Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the “Shanklin Litigation”), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the “Raske Litigation”). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants. Further, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case “may involve matters in the public interest.” The judge’s letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. Plaintiffs have retained substitute counsel, who has filed a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs' management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models were at all relevant times employees, and not independent contractors, of the model management defendants, and that defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects, including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom were computed. The Second Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and the Court has scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss for May 2016. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint are without merit, and intends to continue to vigorously defend the action. On August 20, 2015, a lawsuit was brought against the Company and the Company’s former Chief Accounting Officer by a former employee of Wilhelmina model, Angel Betancourt (the “Plaintiff”). The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff was discriminated against during his time of employment and upon his termination. The lawsuit further alleges that the Plaintiff was not compensated fully due to FLSA misclassification by the Company. The Company has provided documentation to the Plaintiff’s counsel that suggests that the Plaintiff unlikely was due additional compensation during the time of employment. The proceeding is in the preliminary stages, and by agreement with the Plaintiff further action in the lawsuit has been abated pending ongoing settlement discussions. The Company expects that the lawsuit will be resolved within the limits of the Company¹s insurance coverage In addition to the legal proceedings disclosed herein, the Company is also engaged in various legal proceedings that are routine in nature and incidental to its business. None of these routine proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are believed, in the Company's opinion, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations. During the first quarter, in relation to two termination agreements with former employee, the Company recorded $283 of severance expense. $126 of this severance was paid in the first quarter of 2016. The remaining $157 will be paid in the second quarter of 2016. |