LITIGATION	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
LITIGATION [Abstract]
LITIGATION	LITIGATION Breach of Contract Natural Alternatives International Inc. v. Mannatech Inc. dba Mannatech Dietary Supplements, Case No. 3:17-c-v-01906-W-JLB, U.S. District Court, for the Southern District of California On September 19, 2017, the Company was informed by Natural Alternatives International Inc. (“NAI”) that it had filed a civil action against the Company for allegedly breaching the excess inventory clause of a manufacturing agreement between the parties. NAI asserts that the Company owes $292,194 as reimbursement for excess inventory held by NAI post expiration of the manufacturing agreement. The Company disagrees with that assertion. The Company was not formally served. On October 25, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Company shall pay NAI two payments of $100,000 for a total of $200,000 to resolve the issues asserted in the complaint. On October 27, 2017, NAI filed Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement of the Action with the Court stating that the parties reached an amicable settlement and that upon final payment of the funds to NAI, NAI shall file a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. The final payment to NAI is due on or before December 30, 2017. This matter remains open. Insured Litigation - Personal Injury Ralph Pinkston v. Cornerstone Technologies, LLC d/b/a Cornerstone Show Foundation, Mannatech Inc., and Anatole Partners III, LLC, Case No. DC-17-13494 (192^nd Dist. Ct., Dallas, Co., Tex) On October 13, 2017, the Company’s registered agent received service of process of the above-captioned matter. Ralph Pinkston (the “Plaintiff”) is a truck driver who is alleging that he suffered injuries to his foot while unloading audio-visual equipment owned by Defendant Cornerstone from his truck on to the dock at Defendant Anatole’s hotel (the “Hotel”) on the morning of April 5, 2016. The Company held its 2016 MannaFest event at the Hotel from April 6, 2016 to April 10, 2016. Defendant Cornerstone provided production services to the Company for the event. The Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were due to the negligence of the Company and the other defendants. The Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $200,000. The Company submitted this matter to its insurance carrier and retained approved outside counsel. It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter; however, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. Administrative Proceedings Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea, Ltd. filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of the Company’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required the Company to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which was paid in January 2014. Both parties submitted a response to the Court’s inquiry on January 15, 2016. The final hearing for the case was held on May 26, 2016 where each party presented their respective arguments. The Court set the decision hearing on October 27, 2016, and the Court decided the case in the Company’s favor. However, on November 18, 2016, BCO filed an appeal to the Busan High Court. The first hearing occurred on March 31, 2017, and the second hearing occurred on April 21, 2017. The final hearing was held on June 2, 2017. The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2017 in favor of the BCO. The Company appealed this decision on August 24, 2017. This matter remains open. Patent Litigation Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-2497, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division On July 11, 2014 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wellness Quest, LLC and Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,157,431 and 7,202,220, both entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements,” (the “Patents”) and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. Mediation on this matter was held on April 24, 2015 and a settlement was not reached. On November 5, 2015, the Court issued an Order accepting Defendant’s stipulation of infringement under the Court’s claim interpretation and granted the Company’s partial motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Defendants’ infringement of the Patents. The Court stayed the permanent injunction until the conclusion of Defendants’ appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”). On August 5, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a per curium opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Company. On August 10, 2016, the Company filed a motion to lift the stay of permanent injunction previously issued by the trial court. On August 24, 2016, the Company received confirmation from its counsel that Defendants changed the formulation of the infringing product to a formulation proposed by the Company. On October 18, 2016, the Court entered an order lifting the stay and putting the permanent injunction back into full effect. On March 31, 2017, the Court entered the Agreed Scheduling Order for trial on damages and determination of willfulness. On June 22, 2017, bankruptcy counsel for Defendant Dr. McDaniel filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Court notifying the Court and the Company that on June 20, 2017, Defendant Dr. McDaniel filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas in Cause No. 17-42560. This case is automatically stayed, which under the Bankruptcy Code, prevents any type of collection to continue including litigation against the debtor. Defendant Dr. McDaniel asserts that the stay includes Defendant Wellness Quest as it is wholly owned by Defendant Dr. McDaniel. Although stayed, the case has not been dismissed. This matter remains open. In Re: Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 17-42560 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas) On June 22, 2017, the Company received notice that on June 20, 2017, Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (the “Debtor”) filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Debtor’s initial flings indicate that the Company is the largest creditor based on the Company’s judgment against the Debtor in the patent litigation styled, Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel. The Debtor asserts that the value of the debt is $700,000. The Company has engaged bankruptcy counsel. The first meeting of creditors was held on August 8, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the Chapter 7 Trustee and the Company each filed objections to certain exemptions asserted by the Debtor. On August 25, 2017, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case. On September 14, 2017, the Company filed its response opposing the U.S. Trustee’s motion on the grounds that dismissal would be contrary to the best interests of the creditors. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on September 20, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the U.S. Trustee stipulated to dismiss its dismissal motion. On October 20, 2017, the Court set November 13, 2017 as the deadline for the Company to file a complaint to assert that the damages owed by the Debtor to the Company for his infringement of the Company's patent to be non-dischargeable. This matter remains open. Trademark Opposition - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH On April 15, 2015, the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation (“Shaklee”) filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Û ^th) with the USPTO. On May 19, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the opposition and also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Shaklee’s registration of its YOUTH mark On March 28, 2017, the TTAB ruled on the 56(d) Motion, granting the Company’s motion in part to oblige Shaklee to answer the Company’s request for discovery related to Shaklee’s use or non-use of the YOUTH mark. The Company took the deposition of Shaklee’s designated witness on May 31, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the Company filed Applicant’s Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Applicant’s Counterclaim for Abandonment and Applicant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Abandonment. Shaklee’s reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgement and Response to the Company’s Counterclaim was filed on August 3, 2017. The parties are awaiting the TTAB’s ruling on the motions. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this office action or whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter remains open. Litigation in General The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred. The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.

