Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingencies	K. Contingencies From time to time, we become involved in various investigations, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters may relate to product liability, employment, intellectual property, tax, regulation, contract or other matters. The resolution of these matters as they arise will be subject to various uncertainties and, even if such claims are without merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. While unfavorable outcomes are possible, based on available information, we generally do not believe the resolution of these matters will result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or results of operation. However, a settlement payment or unfavorable outcome could adversely impact our results of operation. Our evaluation of the likely impact of these actions could change in the future and we could have unfavorable outcomes that we do not expect. On August 20, 2009, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc. (VPX) and DNP International Co., Inc. (DNP) of infringing certain patents owned by NAI relating to the ingredient known as beta-alanine marketed and sold under the CarnoSyn^® trade name. On August 8, 2011, a settlement agreement was reached between NAI and VPX. On August 3, 2011, NAI and CSI filed an amended and supplemental complaint against DNP reasserting claims for unfair competition and violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On September 8, 2011, NAI and CSI filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the amended and supplemental complaint against DNP and filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging similar claims of unfair competition, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interference with business relations. On December 22, 2011, DNP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against NAI and CSI for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of three of NAI’s patents. On January 27, 2012, DNP amended its complaint to add declaratory judgment claims against a fourth NAI patent (‘381 patent). On February 6, 2012, the Company and CSI moved to dismiss the cases related to the three previously asserted patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement by DNP of the ‘381 patent. DNP subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss CSI from the lawsuit. On March 2, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of CSI. On April 15, 2013, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits referenced above for purposes of pretrial matters. The Court also entered a Scheduling Order setting a trial date in April 2015. On December 21, 2011, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, accusing Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, also known as Cellucor (Woodbolt), Vitaquest International, Inc., d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals (Garden State) and F.H.G. Corporation, d/b/a Integrity Nutraceuticals (Integrity), of infringing NAI’s ’381 patent. The complaint alleges that Woodbolt sells nutritional supplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine such as C4 Extreme™, M5 Extreme™, and N-Zero Extreme™, that infringe the ‘381 patent. Woodbolt, in turn, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’381 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 17, 2012, Woodbolt filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging its original claims against the Company and asserting new claims of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. The Company reasserted the arguments in its prior motion to dismiss and moved to dismiss the new claims asserted by Woodbolt. On January 23, 2013, the Delaware Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Woodbolt’s case. On June 5, 2012, the Court in the above-referenced Texas case consolidated the pending suit with a second patent infringement case filed against Woodbolt by the Company on May 3, 2012, asserting infringement its ‘422 patent. On November 9, 2012, NAI filed a supplemental complaint adding allegations of infringement of Woodbolt’s Cellucor Cor –Performance ß-BCAA™ and Cellucor Cor –Performance™ Creatine products. Woodbolt has also requested inter partes reexamination of the ’381 and ’422 patents by the USPTO. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to reexam the ’381 patent and on August 17, 2012 the USPTO accepted the request to re-exam the ’422 patent. A declaration of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of certain of our patents could have a material adverse impact upon our business results, operations, and financial condition. On February 13, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of San Diego) captioned Sparling v. USPLabs, LLC, et al. Case No. 37-2013-00034663-CU-PL-CTL. On March 21, 2013, co-defendant USP Labs LLC filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00667-JLS-DHB. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties and wrongful death. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by its insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs, LLC. The Company is not involved in the manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On April 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. The Company’s motion is still pending. On May 8, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of Los Angeles) captioned Carolyne v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. BC 508212. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties. The Company is in the process of notifying its insurance company and others regarding indemnification. The Company is not involved in the manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit.

K. Contingencies

From time to time, we become involved in various investigations, claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These matters may relate to product liability, employment, intellectual property, tax, regulation, contract or other matters. The resolution of these matters as they arise will be subject to various uncertainties and, even if such claims are without merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. While unfavorable outcomes are possible, based on available information, we generally do not believe the resolution of these matters will result in a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition, or results of operation. However, a settlement payment or unfavorable outcome could adversely impact our results of operation. Our evaluation of the likely impact of these actions could change in the future and we could have unfavorable outcomes that we do not expect.

