COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Notes to Financial Statements [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 seeks 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 class that was certified is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron® ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures. The Company filed a motion for decertification of the class and this motion was granted. Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the decertification decision of the trial Court. The case was remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court. As the result of several hearings, the Judge has held that the class period will be from June 2000 to the present. The Class Notice will be mailed to dentists licensed to practice in California during the class period from 2000 to the present.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.   The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron® ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water. Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification to which the Company has filed its response. The Company also filed other motions, including a motion to dismiss the claims of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of standing. The Court granted this motion for lack of standing of the individuals and did not allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute their corporate practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as the only putative class representative, raising a question of jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court. Subsequently, the Court issued an Order dismissing this case on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The plaintiffs filed a second complaint (under the name “Center City Periodontists”) after the Court granted the initial Motion for lack of standing, in which they named the corporate practices of Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives. The Company has moved to dismiss this complaint and the Court has not yet ruled on this Motion.

As of March 31, 2012, a reasonable estimate of a possible range of loss related to the above litigation 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 could be materially impacted.

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.