LITIGATION

Breach of Contract

Natural Alternatives International Inc. v. Mannatech Inc. dba Mannatech Dietary Supplements, Case No. 3:17-c-v-01906-W-JLB, U.S. District Court, for the Southern District of California

On September 19, 2017, the Company was informed by Natural Alternatives International Inc. (“NAI”) that it had filed a civil action against the Company for allegedly breaching the excess inventory clause of a manufacturing agreement between the parties. NAI asserts that the Company owes $292,194 as reimbursement for excess inventory held by NAI post expiration of the manufacturing agreement. The Company disagrees with that assertion. The Company was not formally served. On October 25, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Company shall pay NAI two payments of $100,000 for a total of $200,000 to resolve the issues asserted in the complaint. On October 27, 2017, NAI filed Plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement of the Action with the Court stating that the parties reached an amicable settlement and that upon final payment of the funds to NAI, NAI shall file a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. The final payment to NAI is due on or before December 30, 2017. This matter remains open.

Insured Litigation - Personal Injury

Ralph Pinkston v. Cornerstone Technologies, LLC d/b/a Cornerstone Show Foundation, Mannatech Inc., and Anatole Partners III, LLC, Case No. DC-17-13494 (192^nd Dist. Ct., Dallas, Co., Tex)

On October 13, 2017, the Company’s registered agent received service of process of the above-captioned matter. Ralph Pinkston (the “Plaintiff”) is a truck driver who is alleging that he suffered injuries to his foot while unloading audio-visual equipment owned by Defendant Cornerstone from his truck on to the dock at Defendant Anatole’s hotel (the “Hotel”) on the morning of April 5, 2016. The Company held its 2016 MannaFest event at the Hotel from April 6, 2016 to April 10, 2016. Defendant Cornerstone provided production services to the Company for the event. The Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were due to the negligence of the Company and the other defendants. The Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $200,000. The Company submitted this matter to its insurance carrier and retained approved outside counsel.

It is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter; however, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim.

Administrative Proceedings

Mannatech Korea, Ltd. v. Busan Custom Office, Busan District Court, Korea

On or before April 12, 2015, Mannatech Korea, Ltd. filed a suit against the Busan Custom Office (“BCO”) to challenge BCO’s method of calculation regarding its assessment notice issued on July 11, 2013. The assessment notice included an audit of the Company’s imported goods covering fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and required the Company to pay $1.0 million for this assessment, all of which was paid in January 2014. Both parties submitted a response to the Court’s inquiry on January 15, 2016. The final hearing for the case was held on May 26, 2016 where each party presented their respective arguments. The Court set the decision hearing on October 27, 2016, and the Court decided the case in the Company’s favor. However, on November 18, 2016, BCO filed an appeal to the Busan High Court. The first hearing occurred on March 31, 2017, and the second hearing occurred on April 21, 2017. The final hearing was held on June 2, 2017. The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2017 in favor of the BCO. The Company appealed this decision on August 24, 2017. This matter remains open.

