Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies	Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies Litigation We are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. All such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable with assurance. Additionally, our businesses are subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as by non-practicing entities (NPEs), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers. Consequently, as of March 31, 2016, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. SpearPoint Capital Fund LP et al. v. Mark E. Lucas, et al. This shareholder derivative action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court on February 9, 2015. It names as defendants the Company and the members of its Board of Directors. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants paid excessive compensation to the directors. They were seeking damages for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and corporate governance reforms related to the Company’s compensation practices. SpearPoint Capital Fund LP et al. and the Company reached a final settlement of this matter in May 2016, whereby the Company agreed to reimburse SpearPoint's attorney fees of approximately $157,000. On January 26, 2016, CMC Magnetic Corp, a supplier of Imation Storage Media business, filed a suit in Ramsey County District Court, Minnesota seeking $6.3 million against Imation and $0.6 million against Imation Latin America, Inc. for breach of contract related to inventory purchases. Imation filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, denying any liabilities and asserting counterclaims for breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to pay rebates and unjust enrichment. Additionally, Imation is seeking damages from CMC Magnetics Corp via its disputing of payables to that former vendor (described in the next paragraph) in an amount exceeding $6.3M. Imation will vigorously defend the case. The Company is currently disputing trade payables with certain vendors (including CMC Magnetic, Corp) associated with our Legacy Businesses. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 the Company had $26.0 million of trade payables recorded to these vendors (which are reflected within other current liabilities of discontinued operations on our Consolidated Balance Sheet), which is based on amounts billed to the Company, but not paid. The Company alleges historical nonperformance by these vendors and, accordingly, is disputing the amounts presently being claimed as being owed. To the extent the Company is able to settle this dispute for amounts lower than $26.0 million, it will record a gain at that time as a part of discontinued operations. As a part of this dispute, these vendors have taken action to seize approximately $8 million of the Company's cash, which is recorded as restricted cash within current assets of discontinued operations on the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2016. On May 6, 2016 Nexsan Technology Incorporated ("Nexsan"), a wholly own subsidiary of Imation, filed a complaint in the state of Delaware for a declaratory judgment against EMC Corporation ('EMC"). Nexsan seeks a declaration that Nexsan has a priority of right to use the Nexsan UNITY Marks and that Nexsan's prosecution of its trademark applications with the respect to, and to use, the Nexsan UNITY Marks does not infringe upon the EMC UNITY Marks. In addition, Nexsan seeks an injunctions preventing EMC from threatening Nexsan with legal action relating to use of the Nexsan UNITY Marks, or making any public statements or statements to potential customers calling into question Nexsan's right to use its UNITY Marks. Environmental Matters Our operations are subject to a wide range of federal, state and local environmental laws. Environmental remediation costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. These accruals are reviewed periodically as remediation and investigatory activities proceed and are adjusted accordingly. Compliance with environmental regulations has not had a material adverse effect on our financial results. We did not have any environmental accruals as of March 31, 2016. Copyright Levies Background and historical developments associated with our copyright levies are discussed in Note 15 - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued liabilities of $5.1 million and $5.1 million, respectively, associated with levies for which we are withholding payment. The amounts are recorded within our current liabilities of continued operations and are not part of our discontinued operations. The Company's on-going Corporate function manages our copyright levies and is currently exploring various options associated with the potential disposition of these levies in the future. We are subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. Those actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by Imation. Imation has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. A hearing occurred on December 8, 2015, in the High Court of Justice (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) on Imation’s claim against Copie France for reimbursement of commercial optical levies previously paid by Imation, and Copie France’s counterclaim against Imation seeking payment of withheld levy payments. On April 8, 2016, the Paris District Court rejected all of Imation’s claims finding that the European Union law arguments raised by Imation were inapplicable and relied solely on French law to grant Copie France’s counterclaims. Imation Europe has filed a notice of appeal which suspends enforcement of the ruling. Imation had previously reversed all of its liabilities associated with copyright levies in France. Despite the April 2016 ruling of the Paris District Court, the Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future in France and, accordingly, has not recorded an accrual for this matter. The Canadian Private Copying Collective ("CPCC") is alleging that Imation Enterprises Corp. has not reported all leviable sales of blank audio recording media, resulting in levies owing for the time frame of September 1, 2010 to February 28, 2015 and seeks CAD 6 million. We believe the allegation is without merit and will vigorously defend the case. We have not established an accrual for this amount, as we do not believe that a loss is reasonably possible. We are subject to threatened actions by certain customers of Imation seeking reimbursement of funds they allege relate to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additional court decisions may be rendered in 2016 that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could trigger a review of our levy exposure in those countries.

Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are the subject of various pending or threatened legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. All such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable with assurance. Additionally, our businesses are subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as by non-practicing entities (NPEs), sometimes referred to as “patent trolls,” who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers. Consequently, as of March 31, 2016, we are unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could materially affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

SpearPoint Capital Fund LP et al. v. Mark E. Lucas, et al. This shareholder derivative action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court on February 9, 2015. It names as defendants the Company and the members of its Board of Directors. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants paid excessive compensation to the directors. They were seeking damages for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and corporate governance reforms related to the Company’s compensation practices. SpearPoint Capital Fund LP et al. and the Company reached a final settlement of this matter in May 2016, whereby the Company agreed to reimburse SpearPoint's attorney fees of approximately $157,000.

On January 26, 2016, CMC Magnetic Corp, a supplier of Imation Storage Media business, filed a suit in Ramsey County District Court, Minnesota seeking $6.3 million against Imation and $0.6 million against Imation Latin America, Inc. for breach of contract related to inventory purchases. Imation filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, denying any liabilities and asserting counterclaims for breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to pay rebates and unjust enrichment. Additionally, Imation is seeking damages from CMC Magnetics Corp via its disputing of payables to that former vendor (described in the next paragraph) in an amount exceeding $6.3M. Imation will vigorously defend the case.

The Company is currently disputing trade payables with certain vendors (including CMC Magnetic, Corp) associated with our Legacy Businesses. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 the Company had $26.0 million of trade payables recorded to these vendors (which are reflected within other current liabilities of discontinued operations on our Consolidated Balance Sheet), which is based on amounts billed to the Company, but not paid. The Company alleges historical nonperformance by these vendors and, accordingly, is disputing the amounts presently being claimed as being owed. To the extent the Company is able to settle this dispute for amounts lower than $26.0 million, it will record a gain at that time as a part of discontinued operations. As a part of this dispute, these vendors have taken action to seize approximately $8 million of the Company's cash, which is recorded as restricted cash within current assets of discontinued operations on the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2016.

On May 6, 2016 Nexsan Technology Incorporated ("Nexsan"), a wholly own subsidiary of Imation, filed a complaint in the state of Delaware for a declaratory judgment against EMC Corporation ('EMC"). Nexsan seeks a declaration that Nexsan has a priority of right to use the Nexsan UNITY Marks and that Nexsan's prosecution of its trademark applications with the respect to, and to use, the Nexsan UNITY Marks does not infringe upon the EMC UNITY Marks. In addition, Nexsan seeks an injunctions preventing EMC from threatening Nexsan with legal action relating to use of the Nexsan UNITY Marks, or making any public statements or statements to potential customers calling into question Nexsan's right to use its UNITY Marks.

Environmental Matters

Our operations are subject to a wide range of federal, state and local environmental laws. Environmental remediation costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. These accruals are reviewed periodically as remediation and investigatory activities proceed and are adjusted accordingly. Compliance with environmental regulations has not had a material adverse effect on our financial results. We did not have any environmental accruals as of March 31, 2016.

Background and historical developments associated with our copyright levies are discussed in Note 15 - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies in our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had accrued liabilities of $5.1 million and $5.1 million, respectively, associated with levies for which we are withholding payment. The amounts are recorded within our current liabilities of continued operations and are not part of our discontinued operations. The Company's on-going Corporate function manages our copyright levies and is currently exploring various options associated with the potential disposition of these levies in the future.

We are subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. Those actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by Imation. Imation has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. A hearing occurred on December 8, 2015, in the High Court of Justice (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) on Imation’s claim against Copie France for reimbursement of commercial optical levies previously paid by Imation, and Copie France’s counterclaim against Imation seeking payment of withheld levy payments. On April 8, 2016, the Paris District Court rejected all of Imation’s claims finding that the European Union law arguments raised by Imation were inapplicable and relied solely on French law to grant Copie France’s counterclaims. Imation Europe has filed a notice of appeal which suspends enforcement of the ruling. Imation had previously reversed all of its liabilities associated with copyright levies in France. Despite the April 2016 ruling of the Paris District Court, the Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future in France and, accordingly, has not recorded an accrual for this matter.

The Canadian Private Copying Collective ("CPCC") is alleging that Imation Enterprises Corp. has not reported all leviable sales of blank audio recording media, resulting in levies owing for the time frame of September 1, 2010 to February 28, 2015 and seeks CAD 6 million. We believe the allegation is without merit and will vigorously defend the case. We have not established an accrual for this amount, as we do not believe that a loss is reasonably possible.

We are subject to threatened actions by certain customers of Imation seeking reimbursement of funds they allege relate to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additional court decisions may be rendered in 2016 that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could trigger a review of our levy exposure in those countries.