Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the “Shanklin Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the “Raske Litigation”). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case “may involve matters in the public interest.” The judge’s letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs’ claims, and oral argument on the motion was heard by the Court in June 2016. The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina’s motion to dismiss on May 26, 2017. The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs’ remaining two New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina have appealed the decision. The parties appeared before the Court for a status conference on July 18, 2017, and the Court directed the defendants to answer the Third Amended Complaint by August 16, 2017. Wilhelmina filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on that date, and discovery in this action is continuing. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the action. On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others (the “Pressley Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. On June 14, 2016, the Court stayed all proceedings in the Pressley Litigation until a decision was issued on the motion to dismiss in the Shanklin Litigation. At the court conference on July 18, 2017 ( mentioned above), the judge directed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in the Pressley Litigation, if any, by August 16, 2017, and directed the defendants to move against or answer such amended complaint by September 29, 2017. The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action was filed on August 16 th , and Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2017. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is continuing, and the motion is scheduled to be submitted to the Court on November 16, 2017. Discovery is proceeding in this case. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley Litigation are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the action. In addition to the legal proceedings disclosed herein, the Company is also engaged in various legal proceedings that are routine in nature and incidental to its business. None of these routine proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are believed likely, in the Company's opinion, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

Note

Commitments and Contingencies

October 24, 2013,

a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the “Shanklin Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the “Raske Litigation”). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On

January 6, 2014,

the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On

August 11, 2014,

the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Further, on

March 3, 2014,

the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case

“may

involve matters in the public interest.” The judge’s letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and

not

independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder,

not

maintaining accurate payroll records, and

not

providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On

October 6, 2015,

Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the plaintiffs’ claims, and oral argument on the motion was heard by the Court in

June 2016.

The Court entered a decision granting in part and denying in part Wilhelmina’s motion to dismiss on

May 26, 2017.

The Court (i) dismissed

three

of the

five

New York Labor Law causes of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract causes of action, and some plaintiffs’ remaining

two

New York Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina have appealed the decision. The parties appeared before the Court for a status conference on

July 18, 2017,

and the Court directed the defendants to answer the Third Amended Complaint by

August 16, 2017.

Wilhelmina filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on that date, and discovery in this action is continuing. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the action.

June 6, 2016,

another putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and others (the “Pressley Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the Shanklin Litigation. On

June 14, 2016,

the Court stayed all proceedings in the Pressley Litigation until a decision was issued on the motion to dismiss in the Shanklin Litigation. At the court conference on

July 18, 2017 (

mentioned above), the judge directed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in the Pressley Litigation, if any, by

August 16, 2017,

and directed the defendants to move against or answer such amended complaint by

September 29, 2017.

The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of claims as in the Shanklin action was filed on

August 16

, and Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on

September 29, 2017.

Briefing on the motion to dismiss is continuing, and the motion is scheduled to be submitted to the Court on

November 16, 2017.

Discovery is proceeding in this case. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Pressley Litigation are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the action.

In addition to the legal proceedings disclosed herein, the Company is also engaged in various legal proceedings that are routine in nature and incidental to its business.

None

of these routine proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are believed likely, in the Company's opinion, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations.