Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. In accordance with the authoritative guidance issued by the FASB on contingencies, the Company accrues anticipated costs of settlement, damages and losses for claims to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. The Company records a receivable for insurance recoveries when such amounts are probable and collectable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable and, the Company will expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, the Company will accrue the minimum amount of the range. Stockholder Litigation The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought in United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of New York, by Company shareholders (the “Class Action”). The other defendants are James Weber, the Company's former CFO and Vice President for Operations, and the estate of ReiJane Huai. Mr. Huai was the Company’s former Chairman, President and CEO. The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants defrauded shareholders by falsely certifying in the Company’s SEC filings that they had disclosed any fraud, whether or not material, that involved management or other employees who had a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants were in fact aware of fraud. On May 8, 2014 a settlement of the action was approved by the court. In the fourth quarter of 2013, following preliminary approval of the settlement by the district court, the Company deposited $5.0 million into an escrow account, where it was being held pending final settlement. Company stockholders filed actions in the Suffolk County Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, putatively derivatively on behalf of the Company, against the Company, each of the Company’s Directors, Mr. Weber, Wayne Lam, a former Vice president of the Company, the estate of Mr. Huai, and Jason Lin, a former employee of the Company (the “Derivative Action”). The consolidated amended Derivative Action complaint alleged that the defendants breached their duties to the Company by: (1) causing or allowing the dissemination of false and misleading information; (2) failing to maintain internal controls; (3) failing to manage the Company properly; (4) unjustly enriching themselves; (5) abusing their control of the Company; and (6) wasting Company assets. On March 5, 2013, the Suffolk County Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion made by all of the defendants in the Derivative Action, except Mr. Lin, and dismissed the Derivative Action as to all defendants other than Mr. Lin. The stockholders have appealed the dismissal of the Derivative Action. The Company cannot predict when the appeal will be resolved or the ultimate outcome of the matter. Certain of the defendants may be entitled to indemnification by the Company under the laws of Delaware and/or the Company’s by-laws. The Company has insurance policies that were purchased to cover, among other things, lawsuits like the Class Action and the Derivative Action. The Company’s Directors and Officers (“D&O”) Insurance, is composed of more than one layer, each layer written by a different insurance company. However, the events that gave rise to the claims in the Class Action and the Derivative Action caused the Company’s insurers to reserve their rights to disclaim, rescind, or otherwise not be obligated to provide coverage to the Company and certain other insureds under the policies. In light of these uncertainties, the Company has entered into settlements with two of its insurers. Pursuant to these settlements, the Company will not receive repayment of all amounts it might otherwise have received. In October 2012 the Company entered into an agreement with the carrier of the first $5.0 million layer of the Company’s D&O insurance. Pursuant to this agreement, the Company accepted a payment of $3.9 million from the first layer insurance carrier in satisfaction of the carrier’s obligations to the Company under the first layer D&O insurance policy. In addition, as part of the October 2012 agreement with the carrier, the Company agreed to indemnify the carrier of the first layer of D&O insurance against potential claims by certain named insured persons under the first layer D&O insurance policy. The Company cannot predict the likelihood or the outcome of any such claims by the named insureds. Because the carrier of the next layer of insurance would not be obligated to make payment to the Company until the full $5.0 million first layer limit had been exhausted, this means that the Company was responsible for $1.1 million out of pocket before it could again seek reimbursement from its insurers. The Company accrued for the $1.1 million during 2012. On July 31, 2013 the Company entered into an agreement with the carrier of the second $5.0 million layer of the Company’s D&O insurance. Pursuant to the agreement, the insurer agreed to pay seventy five percent (75%) of the Company’s losses attributable to the Class Action and the Derivative Action above the first $5.25 million of such losses. In addition, as part of the July 31, 2013 agreement with the carrier, the Company agreed to indemnify the carrier of the second layer of D&O insurance against potential claims by certain named insured persons under the second layer D&O insurance. The Company cannot predict the likelihood or the outcome of any such claims by the named insureds. While, at present, the Company does not believe that the amounts it will pay in connection with the Class Action and the Derivative Action will exceed the limits of the first two layers of its coverage, there can be no assurance that if the Company seeks recovery from the additional layers, the recovery the Company makes on the remainder of its insurance will be adequate to cover the costs of its defense or settlement of the Derivative Action, or any damages that might ultimately be awarded against the Company or anyone to whom the Company might owe indemnification if the appeal is successful. The Company’s remaining insurers may deny coverage under the policies. If the plaintiffs are awarded damages and the Company’s insurance is not adequate to cover the amounts, or its insurers deny coverage, the amounts to be paid by the Company could have a significant negative impact on its financial results, cash flow and cash balances. Since October 1, 2012, the Company has recorded $7.4 million of total costs associated with the Class Action and the Derivative Actions. The Company has recorded a liability in the amount of $0.3 million in “accrued expenses” in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2014 which includes estimated legal fees for both the Class Action and the Derivative Action to date. As a result of the agreement reached with the insurer carriers of the Company’s D&O insurance, the Company recorded insurance recoveries of $5.5 million since October 1, 2012 of which $5.3 million have been reimbursed by the Company's insurance carriers and the remaining $0.2 million is recorded as a receivable in “prepaid expenses and other current assets” in the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014. During both the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded $0.1 million of investigation, litigation and settlement related legal costs, net of expected recoveries, related to expenses related to the class action and derivative lawsuits and other settlement related activities that are not recoverable through insurance. The Estate of ReiJane Huai On October 24, 2013, the Company filed a Petition against the Estate of ReiJane Huai (the “Estate”) in Surrogates Court, Nassau County, State of New York. Mr. Huai was the former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Company believes that the Estate owns more than 10% of the voting stock of the Company. The Petition alleges that Mr. Huai breached his fiduciary duties to the Company, breached his contracts with the Company, was unjustly enriched at the Company’s expense, and must repay legal fees advanced on Mr. Huai’s behalf by the Company. The Company demands payment of approximately $10 million from the Estate representing (1) wages and other compensation paid to Mr. Huai during the period that Mr. Huai was involved in the payment of bribes to a Company customer, and (2) legal fees advanced on behalf of Mr. Huai in connection with the criminal and regulatory investigations of the Company, and the civil litigation, arising out of the bribes. The legal fees were advanced under the indemnification provisions of the Company’s by-laws and pursuant to an undertaking to repay under certain conditions signed by Mr. Huai. In January, 2014, the Estate moved for partial dismissal of the Petition on the grounds that Mr. Huai was entitled to indemnification. The Company has filed its opposition to the Estate’s motion. Other Claims The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any such matters cannot be predicted with certainty, such matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results. The Company continues to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that the Company believes may be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact the Company’s financial results, its cash flows and its cash reserves.

