Note 7 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Leases

Related Party Leases. Warehouse and office facilities are leased from Vitamin Realty. On January 5, 2012, MDC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a second amendment of lease (the “Second Lease Amendment”) with Vitamin Realty for its office and warehouse space in New Jersey increasing its rentable square footage from an aggregate of 74,898 square feet to 76,161 square feet and extending the expiration date to January 31, 2026. This Second Lease Amendment provides for minimum annual rental payments of $533, plus increases in real estate taxes and building operating expenses. Also on January 5, 2012, AgroLabs entered into a lease agreement with Vitamin Realty for an additional 2,700 square feet of warehouse space in New Jersey, the term of which expires on January 31, 2019. This additional lease provides for minimum lease payments of $27 with annual increases plus the proportionate share of operating expenses.

Rent expense for the three and six months ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 on these leases were $201 and $196 and $407 and $391, respectively, and are included in both cost of sales and selling and administrative expenses in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of December 31, 2013 and June 30, 2013, the Company had an outstanding obligation to Vitamin Realty of $845 and $918, respectively, included in accounts payable and long term debt in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Other Lease Commitments. The Company has entered into certain non-cancelable operating lease agreements expiring up through January 31, 2026, related to office and warehouse space, equipment and vehicles.

The minimum rental commitment for long-term non-cancelable leases is as follows:

Year ending June 30,	Lease Commitment		Related Party Lease Commitment		Total
2014, remaining	$	27	$	281	$	308
2015		45		563		608
2016		35		563		598
2017		15		563		578
2018		8		563		571
2019		-		550		550
Thereafter		-		3,510		3,510
Total	$	130	$	6,593	$	6,723

Total rent expense, including real estate taxes and maintenance charges, was approximately $244 and $239 and $490 and $500 for the three and six months ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Rent expense is included in cost of sales and selling and administrative expenses in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

(b) Legal Proceedings.

The Company is subject, from time to time, to claims by third parties under various legal theories. The defense of such claims, or any adverse outcome relating to any such claims, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition and cash flows.

(c) Other Claims.

On May 15, 2012, Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Cedarburg") sent the Company a letter (the "Demand Letter") setting forth a demand for indemnification under the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated March 17, 2009 (the "Cedarburg SPA"), by and among Cedarburg, InB: Hauser Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., InB: Paxis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Company. In the Demand Letter, Cedarburg demanded payment by the Company of $0.6 million in respect of the Company's indemnification obligations under the Cedarburg SPA. In addition, in the Demand Letter, Cedarburg informed the Company that there are also environmental issues pending which may lead to additional costs to Cedarburg which will likely be in excess of $0.3 million.

On May 30, 2012, the Company sent a letter responding to the Demand Letter and setting forth the Company’s position that it has no obligation to indemnify Cedarburg as demanded. On June 18, 2012, Cedarburg responded to the Company’s letter and, on July 27, 2012, the Company sent another letter to Cedarburg reiterating its position that the Company has no obligation to indemnify Cedarburg as demanded. On December 18, 2012, Cedarburg responded to the Company’s letter and, on January 15, 2013, the Company sent another letter to Cedarburg reiterating its position that the Company has no obligation to indemnify Cedarburg as demanded. As of February 12, 2014, the Company has not received any further communication from Cedarburg with respect to its demand for indemnification as set forth in the Demand Letter. The Company intends to vigorously contest Cedarburg's demand as set forth in the Demand Letter.