COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron® ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint sought a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The certified class is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron® ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons® were accompanied by Directions for Use that “Indicated” Cavitron® use for “periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease.” The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company’s favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court’s decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal. On December 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin, DDS, filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California filed this case. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint asserts that the Company’s Cavitron® ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from alleged misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because the Company cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water through the device. The Court granted the Company’s Motion for Dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Following that dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand’s corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations. The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action and the Company objected. The Court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim. The Court subsequently denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the express warranty claim. The Court held hearings during 2016 on plaintiffs’ class certification motion. On July 24, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying class certification on multiple, independently sufficient grounds. The claims of the individual plaintiffs remain pending. On January 20, 2014, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint filed by two former and one current employee of the Company under the Federal False Claims Act and equivalent state and city laws. The lawsuit was previously under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company engaged in various illegal marketing activities, and thereby caused dental and other healthcare professionals to file false claims for reimbursement with federal and state governments. The relators seek injunctive relief, fines, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 27, 2014, the United States filed with the Court a notice that it had elected not to intervene in the qui tam action at this time. The United States’ notice indicated that the named state and city co-plaintiffs had authorized the United States to communicate to the Court that they also had decided not to intervene at this time. These non-intervention decisions do not prevent the qui tam relators from litigating this action, and the United States and/or the named states and/or cities may seek to intervene in the action at a later time. On September 4, 2014, the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2015. In April 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment, which disposes of all remaining claims against the Company in the matter. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in May 2016. In May 2017, the parties resolved the matter and the appeal has been voluntarily dismissed. The Company does not believe a loss is probable related to the above litigation. Further, a reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss cannot be made. In the event that one or more of these matters is unfavorably resolved, it is possible the Company’s results from operations, financial position or liquidity could be materially impacted. In 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana (the “USAO”) and from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) requesting documents and information related to compliance with export controls and economic sanctions regulations by certain of its subsidiaries. The Company has voluntarily contacted OFAC and the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U. S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), in connection with these matters as well as regarding compliance with export controls and economic sanctions regulations by certain other business units of the Company identified in connection with an internal review by the Company. On September 1, 2016, the Company entered into an extension of the tolling agreement originally entered into in August 2014, such that the statute of limitations was tolled to May 1, 2017. The Company's discussions with OFAC to resolve this matter are ongoing. At this stage of the inquiries, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what impact, if any, the outcome of these matters might have on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Violations of export control or economic sanctions laws or regulations could result in a range of governmental enforcement actions, including fines or penalties, injunctions and/or criminal or other civil proceedings, which actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. At this time, no claims have been made against the Company. The SEC’s Division of Enforcement has asked the Company to provide documents and information concerning the Company’s accounting and disclosures, including its accounting and disclosures relating to transactions with a significant distributor of the Company. The Company is cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, or whether it will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is, from time to time, subject to a variety of litigation and similar proceedings incidental to its business. These legal matters primarily involve claims for damages arising out of the use of the Company’s products and services and claims relating to intellectual property matters including patent infringement, employment matters, tax matters, commercial disputes, competition and sales and trading practices, personal injury and insurance coverage. The Company may also become subject to lawsuits as a result of past or future acquisitions or as a result of liabilities retained from, or representations, warranties or indemnities provided in connection with, divested businesses. Some of these lawsuits may include claims for punitive and consequential, as well as compensatory damages. Based upon the Company’s experience, current information and applicable law, it does not believe that these proceedings and claims will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, in the event of unexpected further developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, or other similar matters, if unfavorable, may be materially adverse to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. While the Company maintains general, product, property, workers’ compensation, automobile, cargo, aviation, crime, fiduciary and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance up to certain limits that cover certain of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses. In addition, while the Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these claims, these rights may also be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses. Purchase Commitments From time to time, the Company enters into long-term inventory purchase commitments with minimum purchase requirements for raw materials and finished goods to ensure the availability of products for production and distribution. These commitments may have a significant impact on levels of inventory maintained by the Company.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron® ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint sought a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The certified class is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron® ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons® were accompanied by Directions for Use that “Indicated” Cavitron® use for “periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease.” The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company’s favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court’s decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal.

