Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Securities Class Action On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s securities during the period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s recognition of revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and employment history of the Company’s former President and Chief Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to make certain disclosures, regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects, including regarding the financial statements and internal financial controls that were the subject of the Company’s April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior period financial statements. The complaint further alleged that the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued materially false and misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purported to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, sought, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System (the “Oklahoma Group”) as lead plaintiffs. On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company’s stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the Company’s reported deferred revenues during the period of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013. On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). After briefing and a hearing on October 6, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary, non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a possible settlement of both the purported securities class action and the shareholder derivative action discussed below. On July 23, 2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation with respect to the purported class action but did not reach an agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. However, settlement discussions continued after the mediation session, and on August 14, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the purported securities class action litigation. On November 17, 2015 , the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015 relating to the proposed settlement of the class action (the “Class Action Settlement Agreement”). This Class Action Settlement Agreement would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in the Class Action and was entered into subject to the Court’s preliminary and final approval. The Class Action Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for a settlement payment of $3.5 million , which the Company expects will be paid in full by one of the Company’s insurance carriers. The Class Action Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants, and upon final approval of the settlement by the Court, provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the class action. In February 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and scheduled a hearing for July 29, 2016 to consider final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. In March 2016, the Company's insurer funded the payment of $3.5 million into an escrow account established pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The funds are being held in the escrow account pending the Court's final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Company has accrued a liability of $3.5 million related to this matter as a component of Accrued expenses and other in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016 . The Company has also recorded an offsetting receivable for $3.5 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016 , as the Company deems recovery of the related insurance proceeds probable. Shareholder Derivative Action A consolidated shareholder derivative action, captioned In re Ixia Shareholder Derivative Litigation , is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This action is the consolidation of two lawsuits, namely: (i) Erie County Employees' Retirement System, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Ixia v. Victor Alston, Errol Ginsberg, Laurent Asscher, Jonathan Fram, Gail Hamilton, Jon Rager, Atul Bhatnagar, and Thomas B. Miller, defendants, and Ixia, nominal defendant and (ii) Colleen Witmer, derivatively on behalf of Ixia v. Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, Errol Ginsberg, Jonathan Fram, Laurent Asscher, Gail Hamilton, Jon F. Rager, Christopher Lee Williams, Alan Grahame, Raymond De Graaf, Walker H. Colston II, and Ronald W. Buckly, defendants, and Ixia, nominal defendant . Both were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in May 2014. Co-lead plaintiffs Erie County Employees’ Retirement System and Colleen Witmer filed a consolidated complaint on September 2, 2014. The consolidated complaint includes many allegations similar to those made in the purported class action complaint described above. Among other things, the complaint alleges that some or all (depending upon the claim) of the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by causing or allowing the Company to disseminate misleading financial statements, ignoring problems with the Company’s financial controls, making stock sales on the basis of material non-public information, and violating the Company’s code of conduct. As relief, among other things, the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, disgorgement and restitution of stock sale proceeds and an award under California Corporations Code Sections 24502 and 25502.5, as well as unspecified equitable and declaratory relief. On October 15, 2014, the Company, on whose behalf the derivative action claims are purportedly brought, moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the derivative plaintiffs did not file the claims in accordance with applicable laws governing the filing of derivative actions. The individual defendants joined in that motion and also filed motions to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim. Before any ruling by the court on those motions, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on January 26, 2015. On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on the same grounds as it had set forth with respect to the first consolidated complaint, and the individual defendants joined in that motion and also filed motions to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim. On April 24, 2015, before the scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss, the Court issued an order staying the shareholder derivative action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary, non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 in connection with both the derivative action and the purported securities class action discussed above. On July 23, 2015, the parties participated in the scheduled voluntary, non-binding mediation with respect to the derivative action and agreed in principle to resolve and settle the litigation. On November 17, 2015 , the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 17, 2015, relating to the proposed settlement of the derivative action (the “Derivative Action Settlement Agreement”). The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in the derivative action and was entered into subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court. The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement provides, among other terms, for the Company to implement certain corporate governance measures and for the plaintiffs' counsel to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in an amount of up to $575,000 . The Company expects that any fees and expenses awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs' counsel will be paid by one of the Company’s insurance carriers. The Derivative Action Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants and provides for a dismissal of, and a release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the derivative action. In February 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Derivative Action Settlement Agreement and scheduled a hearing for May 27, 2016 to consider final approval of the Derivative Action Settlement Agreement. The Company has accrued a liability of $575,000 related to this matter as a component of Accrued expenses and other in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016 . The Company has also recorded an offsetting receivable for $575,000 in Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016 , as the Company deems recovery of the related insurance proceeds probable. SEC Investigation In July 2014, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement (the “Staff”) requested that the Company produce certain documents and information in connection with an investigation of the Company. The SEC subsequently issued subpoenas to the Company seeking certain additional documents and to certain of the Company’s current and former employees seeking certain documents and their testimony. Based on the documents requested by the Staff, the Company believes that the SEC’s investigation relates to the matters addressed by (i) the previously disclosed accounting-related investigation conducted by the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) that was completed in February 2014, and (ii) a separate internal investigation conducted by a Special Committee of the Board of stock sales during February and March 2013 by then current executive officers and directors of the Company. The Special Committee, which completed its investigation in June 2014, did not find with respect to such sales that there had been any insider trading based upon material non-public information. The Special Committee, however, made no finding with respect to the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Victor Alston, because he declined to be interviewed by the Special Committee's counsel (both the Special Committee and the Audit Committee were assisted by independent counsel in their investigations). The Company is continuing to cooperate fully with the SEC in its investigation and is in discussions with the Staff concerning a proposed settlement of the investigation as it pertains to the Company. Based on oral communications with the Staff, the Company understands that the proposed settlement would require the Company, without admitting or denying any allegations by the SEC, to consent to the SEC’s issuance of an administrative order with non-fraud charges involving violations of Section 13 of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder. The Company understands that the charges would relate to the Company’s books and records, internal controls, and disclosures (not including financial statements) for the year ended December 31, 2012, and books and records, internal controls, and disclosures (including financial statements) for the first and second quarters of 2013. The Company would be required to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $750,000 . The proposed settlement is subject to the Company’s receipt of, and agreement to, written settlement documentation from the Staff. In the event the Company and the Staff agree on such documentation, the settlement would then be subject to approval by the SEC Commissioners, and there can be no assurance that the SEC Commissioners would approve the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement would resolve Ixia’s potential liability with respect to the SEC investigation. Current or former employees, officers, and/or directors of the Company are not addressed by this proposed settlement. The Company has accrued a liability of $750,000 related to this matter as a component of Accrued expenses and other in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2016 . Indemnifications In the normal course of business, the Company provides certain indemnifications, commitments and guarantees of varying scope to customers, including against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company's products. The Company also has certain obligations to indemnify its officers, directors and employees for certain events or occurrences while the officers, directors or employees are or were serving at the Company's request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments and guarantees varies and in certain cases is indefinite. Many of these indemnifications, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments that the Company could be obligated to make. However, the Company's director and officer insurance policy may enable it to recover a portion of any future payments related to its officer, director or employee indemnifications. Historically, costs related to these indemnifications, commitments and guarantees have not been significant. With the exception of the product warranty accrual associated with the Company's initial standard warranty, no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnifications, commitments and guarantees. |