On August 20, 2009, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc. (VPX) and DNP International Co., Inc. (DNP) of infringing certain patents owned by NAI relating to the ingredient known as beta-alanine marketed and sold under the CarnoSyn^® trade name. On August 8, 2011, a settlement agreement was reached between NAI and VPX. On August 3, 2011, NAI and CSI filed an amended and supplemental complaint against DNP reasserting claims for unfair competition and violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On September 8, 2011, NAI and CSI filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the amended and supplemental complaint against DNP and filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging similar claims of unfair competition, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act and interference with business relations. On December 22, 2011, DNP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against NAI and CSI for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of three of NAI’s patents. On January 27, 2012, DNP amended its complaint to add declaratory judgment claims against a fourth NAI patent (‘381 patent). On February 6, 2012, the Company and CSI moved to dismiss the cases related to the three previously asserted patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On the same day, the Company filed its answer and counterclaims for infringement by DNP of the ‘381 patent. DNP subsequently agreed to voluntarily dismiss CSI from the lawsuit. On March 2, 2012, the Court ordered the dismissal of CSI. On April 15, 2013, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits referenced above for purposes of pretrial matters. The Court also entered a Scheduling Order setting a trial date in April 2015.

On December 21, 2011, NAI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, accusing Woodbolt Distribution, LLC, also known as Cellucor (Woodbolt), Vitaquest International, Inc., d/b/a Garden State Nutritionals (Garden State) and F.H.G. Corporation, d/b/a Integrity Nutraceuticals (Integrity), of infringing NAI’s ’381 patent. The complaint alleges that Woodbolt sells nutritional supplements, including supplements containing beta-alanine such as C4 Extreme™, M5 Extreme™, and N-Zero Extreme™, that infringe the ‘381 patent. Woodbolt, in turn, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’381 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 17, 2012, Woodbolt filed a First Amended Complaint, realleging its original claims against the Company and asserting new claims of violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and Unfair Competition. The Company reasserted the arguments in its prior motion to dismiss and moved to dismiss the new claims asserted by Woodbolt. On January 23, 2013, the Delaware Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Woodbolt’s case. On June 5, 2012, the Court in the above-referenced Texas case consolidated the pending suit with a second patent infringement case filed against Woodbolt by the Company on May 3, 2012, asserting infringement its ‘422 patent. On November 9, 2012, NAI filed a supplemental complaint adding allegations of infringement of Woodbolt’s Cellucor Cor –Performance ß-BCAA™ and Cellucor Cor –Performance™ Creatine products. Woodbolt has also requested inter partes reexamination of the ’381 and ’422 patents by the USPTO. On July 26, 2012, the USPTO accepted the request to reexam the ’381 patent and on August 17, 2012 the USPTO accepted the request to re-exam the ’422 patent.

A declaration of non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability of certain of our patents could have a material adverse impact upon our business results, operations, and financial condition.

On February 13, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of San Diego) captioned Sparling v. USPLabs, LLC, et al. Case No. 37-2013-00034663-CU-PL-CTL. On March 21, 2013, co-defendant USP Labs LLC filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00667-JLS-DHB. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties and wrongful death. The Company has been provided with defense counsel by its insurance company. Additionally, the Company has sought indemnification from co-defendant USPLabs, LLC. The Company is not involved in the manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit. On April 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the allegations against it. The Company’s motion is still pending.

On May 8, 2013, several entities, including the Company, were sued for various causes of action pertaining to product liability in Superior Court for the State of California (County of Los Angeles) captioned Carolyne v. USPLabs, LLC, Case No. BC 508212. Specific allegations against the Company are for negligence, strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties. The Company is in the process of notifying its insurance company and others regarding indemnification. The Company is not involved in the manufacture, distribution or sale of the product at issue in the lawsuit.