| Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
| Jul. 31, 2014 |
| Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] | ' |
| Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
| Commitments |
|
| Leases |
|
| We lease certain facilities under non-cancelable operating leases. In connection with our taxi solutions business, we enter into operating lease arrangements for the right to place advertising in or on taxicabs. In general, these lease arrangements are non-cancelable for terms ranging from three to ten years, require us to pay minimum lease amounts based on the type and locations of the advertising displays in or on the taxicabs, and are subject to fee escalation clauses. Based upon the number of operational taxicabs with our advertising displays at July 31, 2014, we had total lease commitments of $100.3 million relating to such lease arrangements, which are included in the future minimum lease payments in the table below. |
|
| Future minimum lease payments and sublease rental income under these leases as of July 31, 2014 were as follows (in thousands): |
| | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Years Ending October 31: | Minimum | | Sublease | | Net Minimum | | | | |
| Lease Payments | Rental Income | Lease Payments | | | | |
| Remainder of fiscal year 2014 | $ | 13,408 | | | $ | (45 | ) | | $ | 13,363 | | | | | |
| | | |
| 2015 | 34,476 | | | (153 | ) | | 34,323 | | | | | |
| | | |
| 2016 | 26,990 | | | — | | | 26,990 | | | | | |
| | | |
| 2017 | 23,258 | | | — | | | 23,258 | | | | | |
| | | |
| 2018 | 14,822 | | | — | | | 14,822 | | | | | |
| | | |
| 2019 | 14,798 | | | — | | | 14,798 | | | | | |
| | | |
| Thereafter | 24,639 | | | — | | | 24,639 | | | | | |
| | | |
| Total | $ | 152,391 | | | $ | (198 | ) | | $ | 152,193 | | | | | |
| | | |
|
| Rent expense consisted of the following (in thousands): |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended July 31, | | Nine Months Ended July 31, |
| 2014 | | 2013 | | 2014 | | 2013 |
| Rent expense for non-cancelable taxi operating leases | $ | 9,578 | | | $ | 7,376 | | | $ | 27,556 | | | $ | 22,466 | |
|
| Facility and other rent expense | 7,121 | | | 7,472 | | | 21,945 | | | 21,419 | |
|
| Total rent expense | $ | 16,699 | | | $ | 14,848 | | | $ | 49,501 | | | $ | 43,885 | |
|
|
| Manufacturing Agreements |
|
| We work on a purchase order basis with our contract manufacturers, which are located in China, Singapore, Malaysia, Brazil, Germany, Romania, and France, and component suppliers located throughout the world, to supply nearly all of our finished goods inventories, spare parts, and accessories. We provide each such supplier with a purchase order to cover the manufacturing requirements, which generally constitutes a binding commitment by us to purchase materials and finished goods produced by the manufacturer as specified in the purchase order. Most of these purchase orders are considered to be non-cancelable and are expected to be paid within one year of the issuance date. As of July 31, 2014, the amount of purchase commitments issued to contract manufacturers and component suppliers totaled approximately $151.5 million. Of this amount, $13.4 million has been recorded in Accruals and other current liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because these commitments are not expected to have future value to us. |
|
| Bank Guarantees |
|
| We have issued bank guarantees with maturities ranging from two months to six years to certain of our customers and vendors as required in some countries to support certain performance obligations under our service or other agreements with those parties. As of July 31, 2014, the maximum amount that may become payable under these guarantees was $12.7 million, of which $1.9 million was collateralized by restricted cash deposits. |
|
| Letters of Credit |
|
| We provide standby letters of credit in the ordinary course of business to third parties as required. As of July 31, 2014, the maximum amounts that may become payable under these letters of credit was $8.1 million, of which $4.9 million was collateralized by restricted cash deposits. |
| Contingencies |
|
| We evaluate the circumstances regarding outstanding and potential litigation, and other contingencies on a quarterly basis to determine whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss exists requiring accrual or disclosure, and if so, whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss can be made, or whether such an estimate cannot be made. When a loss is probable and reasonably estimable, we accrue for such amount based on our estimate of the probable loss considering information available at the time. When a loss is reasonably possible, we disclose the estimated possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued. Except as otherwise disclosed below, we do not believe that losses were probable or that there was a reasonable possibility that a material loss may have been incurred with respect to the matters disclosed. |
|
| Brazilian Tax Assessments |
|
| State Value-Added Tax |
|