Litigation

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be.

In accordance with the authoritative guidance issued by the FASB on contingencies, the Company accrues anticipated costs of settlement, damages and losses for claims to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. The Company records a receivable for insurance recoveries when such amounts are probable and collectable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable and, the Company will expense these costs as incurred. If the estimate of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is more likely, the Company will accrue the minimum amount of the range.

Stockholder Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought in United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of New York, by Company shareholders (the “Class Action”). The other defendants are James Weber, the Company's former CFO and Vice President for Operations, and the estate of ReiJane Huai. Mr. Huai was the Company’s former Chairman, President and CEO.

The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants defrauded shareholders by falsely certifying in the Company’s SEC filings that they had disclosed any fraud, whether or not material, that involved management or other employees who had a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants were in fact aware of fraud.

On May 8, 2014 a settlement of the action was approved by the court. In the fourth quarter of 2013, following preliminary approval of the settlement by the district court, the Company deposited $5.0 million into an escrow account, where it was being held pending final settlement.

Company stockholders filed actions in the Suffolk County Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, putatively derivatively on behalf of the Company, against the Company, each of the Company’s Directors, Mr. Weber, Wayne Lam, a former Vice president of the Company, the estate of Mr. Huai, and Jason Lin, a former employee of the Company (the “Derivative Action”). The consolidated amended Derivative Action complaint alleged that the defendants breached their duties to the Company by: (1) causing or allowing the dissemination of false and misleading information; (2) failing to maintain internal controls; (3) failing to manage the Company properly; (4) unjustly enriching themselves; (5) abusing their control of the Company; and (6) wasting Company assets.

On March 5, 2013, the Suffolk County Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion made by all of the defendants in the Derivative Action, except Mr. Lin, and dismissed the Derivative Action as to all defendants other than Mr. Lin. The stockholders have appealed the dismissal of the Derivative Action. The Company cannot predict when the appeal will be resolved or the ultimate outcome of the matter. Certain of the defendants may be entitled to indemnification by the Company under the laws of Delaware and/or the Company’s by-laws.

The Company has insurance policies that were purchased to cover, among other things, lawsuits like the Class Action and the Derivative Action. The Company’s Directors and Officers (“D&O”) Insurance, is composed of more than one layer, each layer written by a different insurance company. However, the events that gave rise to the claims in the Class Action and the Derivative Action caused the Company’s insurers to reserve their rights to disclaim, rescind, or otherwise not be obligated to provide coverage to the Company and certain other insureds under the policies. In light of these uncertainties, the Company has entered into settlements with two of its insurers. Pursuant to these settlements, the Company will not receive repayment of all amounts it might otherwise have received.

