Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 13 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews the uninsured material legal claims against the Company. The Company accrues for the costs of such claims as appropriate and in the exercise of its best judgment and experience. However, due to a lack of factual information available to the Company about a claim, or the procedural stage of a claim, it may not be possible for the Company to reasonably assess either the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome of the claim or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss should there be an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, for many of the claims, the Company cannot estimate a range of loss. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. Two justices voted to uphold the verdict and one justice filed a lengthy and vigorous dissent. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court denied this petition on February 7, 2013. The Company intends to seek further review of this verdict by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012 entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois appellate court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled another consolidated trial, involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which was scheduled to begin on December 6, 2012. Prior to the start of this fourth trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs involved in the case were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company in this trial. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company’s objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 11, 2013. A class action trial is scheduled to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company currently plans to seek appellate court review of the Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois. The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay (the “Settlement Payment”) a total amount of $3.8 million to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit, with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement. On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty, and distraction of the claims and lawsuits. During April and May 2012, 15 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 15 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trial court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed. The Company’s ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. In the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $0.7 million of reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs incurred in the prior year, as a reduction of corporate operating expenses, of which $0.6 million had been received as of December 31, 2012. In the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company recorded $0.8 million and $0.6 million, respectively, of CNA reimbursements. On July 29, 2011, Neology, Inc. (“Neology”) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court of Delaware for alleged patent infringements. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) systems and products that allegedly infringe certain specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint. On December 2, 2011, Neology filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the Company from further alleged infringement of certain Neology patents. On June 18, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. On August 12, 2012, a U.S. District Court Judge adopted that Report and Recommendation. On August 20, 2012, Neology filed a motion for leave to file for partial summary judgment against the Company regarding two of the patents in issue in this litigation. On September 21, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate denied the motion. On May 21, 2012, Neology filed another complaint against the Company, also for alleged patent infringement, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 19, 2012, Neology filed certain amendments to that complaint. The amended complaint similarly demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling certain RFID transponders and readers that allegedly infringe certain other specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the compliant. On September 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion requesting that the court transfer this litigation to the U.S. District Court of Delaware, where Neology filed its earlier patent infringement suit against the Company. On October 15, 2012, the court granted this motion and ordered the transfer of this litigation to the U.S. District Court of Delaware. In connection with the closing of the sale of the FSTech Group to 3M Company on September 4, 2012, 3M Company agreed to assume the defense of the Neology lawsuits. A portion of the purchase price proceeds was placed into escrow to be held for a period of 48 months as security for our indemnification obligations as well as defense and other costs associated with the lawsuits, subject to early release under certain conditions. Information regarding the Company’s discontinued operations is included in Note 11.

NOTE 13 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews the uninsured material legal claims against the Company. The Company accrues for the costs of such claims as appropriate and in the exercise of its best judgment and experience. However, due to a lack of factual information available to the Company about a claim, or the procedural stage of a claim, it may not be possible for the Company to reasonably assess either the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome of the claim or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss should there be an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, for many of the claims, the Company cannot estimate a range of loss.

The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. Beginning in 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. Two justices voted to uphold the verdict and one justice filed a lengthy and vigorous dissent. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court denied this petition on February 7, 2013. The Company intends to seek further review of this verdict by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012 entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois appellate court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled another consolidated trial, involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which was scheduled to begin on December 6, 2012.

Prior to the start of this fourth trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs involved in the case were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company in this trial. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company’s objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 11, 2013. A class action trial is scheduled to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company currently plans to seek appellate court review of the Order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Most of these cases have involved lawsuits filed by a single attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. During 2007 and through 2009, this attorney filed a total of 71 lawsuits, involving 71 plaintiffs in this jurisdiction. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums, which included reimbursements of expenses, to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial.

Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represents (the “Claimants”) and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred and eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Settlement Agreement, as amended, provided that the Company pay (the “Settlement Payment”) a total amount of $3.8 million to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”); (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit, with prejudice; (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company; and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement.

On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by claimants, which was 95.02% of all claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty, and distraction of the claims and lawsuits.

During April and May 2012, 15 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 15 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company.

Firefighters have brought hearing loss claims against the Company in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia and Cook County. In particular, cases have been filed in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York which were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. The trial court subsequently denied reconsideration of its ruling. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.

The Company’s ongoing negotiations with its insurer, CNA, over insurance coverage on these claims have resulted in reimbursements of a portion of the Company’s defense costs. In the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $0.7 million of reimbursements from CNA related to legal costs incurred in the prior year, as a reduction of corporate operating expenses, of which $0.6 million had been received as of December 31, 2012. In the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company recorded $0.8 million and $0.6 million, respectively, of CNA reimbursements.

On July 29, 2011, Neology, Inc. (“Neology”) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court of Delaware for alleged patent infringements. The lawsuit demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) systems and products that allegedly infringe certain specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the complaint. On December 2, 2011, Neology filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the Company from further alleged infringement of certain Neology patents. On June 18, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. On August 12, 2012, a U.S. District Court Judge adopted that Report and Recommendation. On August 20, 2012, Neology filed a motion for leave to file for partial summary judgment against the Company regarding two of the patents in issue in this litigation. On September 21, 2012, a U.S. District Court Magistrate denied the motion.

On May 21, 2012, Neology filed another complaint against the Company, also for alleged patent infringement, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 19, 2012, Neology filed certain amendments to that complaint. The amended complaint similarly demands that the Company cease manufacturing, marketing, importing or selling certain RFID transponders and readers that allegedly infringe certain other specified patents owned by Neology, and also demands compensation for past alleged infringement. The Company has denied the allegations in the compliant. On September 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion requesting that the court transfer this litigation to the U.S. District Court of Delaware, where Neology filed its earlier patent infringement suit against the Company. On October 15, 2012, the court granted this motion and ordered the transfer of this litigation to the U.S. District Court of Delaware.

In connection with the closing of the sale of the FSTech Group to 3M Company on September 4, 2012, 3M Company agreed to assume the defense of the Neology lawsuits. A portion of the purchase price proceeds was placed into escrow to be held for a period of 48 months as security for our indemnification obligations as well as defense and other costs associated with the lawsuits, subject to early release under certain conditions. Information regarding the Company’s discontinued operations is included in Note 11.