12. Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings.	12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On January 23, 2015, the City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System filed a new shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County against three of our current directors and one former director. We are also named as a nominal defendant. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA; that we failed to provide adequate training on the FCPA; and that based on these actions, the directors have been unjustly enriched. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of restitution and unspecified damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). We and the individual defendants have filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case. On January 30, 2015, we received a demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from the law firm of Scott + Scott LLP on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund to inspect certain of our books and records. The alleged purpose of the demand was to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties by our directors and executive officers in connection with the matters relating to our FCPA settlement with the SEC and DOJ, and alleged lack of internal controls. We objected to the demand on procedural grounds by letter. On May 1, 2015, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the inspection of the requested books and records. On March 13, 2015, we received a demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from the law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on behalf of Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System to inspect certain of our books and records. The alleged purpose of the demand was to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties by our directors and executive officers in connection with the matters relating to our FCPA settlement with the SEC and DOJ, and alleged lack of internal controls. We objected to the demand on procedural grounds by letter. On April 21, 2015, Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the inspection of the requested books and records. On May 26, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the one filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund described above. On June 25, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the consolidated action, and on July 25, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal with prejudice with the Court. On July 27, 2015, the Court granted the proposed order, dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice. On May 27, 2015, our former general counsel, Sanford S. Wadler, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against us and four of our current directors and one former director. The plaintiff’s suit alleges whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for raising FCPA-related concerns. He also alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy, non-payment of wages and waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks back pay, compensatory damages for lost wages, earnings, retirement benefits and other employee benefits, compensation for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress, waiting time penalties, punitive damages, litigation costs (including attorneys’ fees) and reinstatement of employment. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and on July 28, 2015 we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. We are vigorously defending against the claims above and believe any potential liability that could result from these claims would not be material. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. In addition, we are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe, at this time, that any ultimate liability resulting from any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, we cannot give any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these other matters and their resolution could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending on the level of income for the period.

12. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On January 23, 2015, the City of Riviera Beach General Employees’ Retirement System filed a new shareholder derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County against three of our current directors and one former director. We are also named as a nominal defendant. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by failing to ensure that we had sufficient internal controls and systems for compliance with the FCPA; that we failed to provide adequate training on the FCPA; and that based on these actions, the directors have been unjustly enriched. Purportedly seeking relief on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks an award of restitution and unspecified damages, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). We and the individual defendants have filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the complaint in this case.

On January 30, 2015, we received a demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from the law firm of Scott + Scott LLP on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund to inspect certain of our books and records. The alleged purpose of the demand was to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties by our directors and executive officers in connection with the matters relating to our FCPA settlement with the SEC and DOJ, and alleged lack of internal controls. We objected to the demand on procedural grounds by letter. On May 1, 2015, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the inspection of the requested books and records.

On March 13, 2015, we received a demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from the law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on behalf of Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System to inspect certain of our books and records. The alleged purpose of the demand was to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement, and breach of fiduciary duties by our directors and executive officers in connection with the matters relating to our FCPA settlement with the SEC and DOJ, and alleged lack of internal controls. We objected to the demand on procedural grounds by letter. On April 21, 2015, Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System filed an action against us in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel the inspection of the requested books and records. On May 26, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the one filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 38 Pension Fund described above. On June 25, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the consolidated action, and on July 25, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal with prejudice with the Court. On July 27, 2015, the Court granted the proposed order, dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice.

On May 27, 2015, our former general counsel, Sanford S. Wadler, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, against us and four of our current directors and one former director. The plaintiff’s suit alleges whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act for raising FCPA-related concerns. He also alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy, non-payment of wages and waiting time penalties in violation of the California Labor Code. The plaintiff seeks back pay, compensatory damages for lost wages, earnings, retirement benefits and other employee benefits, compensation for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress, waiting time penalties, punitive damages, litigation costs (including attorneys’ fees) and reinstatement of employment. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and on July 28, 2015 we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

We are vigorously defending against the claims above and believe any potential liability that could result from these claims would not be material. We cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. In addition, we are party to various other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe, at this time, that any ultimate liability resulting from any of these other matters will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position or liquidity. However, we cannot give any assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these other matters and their resolution could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending on the level of income for the period.