LITIGATION	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
LITIGATION [Abstract]
LITIGATION	NOTE 7: LITIGATION 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 the Defendants’ manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. On July 16, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from infringing the Patents pending a final decision on the merits. On August 29, 2014, the Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support along with their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite Discovery. On December 15, 2014, the Company deposed Dr. Reginald McDaniel. Each party has submitted its list of claim constructions/definitions and a list of the supporting authority. Each party has filed its opening brief and its respective responsive brief. Defendants designated an expert and the Company deposed the expert on January 27, 2015 regarding his claim construction opinions while reserving the right to examine him later regarding other matters. Mediation on this matter was held on April 24, 2015. A settlement was not reached. On May 12, 2015 the Company received notice of an Order of Transfer advising that the case had been reassigned from Judge Ed Kinkeade to Judge David C. Godbey for all further proceedings. On July 20, 2015, the Court issued its Markman ruling adopting the Company’s proposed claim construction for all disputed terms except for “dietary supplement composition” which it found needed no construction. On August 20, 2015, Defendants filed a request for an interlocutory appeal, and the Company filed a reply on October 6, 2015. The Company also filed a separate motion requesting entry of a final judgment and permanent injunction on September 8, 2015. On November 5, 2015 the Court issued an Order accepting Defendants’ 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 December 3, 2015, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal which was docketed by the Court of Appeals on December 8, 2015. Defendants-Appellants filed their brief with the Court of Appeals on February 28, 2016. The Company-Appellee filed its brief with the Court of Appeals on March 24, 2016. Oral argument for the appeal was held on August 1, 2016. Each side was given fifteen minutes for argument before the Appellate Court. 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. Defendants filed their response to the Company’s motion on August 31, 2016. The parties conferred via telephone and electronic mail on August 31, 2016 and September 1, 2016 regarding the Company’s motion and Defendants’ response. On September 1, 2016 the Company filed an Amended Certificate of Conference with the Court advising that the Company’s motion was now unopposed. The Court has yet to rule on this motion. This matter remains open. This lawsuit continues the Company’s enforcement of its patent rights, and the Company intends to vigorously prosecute this matter. Based on the previous successful patent infringement lawsuits against Country Life, LLC, Glycobiotics International, Inc., Techmedica Health, Inc., IonX Holdings, Inc., Boston Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Green Life, LLC, Xiong Lo, and RBC Life Sciences, Inc., the Company believes there is a strong likelihood that it will obtain permanent injunctions against the manufacture and sale of any infringing products for the duration of the Company’s patents. Breach of Contract Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-15-01904, Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas On February 18, 2015 Ms. Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Mannatech alleging breach of contract pertaining to a portion of proceeds from a Mannatech Associate position once held by Ms. Anselmo’s former husband, Ray Gebauer. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 and a declaration that the Company continue to pay Plaintiffs proceeds from Mr. Gebauer’s former account. The Company filed its answer on March 23, 2015 denying the Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Court set the case for trial on March 7, 2016; however, on December 7, 2015 the Court granted the parties Agreed Motion for Continuation and reset the trial for September 26, 2016. At a hearing on August 19, 2016, the Court granted a continuance and reset the trial for November 14, 2016, and on October 18, 2016, the Court reset the trial for December 5, 2016. The Court issued a mediation order on April 20, 2015. The Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 15, 2016. The Mediation was conducted on June 17, 2016. The parties entered into a Mediation Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) that was contingent upon Plaintiff Anselmo reaching an acceptable compromise and settlement with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on or before July 18, 2016. On July 11, 2016, the Company was notified that Plaintiff Anselmo did not reach an acceptable compromise with the IRS, thus making the MSA null and void. Plaintiffs filed their response to the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on August 5, 2016. The hearing on that motion was held on August 11, 2016 and due to time constraints was continued on August 19, 2016. On August 31, 2016 the Court entered an Order Denying the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Discovery formally closed on October 7, 2016. At a hearing on October 10, 2016, the Company argued that it should be allowed further discovery related to the assertions by Plaintiff Anselmo that she was not legally married to Mr. Gebauer both before and after the Company and Plaintiff Anselmo entered into the contract at issue. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce communications with the IRS regarding Plaintiff Anselmo’s relationship to Mr. Gebauer. 