On December 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin, DDS, filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California filed this case. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint asserts that the Company’s Cavitron® ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from alleged misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because the Company cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water through the device. The Court granted the Company’s Motion for Dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Following that dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand’s corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations. The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action and the Company objected. The Court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim. The Court subsequently denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the express warranty claim. The Court held hearings during 2016 on plaintiffs’ class certification motion. On July 24, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying class certification on multiple, independently sufficient grounds. The claims of the individual plaintiffs remain pending.

On January 20, 2014, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint filed by two former and one current employee of the Company under the Federal False Claims Act and equivalent state and city laws. The lawsuit was previously under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company engaged in various illegal marketing activities, and thereby caused dental and other healthcare professionals to file false claims for reimbursement with federal and state governments. The relators seek injunctive relief, fines, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 27, 2014, the United States filed with the Court a notice that it had elected not to intervene in the qui tam action at this time. The United States’ notice indicated that the named state and city co-plaintiffs had authorized the United States to communicate to the Court that they also had decided not to intervene at this time. These non-intervention decisions do not prevent the qui tam relators from litigating this action, and the United States and/or the named states and/or cities may seek to intervene in the action at a later time. On September 4, 2014, the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2015. In April 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment, which disposes of all remaining claims against the Company in the matter. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in May 2016. In May 2017, the parties resolved the matter and the appeal has been voluntarily dismissed.

The Company does not believe a loss is probable related to the above litigation. Further, a reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss cannot be made. In the event that one or more of these matters is unfavorably resolved, it is possible the Company’s results from operations, financial position or liquidity could be materially impacted.

In 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana (the “USAO”) and from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) requesting documents and information related to compliance with export controls and economic sanctions regulations by certain of its subsidiaries. The Company has voluntarily contacted OFAC and the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U. S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), in connection with these matters as well as regarding compliance with export controls and economic sanctions regulations by certain other business units of the Company identified in connection with an internal review by the Company. On September 1, 2016, the Company entered into an extension of the tolling agreement originally entered into in August 2014, such that the statute of limitations was tolled to May 1, 2017. The Company's discussions with OFAC to resolve this matter are ongoing.

At this stage of the inquiries, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or what impact, if any, the outcome of these matters might have on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Violations of export control or economic sanctions laws or regulations could result in a range of governmental enforcement actions, including fines or penalties, injunctions and/or criminal or other civil proceedings, which actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. At this time, no claims have been made against the Company.

The SEC’s Division of Enforcement has asked the Company to provide documents and information concerning the Company’s accounting and disclosures, including its accounting and disclosures relating to transactions with a significant distributor of the Company. The Company is cooperating with the SEC’s investigation. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, or whether it will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company is, from time to time, subject to a variety of litigation and similar proceedings incidental to its business. These legal matters primarily involve claims for damages arising out of the use of the Company’s products and services and claims relating to intellectual property matters including patent infringement, employment matters, tax matters, commercial disputes, competition and sales and trading practices, personal injury and insurance coverage. The Company may also become subject to lawsuits as a result of past or future acquisitions or as a result of liabilities retained from, or representations, warranties or indemnities provided in connection with, divested businesses. Some of these lawsuits may include claims for punitive and consequential, as well as compensatory damages. Based upon the Company’s experience, current information and applicable law, it does not believe that these proceedings and claims will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, in the event of unexpected further developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, or other similar matters, if unfavorable, may be materially adverse to the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

While the Company maintains general, product, property, workers’ compensation, automobile, cargo, aviation, crime, fiduciary and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance up to certain limits that cover certain of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses. In addition, while the Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these claims, these rights may also be insufficient or unavailable to cover such losses.

Purchase Commitments

From time to time, the Company enters into long-term inventory purchase commitments with minimum purchase requirements for raw materials and finished goods to ensure the availability of products for production and distribution. These commitments may have a significant impact on levels of inventory maintained by the Company.