In October 2012 the Company entered into an agreement with the carrier of the first $5.0 million layer of the Company’s D&O insurance. Pursuant to this agreement, the Company accepted a payment of $3.9 million from the first layer insurance carrier in satisfaction of the carrier’s obligations to the Company under the first layer D&O insurance policy. In addition, as part of the October 2012 agreement with the carrier, the Company agreed to indemnify the carrier of the first layer of D&O insurance against potential claims by certain named insured persons under the first layer D&O insurance policy. The Company cannot predict the likelihood or the outcome of any such claims by the named insureds.

Because the carrier of the next layer of insurance would not be obligated to make payment to the Company until the full $5.0 million first layer limit had been exhausted, this means that the Company was responsible for $1.1 million out of pocket before it could again seek reimbursement from its insurers. The Company accrued for the $1.1 million during 2012.

On July 31, 2013 the Company entered into an agreement with the carrier of the second $5.0 million layer of the Company’s D&O insurance. Pursuant to the agreement, the insurer agreed to pay seventy five percent (75%) of the Company’s losses attributable to the Class Action and the Derivative Action above the first $5.25 million of such losses. In addition, as part of the July 31, 2013 agreement with the carrier, the Company agreed to indemnify the carrier of the second layer of D&O insurance against potential claims by certain named insured persons under the second layer D&O insurance. The Company cannot predict the likelihood or the outcome of any such claims by the named insureds.

While, at present, the Company does not believe that the amounts it will pay in connection with the Class Action and the Derivative Action will exceed the limits of the first two layers of its coverage, there can be no assurance that if the Company seeks recovery from the additional layers, the recovery the Company makes on the remainder of its insurance will be adequate to cover the costs of its defense or settlement of the Derivative Action, or any damages that might ultimately be awarded against the Company or anyone to whom the Company might owe indemnification if the appeal is successful.

The Company’s remaining insurers may deny coverage under the policies. If the plaintiffs are awarded damages and the Company’s insurance is not adequate to cover the amounts, or its insurers deny coverage, the amounts to be paid by the Company could have a significant negative impact on its financial results, cash flow and cash balances.

Since October 1, 2012, the Company has recorded $7.4 million of total costs associated with the Class Action and the Derivative Actions. The Company has recorded a liability in the amount of $0.3 million in “accrued expenses” in the consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2014 which includes estimated legal fees for both the Class Action and the Derivative Action to date. As a result of the agreement reached with the insurer carriers of the Company’s D&O insurance, the Company recorded insurance recoveries of $5.5 million since October 1, 2012 of which $5.3 million have been reimbursed by the Company's insurance carriers and the remaining $0.2 million is recorded as a receivable in “prepaid expenses and other current assets” in the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2014.

During both the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded $0.1 million of investigation, litigation and settlement related legal costs, net of expected recoveries, related to expenses related to the class action and derivative lawsuits and other settlement related activities that are not recoverable through insurance.

The Estate of ReiJane Huai

On October 24, 2013, the Company filed a Petition against the Estate of ReiJane Huai (the “Estate”) in Surrogates Court, Nassau County, State of New York. Mr. Huai was the former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Company believes that the Estate owns more than 10% of the voting stock of the Company.

The Petition alleges that Mr. Huai breached his fiduciary duties to the Company, breached his contracts with the Company, was unjustly enriched at the Company’s expense, and must repay legal fees advanced on Mr. Huai’s behalf by the Company. The Company demands payment of approximately $10 million from the Estate representing (1) wages and other compensation paid to Mr. Huai during the period that Mr. Huai was involved in the payment of bribes to a Company customer, and (2) legal fees advanced on behalf of Mr. Huai in connection with the criminal and regulatory investigations of the Company, and the civil litigation, arising out of the bribes. The legal fees were advanced under the indemnification provisions of the Company’s by-laws and pursuant to an undertaking to repay under certain conditions signed by Mr. Huai.

In January, 2014, the Estate moved for partial dismissal of the Petition on the grounds that Mr. Huai was entitled to indemnification. The Company has filed its opposition to the Estate’s motion.

Other Claims

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any such matters cannot be predicted with certainty, such matters are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.

The Company continues to assess certain litigation and claims to determine the amounts, if any, that the Company believes may be paid as a result of such claims and litigation and, therefore, additional losses may be accrued and paid in the future, which could materially adversely impact the Company’s financial results, its cash flows and its cash reserves.