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. This matter remains open. Uniscience Solution v. Chang, et al.; Chang, et al. v. Uniscience Solution, Randy Lee, and Mannatech, Inc. (cross-defendant), Case No. 16K03995 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles Co.) On June 1, 2016 the Company received notice that on May 20, 2016 Vivian Hsiaoling Chang and Alan Jyh Woei Hsu (collectively, the “Cross-plaintiffs”) filed an unverified cross-complaint against the Company and Uniscience Solution, and Randy Lee alleging breach of contract seeking $22,300 plus unspecified special and punitive damages in addition to attorneys’ fees and related costs. Cross-plaintiffs, Uniscience Solution, and Randy Lee are independent distributors of the Company who entered into an agreement, separate and apart from their respective distributor agreements with the Company. The Cross-plaintiffs assert that Mannatech is a party to such other agreement; which it is not. The Company filed an answer denying the assertions in the unverified cross-complaint. On September 23, 2016, the Cross-plaintiffs and Uniscience Solution entered into a settlement agreement. On September 27, 2016, the Cross-plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal with the Court dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice. On October 26, 2016, the Company received notice from its counsel that the Court entered the Dismissal on October 3, 2016. This matter is closed. Trademark Opposition – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) United States Trademark Opposition No. 91221493, Shaklee Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated re: UTH On April 15, 2015 the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Ū^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. Shaklee filed an extension to oppose the UTH mark on June 18, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose was granted until July 18, 2015. Shaklee filed a second extension on July 17, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose has been granted until September 16, 2015. Shaklee filed motions to strike the Company’s Affirmative Defenses to the Opposition and Counterclaim to cancel their registrations. The Company filed responses and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) ruled in Shaklee’s favor. The Company filed an amended Answer to the Opposition and Amended Counterclaim on November 18, 2015. Shaklee then filed an answer to the Company’s Counterclaim on December 30, 2015. On September 15, 2015 Shaklee filed two more Notices of Opposition for the UTH & Design and ŪTH applications. The Company filed Answers and Counterclaims on November 20, 2015. On January 25, 2016, the Company filed a motion to strike Shaklee’s affirmative defense on cancellation. On May 17, 2016, the TTAB granted the Company’s motion to strike Shaklee’s affirmative defense on cancellation. On August 9, 2016, Shaklee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Company’s cancellation filing of its YOUTH mark. On September 9, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Request for Discovery to Respond to Summary Judgment under Rule 56(d). On September 28, 2016, Shaklee filed a response to the Company’s motion to cancel the request for discovery. The Company plans to file a response in support of the motion under Rule 56(d) on October 18, 2016. The proceedings, including discovery, have been suspended until the TTAB can rule on the motions. This matter remains open. It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the USPTO 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. Arbitration Proceeding Mannatech v. Samuel L. Caster and Wonder Enterprises, LLC, Demand for Arbitration, Case No. 01-15-0003-6812. On May 29, 2015 the Company initiated arbitration proceedings against Samuel L. Caster and Wonder Enterprises, LLC (“Respondents”) alleging breach of contract by Mr. Caster and his company, Wonder Enterprises, under a series of consulting agreements entered into by the parties. Mannatech seeks to recover actual damages, costs of court and prejudgment interest together with disgorgement of all benefits received by the Respondents. The Company estimates its damages to be between $500,000 and $3,500,000. On June 12, 2015 Respondents contacted the Company’s counsel to request mediation. The parties agreed to mediate this dispute, and mediation was held on August 17, 2015. However, a settlement was not reached. A preliminary hearing for arbitration was held on September 18, 2015, and a final hearing commenced on April 25, 2016. A hearing was held on March 2, 2016 where the arbitrator granted Respondents’ request to file a motion for summary judgment and granted the Company until March 21, 2016 to issue its response. The arbitrator also granted the Company’s motion to compel the Respondents to produce the customer list for Mr. Caster’s former company, EM Squared. The Company filed its response to Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2016. The arbitration hearing was scheduled to begin on August 29, 2016; however, the parties reached a settlement agreement and on August 25, 2016 the arbitrator entered the Agreed Order of Dismissal, dismissing all claims with prejudice. This matter is closed. 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, 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 judge originally set the decision hearing for June 30, 2016; however, after several postponements on the decision hearing to July 14, 2016 and then to August 18, 2016, the decision date of the case was set to October 27, 2016. On October 27, 2016, the Court decided the case in the Company’s favor. However, the BCO may file an appeal within 14 days from the day the BCO receives the decision letter, which the Court released on November 3, 2016. This matter remains open. There are other ongoing audits in various international jurisdictions that the Company does not expect will have a material effect on our financial statements. Litigation in General The Company is or may become subject to 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 or are 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 or as they become determinable. 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.

