidated statements of income (loss) under the other income (expense), charge related to SemiSouth caption (see Note 15, Transactions With Third Party, below for further details on the SemiSouth impairment).

In March 2012 the Company loaned SemiSouth $18.0 million, and in exchange the Company was issued a promissory note and received the modification discussed above to establish a maximum price under the Purchase Option. The note was classified as Level 3 in the fair-value hierarchy, as there was no market data for this instrument. The estimated fair value of the note was approximately $13.4 million prior to impairment, consisting of the promissory note of $18.0 million, net of the unamortized interest discount related to the $6.2 million Purchase Option (of which $1.6 million was amortized prior to impairment). In October 2012, information became known to the Company that provided evidence that its loan to SemiSouth was other than temporarily impaired as of September 30, 2012, and as a result the loan to SemiSouth was written off. The charge was reflected in the condensed consolidated statements of income (loss) under the other income (expense), charge related to SemiSouth caption for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 (see Note 15, Transactions With Third Party, below for further details on the SemiSouth loan). The following table presents the changes in Level 3 investments for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 (in thousands):

	Fair Value Measurement Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Note Receivable
Beginning balance at January 1, 2012	$	—
Purchases and issuances	13,433
Change in fair value	(13,433		)
Ending balance at September 30, 2012	$	—