Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	CONTINGENCIES From time to time in the normal course of business, we are involved in legal proceedings. We evaluate the need for loss accruals under the requirements of FASB ASC 450 – Contingencies. We record an estimated loss for any claim, lawsuit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, then we record the minimum amount in the range as our loss accrual. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability is recorded. On June 10, 2005, we entered into a master equipment lease agreement with Farnam Street Financial, Inc. (“Farnam Street”). On April 22, 2009, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Farnam Street, alleging breach of contract, fraud and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, among other things. Farnam Street answered the complaint and filed a counter-claim against us, alleging breach of contract, among other things. The dispute centered on lease renewal, lease termination and lease buy-out provisions. On May 12, 2010, we finalized a settlement with Farnam Street and paid $720,000 to buy out the equipment leases. The settlement was allocated as $540,000 against amounts previously expensed and $180,000 was set up as fixed assets with a useful life of one year. These assets were fully depreciated in the second quarter of 2011. The TRS asset purchase agreement provided for a contingent consideration payment of up to $3.0 million based on TRS fourth quarter 2009 revenue and TRS December 31, 2009 backlog. We calculated a fourth quarter 2009 revenue contingent consideration payment of $1,123,000, which was paid in February 2010. On February 26, 2010, we received notice that TRS disputed our calculation and claimed an additional payment of $1,877,000. We responded on March 10, 2010, stating that TRS’s objections were without merit and asking that the dispute be postponed pending delivery of the backlog contingent payment calculation. TRS agreed to the postponement. On March 30, 2010, we delivered the backlog contingent payment calculation to TRS showing an amount payable of $0. TRS objected to our backlog contingent payment calculation. On May 6, 2010, TRS filed a civil action against us in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. TRS generally alleges that we frustrated their ability to maximize the contingent payment. TRS seeks compensatory damages of approximately $1,877,000, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs. The lawsuit is in the early procedural stages and the ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time. We have evaluated this claim and the civil action and believe that no additional payments are due under the calculations outlined in the asset purchase agreement.

CONTINGENCIES

From time to time in the normal course of business, we are involved in legal proceedings. We evaluate the need for loss accruals under the requirements of FASB ASC 450 – Contingencies. We record an estimated loss for any claim, lawsuit, investigation or proceeding when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, then we record the minimum amount in the range as our loss accrual. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability is recorded.

On June 10, 2005, we entered into a master equipment lease agreement with Farnam Street Financial, Inc. (“Farnam Street”). On April 22, 2009, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Farnam Street, alleging breach of contract, fraud and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, among other things. Farnam Street answered the complaint and filed a counter-claim against us, alleging breach of contract, among other things. The dispute centered on lease renewal, lease termination and lease buy-out provisions. On May 12, 2010, we finalized a settlement with Farnam Street and paid $720,000 to buy out the equipment leases. The settlement was allocated as $540,000 against amounts previously expensed and $180,000 was set up as fixed assets with a useful life of one year. These assets were fully depreciated in the second quarter of 2011.

The TRS asset purchase agreement provided for a contingent consideration payment of up to $3.0 million based on TRS fourth quarter 2009 revenue and TRS December 31, 2009 backlog. We calculated a fourth quarter 2009 revenue contingent consideration payment of $1,123,000, which was paid in February 2010. On February 26, 2010, we received notice that TRS disputed our calculation and claimed an additional payment of $1,877,000. We responded on March 10, 2010, stating that TRS’s objections were without merit and asking that the dispute be postponed pending delivery of the backlog contingent payment calculation. TRS agreed to the postponement. On March 30, 2010, we delivered the backlog contingent payment calculation to TRS showing an amount payable of $0. TRS objected to our backlog contingent payment calculation. On May 6, 2010, TRS filed a civil action against us in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. TRS generally alleges that we frustrated their ability to maximize the contingent payment. TRS seeks compensatory damages of approximately $1,877,000, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs. The lawsuit is in the early procedural stages and the ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this time. We have evaluated this claim and the civil action and believe that no additional payments are due under the calculations outlined in the asset purchase agreement.