NOTE 7: LITIGATION

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 the Defendants’ manufacture, offer, and sale of infringing glyconutritional dietary supplement products. On July 16, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction preventing Defendants from infringing the Patents pending a final decision on the merits. On August 29, 2014, the Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support along with their Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Expedite Discovery. On December 15, 2014, the Company deposed Dr. Reginald McDaniel. Each party has submitted its list of claim constructions/definitions and a list of the supporting authority. Each party has filed its opening brief and its respective responsive brief. Defendants designated an expert and the Company deposed the expert on January 27, 2015 regarding his claim construction opinions while reserving the right to examine him later regarding other matters. Mediation on this matter was held on April 24, 2015. A settlement was not reached.

On May 12, 2015 the Company received notice of an Order of Transfer advising that the case had been reassigned from Judge Ed Kinkeade to Judge David C. Godbey for all further proceedings. On July 20, 2015, the Court issued its Markman ruling adopting the Company’s proposed claim construction for all disputed terms except for “dietary supplement composition” which it found needed no construction. On August 20, 2015, Defendants filed a request for an interlocutory appeal, and the Company filed a reply on October 6, 2015. The Company also filed a separate motion requesting entry of a final judgment and permanent injunction on September 8, 2015.

On November 5, 2015 the Court issued an Order accepting Defendants’ 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 December 3, 2015, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal which was docketed by the Court of Appeals on December 8, 2015. Defendants-Appellants filed their brief with the Court of Appeals on February 28, 2016. The Company-Appellee filed its brief with the Court of Appeals on March 24, 2016. Oral argument for the appeal was held on August 1, 2016. Each side was given fifteen minutes for argument before the Appellate Court. 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. Defendants filed their response to the Company’s motion on August 31, 2016. The parties conferred via telephone and electronic mail on August 31, 2016 and September 1, 2016 regarding the Company’s motion and Defendants’ response. On September 1, 2016 the Company filed an Amended Certificate of Conference with the Court advising that the Company’s motion was now unopposed. The Court has yet to rule on this motion. This matter remains open.

This lawsuit continues the Company’s enforcement of its patent rights, and the Company intends to vigorously prosecute this matter. Based on the previous successful patent infringement lawsuits against Country Life, LLC, Glycobiotics International, Inc., Techmedica Health, Inc., IonX Holdings, Inc., Boston Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Green Life, LLC, Xiong Lo, and RBC Life Sciences, Inc., the Company believes there is a strong likelihood that it will obtain permanent injunctions against the manufacture and sale of any infringing products for the duration of the Company’s patents.

Breach of Contract

Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation v. Mannatech, Incorporated, Case No. DC-15-01904, Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

On February 18, 2015 Ms. Diana Anselmo and New Day Today Corporation (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Mannatech alleging breach of contract pertaining to a portion of proceeds from a Mannatech Associate position once held by Ms. Anselmo’s former husband, Ray Gebauer. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000 and a declaration that the Company continue to pay Plaintiffs proceeds from Mr. Gebauer’s former account.

The Company filed its answer on March 23, 2015 denying the Plaintiffs’ allegations. The Court set the case for trial on March 7, 2016; however, on December 7, 2015 the Court granted the parties Agreed Motion for Continuation and reset the trial for September 26, 2016. At a hearing on August 19, 2016, the Court granted a continuance and reset the trial for November 14, 2016, and on October 18, 2016, the Court reset the trial for December 5, 2016.

The Court issued a mediation order on April 20, 2015. The Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 15, 2016. The Mediation was conducted on June 17, 2016. The parties entered into a Mediation Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) that was contingent upon Plaintiff Anselmo reaching an acceptable compromise and settlement with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) on or before July 18, 2016. On July 11, 2016, the Company was notified that Plaintiff Anselmo did not reach an acceptable compromise with the IRS, thus making the MSA null and void.

Plaintiffs filed their response to the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on August 5, 2016. The hearing on that motion was held on August 11, 2016 and due to time constraints was continued on August 19, 2016. On August 31, 2016 the Court entered an Order Denying the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Discovery formally closed on October 7, 2016. At a hearing on October 10, 2016, the Company argued that it should be allowed further discovery related to the assertions by Plaintiff Anselmo that she was not legally married to Mr. Gebauer both before and after the Company and Plaintiff Anselmo entered into the contract at issue. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce communications with the IRS regarding Plaintiff Anselmo’s relationship to Mr. Gebauer. 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. This matter remains open.

Uniscience Solution v. Chang, et al.; Chang, et al. v. Uniscience Solution, Randy Lee, and Mannatech, Inc. (cross-defendant), Case No. 16K03995 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles Co.)

