Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is subject to legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business: In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. (Frank v.Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al): On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0 million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013. On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the “Frank Action”). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company intends to defend each of these actions vigorously. On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action. On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending, for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines. On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations stemming from Trilegiant’s refund mitigation strategy and a claim for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014 plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Company filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 12, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motions that led to the parties engaging in discovery. On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff who sued the Company in this action, David Frank, filed a Stipulation dismissing the Company from this litigation with prejudice. The Company paid no monies to David Frank, or any of his attorneys to resolve this action. Edible Arrangements: On November 20, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by Edible Arrangements LLC and Edible Arrangements International, LLC, alleging that the Company’s use of the terms “Fruit Bouquets,” “Edible,” “Bouquet,” “Edible Fruit Arrangements,” Edible Arrangements,” and “DoFruit” and its use of a six petal pineapple slice design in connection with marketing and selling edible fruit arrangements constitutes trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and contributory infringement under the federal Lanham Act, 29 USC § 1114 and 1125(a), common law unfair competition, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110b (a). The Complaint alleges Edible Arrangements has been damaged in the amount of $97,411,000. The Complaint requests a declaratory judgment in favor of Edible Arrangements, an injunction against the Company’s use of the terms and design, an accounting and payment of the Company’s profits from its sale of edible fruit arrangements, a trebling of the Company’s profits from such sales or of any damages sustained by Edible Arrangements, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On November 24, 2014, the Complaint was amended to add a breach of contract claim for use of these terms and the design, based on a contract that had been entered by one of the Company’s remote subsidiaries prior to its acquisition by the Company. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to add one of the Company’s subsidiaries and to claim its damages were $ 101,436,000. The Company filed an Answer and a Counterclaim on February 27, 2015. The Answer asserts substantial defenses, including fair use by the Company of generic and descriptive terms, as expressly permitted under the Lanham Act, invalidity of Edible Arrangements’ trademark registrations on grounds of fraud and trademark misuse, lack of exclusive rights on the part of Edible Arrangements, functionality of the claimed design mark, acquiescence, estoppel, and Edible Arrangements’ use of the claimed trademarks in violation of the antitrust laws. The Counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment of lack of infringement and invalidity of claimed marks, cancellation of Edible Arrangements’ registrations due to its fraud and misuse, genericism, and lack of secondary meaning as to any terms deemed descriptive, and damages in an amount to be determined for violation of the antitrust provisions of the federal Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Discovery has begun and Edible Arrangements filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s Sherman Act and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims. The Company filed its brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 10, 2015. The parties are awaiting a decision from the Court. By Order dated May 4, 2015, the court ordered a phasing of the case and bifurcated the antitrust Counterclaim from the infringement claims. The Company believes its Counterclaims to the Edible Arrangements’ claims are meritorious and that there are substantial defenses to both of the claims above and expects to defend the claims vigorously. There are no assurances that additional legal actions will not be instituted in connection with the Company’s former post-transaction marketing practices involving third party vendors nor can we predict the outcome of any such legal action. At this time, we are unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for the aforementioned action for various reasons, including, among others: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceeding is in the early stages, and (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending motion. As a result of the foregoing, we have determined that the amount of possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which may be beyond our control. |