Patent Litigation

Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-2497, U.S. District Court, for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

On July 11, 2014 the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wellness Quest, LLC and Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (“Defendants”) alleging the Defendants infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,157,431 and 7,202,220, both entitled “Compositions of Plant Carbohydrates as Dietary Supplements,” (the “Patents”) and seeking to stop their manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. Mediation on this matter was held on April 24, 2015 and a settlement was not reached.

On November 5, 2015, the Court issued an Order accepting Defendant’s stipulation of infringement under the Court’s claim interpretation and granted the Company’s partial motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Defendants’ infringement of the Patents. The Court stayed the permanent injunction until the conclusion of Defendants’ appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”). On August 5, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a per curium opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Company. On August 10, 2016, the Company filed a motion to lift the stay of permanent injunction previously issued by the trial court. On August 24, 2016, the Company received confirmation from its counsel that Defendants changed the formulation of the infringing product to a formulation proposed by the Company. On October 18, 2016, the Court entered an order lifting the stay and putting the permanent injunction back into full effect. On March 31, 2017, the Court entered the Agreed Scheduling Order for trial on damages and determination of willfulness.

On June 22, 2017, bankruptcy counsel for Defendant Dr. McDaniel filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy with the Court notifying the Court and the Company that on June 20, 2017, Defendant Dr. McDaniel filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas in Cause No. 17-42560. This case is automatically stayed, which under the Bankruptcy Code, prevents any type of collection to continue including litigation against the debtor. Defendant Dr. McDaniel asserts that the stay includes Defendant Wellness Quest as it is wholly owned by Defendant Dr. McDaniel. Although stayed, the case has not been dismissed. This matter remains open.

In Re: Harley Reginald McDaniel, Case No. 17-42560 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas)

On June 22, 2017, the Company received notice that on June 20, 2017, Dr. H. Reginald McDaniel (the “Debtor”) filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Debtor’s initial flings indicate that the Company is the largest creditor based on the Company’s judgment against the Debtor in the patent litigation styled, Mannatech, Incorporated v. Wellness Quest, LLC and Harley Reginald McDaniel. The Debtor asserts that the value of the debt is $700,000. The Company has engaged bankruptcy counsel. The first meeting of creditors was held on August 8, 2017. On August 24, 2017, the Chapter 7 Trustee and the Company each filed objections to certain exemptions asserted by the Debtor. On August 25, 2017, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case. On September 14, 2017, the Company filed its response opposing the U.S. Trustee’s motion on the grounds that dismissal would be contrary to the best interests of the creditors. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on September 20, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the U.S. Trustee stipulated to dismiss its dismissal motion. On October 20, 2017, the Court set November 13, 2017 as the deadline for the Company to file a complaint to assert that the damages owed by the Debtor to the Company for his infringement of the Company's patent to be non-dischargeable. This matter remains open.

Trademark Opposition - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH

On April 15, 2015, the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation (“Shaklee”) filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Û ^th) with the USPTO. On May 19, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the opposition and also filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Shaklee’s registration of its YOUTH mark

On March 28, 2017, the TTAB ruled on the 56(d) Motion, granting the Company’s motion in part to oblige Shaklee to answer the Company’s request for discovery related to Shaklee’s use or non-use of the YOUTH mark. The Company took the deposition of Shaklee’s designated witness on May 31, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the Company filed Applicant’s Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Applicant’s Counterclaim for Abandonment and Applicant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Abandonment. Shaklee’s reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgement and Response to the Company’s Counterclaim was filed on August 3, 2017. The parties are awaiting the TTAB’s ruling on the motions.

It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of this office action or whether the Company will incur any liability, or to estimate the ranges of damages, if any, which may be incurred in connection with this matter. However, the Company believes it has a valid defense and will vigorously defend this claim. This matter remains open.

Litigation in General

The Company has incurred several claims in the normal course of business. The Company believes such claims can be resolved without any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company maintains certain liability insurance; however, certain costs of defending lawsuits are not covered by or only partially covered by its insurance policies, including claims that are below insurance deductibles. Additionally, insurance carriers could refuse to cover certain claims, in whole or in part. The Company accrues costs to defend itself from litigation as they are incurred.

The outcome of litigation is uncertain, and despite management’s views of the merits of any litigation, or the reasonableness of the Company’s estimates and reserves, the Company’s financial statements could nonetheless be materially affected by an adverse judgment. The Company believes it has adequately reserved for the contingencies arising from current legal matters where an outcome was deemed to be probable, and the loss amount could be reasonably estimated.