On June 1, 2016 the Company received notice that on May 20, 2016 Vivian Hsiaoling Chang and Alan Jyh Woei Hsu (collectively, the “Cross-plaintiffs”) filed an unverified cross-complaint against the Company and Uniscience Solution, and Randy Lee alleging breach of contract seeking $22,300 plus unspecified special and punitive damages in addition to attorneys’ fees and related costs. Cross-plaintiffs, Uniscience Solution, and Randy Lee are independent distributors of the Company who entered into an agreement, separate and apart from their respective distributor agreements with the Company. The Cross-plaintiffs assert that Mannatech is a party to such other agreement; which it is not. The Company filed an answer denying the assertions in the unverified cross-complaint. On September 23, 2016, the Cross-plaintiffs and Uniscience Solution entered into a settlement agreement. On September 27, 2016, the Cross-plaintiffs filed a Request for Dismissal with the Court dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice. On October 26, 2016, the Company received notice from its counsel that the Court entered the Dismissal on October 3, 2016. This matter is closed.

Trademark Opposition – U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)

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

On April 15, 2015 the Company received notice that Shaklee Corporation filed a Notice of Opposition to the Company’s trademark application for UTH (stylized as Ū^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. Shaklee filed an extension to oppose the UTH mark on June 18, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose was granted until July 18, 2015. Shaklee filed a second extension on July 17, 2015, and the request to extend time to oppose has been granted until September 16, 2015. Shaklee filed motions to strike the Company’s Affirmative Defenses to the Opposition and Counterclaim to cancel their registrations. The Company filed responses and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) ruled in Shaklee’s favor. The Company filed an amended Answer to the Opposition and Amended Counterclaim on November 18, 2015. Shaklee then filed an answer to the Company’s Counterclaim on December 30, 2015.

On September 15, 2015 Shaklee filed two more Notices of Opposition for the UTH & Design and ŪTH applications. The Company filed Answers and Counterclaims on November 20, 2015. On January 25, 2016, the Company filed a motion to strike Shaklee’s affirmative defense on cancellation. On May 17, 2016, the TTAB granted the Company’s motion to strike Shaklee’s affirmative defense on cancellation. On August 9, 2016, Shaklee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Company’s cancellation filing of its YOUTH mark. On September 9, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Request for Discovery to Respond to Summary Judgment under Rule 56(d). On September 28, 2016, Shaklee filed a response to the Company’s motion to cancel the request for discovery. The Company plans to file a response in support of the motion under Rule 56(d) on October 18, 2016. The proceedings, including discovery, have been suspended until the TTAB can rule on the motions. This matter remains open.

It is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of the USPTO 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.

Arbitration Proceeding

Mannatech v. Samuel L. Caster and Wonder Enterprises, LLC, Demand for Arbitration, Case No. 01-15-0003-6812.

On May 29, 2015 the Company initiated arbitration proceedings against Samuel L. Caster and Wonder Enterprises, LLC (“Respondents”) alleging breach of contract by Mr. Caster and his company, Wonder Enterprises, under a series of consulting agreements entered into by the parties. Mannatech seeks to recover actual damages, costs of court and prejudgment interest together with disgorgement of all benefits received by the Respondents. The Company estimates its damages to be between $500,000 and $3,500,000. On June 12, 2015 Respondents contacted the Company’s counsel to request mediation. The parties agreed to mediate this dispute, and mediation was held on August 17, 2015. However, a settlement was not reached. A preliminary hearing for arbitration was held on September 18, 2015, and a final hearing commenced on April 25, 2016. A hearing was held on March 2, 2016 where the arbitrator granted Respondents’ request to file a motion for summary judgment and granted the Company until March 21, 2016 to issue its response. The arbitrator also granted the Company’s motion to compel the Respondents to produce the customer list for Mr. Caster’s former company, EM Squared. The Company filed its response to Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2016. The arbitration hearing was scheduled to begin on August 29, 2016; however, the parties reached a settlement agreement and on August 25, 2016 the arbitrator entered the Agreed Order of Dismissal, dismissing all claims with prejudice. This matter is closed.

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, 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 judge originally set the decision hearing for June 30, 2016; however, after several postponements on the decision hearing to July 14, 2016 and then to August 18, 2016, the decision date of the case was set to October 27, 2016. On October 27, 2016, the Court decided the case in the Company’s favor. However, the BCO may file an appeal within 14 days from the day the BCO receives the decision letter, which the Court released on November 3, 2016. This matter remains open.

There are other ongoing audits in various international jurisdictions that the Company does not expect will have a material effect on our financial statements.

Litigation in General

The Company is or may become subject to 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 or are 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 or as they become determinable.

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.