| The Brazilian subsidiary we acquired as part of our acquisition of Hypercom in August 2011 received an unfavorable administrative decision on a tax enforcement action against it filed by the São Paulo State Revenue Department for collection of state sales taxes related to purported sales of software for the 1998 and 1999 tax years. In 2004, an appeal against this unfavorable administrative decision was filed in a judicial proceeding. The first level decision in the judicial proceeding was issued in our favor. The São Paulo State Revenue Department filed an appeal of this decision. The second level administrative decision ordered that the case be returned to the lower court in order to allow the production of further evidence. Based on our current understanding of the underlying facts of this matter, we believe it is reasonably possible that we may receive an unfavorable decision in this proceeding. The tax assessment including estimated interest through July 31, 2014 for this matter totals approximately 7.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $3.4 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). As of July 31, 2014, we have not accrued for this matter. |
|
| Federal Tax Assessments |
|
| Brazilian Federal Tax Amnesty |
|
| In December 2013, without admitting any fault or liability, we elected to enroll certain of our pending Brazilian tax assessments in the Brazilian Federal Tax Amnesty Program created by Law n. 11.941/2009 in 2009 and reopened for enrollment from October 2013 to December 2013, known as the "REFIS Amnesty.” The REFIS Amnesty is a program administered by the Brazilian tax authorities and allows entities charged with tax assessments that fall within the program’s scope to voluntarily settle such assessments with certain discounts applied to the amounts due. After conducting an evaluation of our existing Brazilian federal tax assessments and the terms offered by the REFIS Amnesty, we determined to voluntarily settle a number of our pending assessments. |
|
| Tax assessment matters that fall within the REFIS Amnesty's scope are generally listed in the program's web-based portal for enrollment. Although no formal acceptance by the tax authorities is issued at the time of our enrollment of a matter, we expect the tax authorities to confirm our enrollment as they complete their process to formally consolidate the matters we enrolled in the REFIS Amnesty. In connection with our enrollment of the tax assessments into the REFIS Amnesty, we were required to forego any further legal defense or proceedings with respect to the merits of such assessments. In exchange, the enrolled assessments were closed and we were granted discounts on our payment of the related accrued interest and penalties and are able to pay under an installment plan, subject to our compliance with the terms of the program. For certain assessments, existing net operating loss carryforwards, or net operating losses, may be used to satisfy a portion of the settlement obligation. Under the terms of the REFIS Amnesty, our right to fund the settlement through the installment payment plan would be canceled after three instances of our not timely paying the installment amounts as scheduled, in which case the full amounts of the original tax debts, including interest and penalties without the benefit of discount, would become immediately due and payable. We have included the terms and amounts below for those assessments that we have placed into the REFIS Amnesty. |
|
| Federal Tax Assessments related to Brazilian Subsidiaries from Lipman Acquisition |
|
| Two of our Brazilian subsidiaries that were acquired as a part of the November 2006 acquisition of Lipman Electronic Engineering Ltd. (“Lipman”) were notified of assessments regarding Brazilian customs penalties that relate to alleged infractions in the importation of goods. The assessments were issued by the Federal Revenue Department in the City of Vitória, the City of São Paulo, and the City of Itajai. In each of these cases, the tax authorities allege that the structure used for the importation of goods was simulated with the objective of evading taxes levied on the importation by under-invoicing the imported goods. The tax authorities allege that the simulation was created through an interposition of parties and that the real sellers and buyers of the imported goods were hidden. In February 2013, the São Paulo assessment was canceled following a favorable second level decision that was not appealed. |
|
| In the Vitória tax assessment, the fines were reduced from 4.7 million Brazilian reais (approximately $2.1 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014) to 1.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $658,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014) on a first level administrative decision on January 26, 2007. Both we and the tax authorities filed appeals of the first level administrative decision. In this appeal, we argued that the tax authorities did not have enough evidence to determine that the import transactions were indeed fraudulent and that, even if there were some irregularities in such importations, they could not be deemed to be our responsibility since all the transactions were performed by the third-party importer of the goods. On June 30, 2010, the Taxpayers Administrative Council of Tax Appeals decided to reinstate the original claim amount of 4.7 million Brazilian reais (approximately $2.1 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014) against us. On February 27, 2013, the Taxpayers Administrative Council of Tax Appeals issued its formal ruling reinstating the original claim amount. On May 31, 2013, we filed a motion to clarify such ruling, which is pending a decision. |
|
| In the Itajai tax assessment, we were notified on January 18, 2008, of a first level administrative decision rendered that maintained the total fine of 2.0 million Brazilian reais (approximately $889,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014) as imposed, excluding interest. On May 27, 2008, we appealed the first level administrative decision to the Taxpayers Council. This matter is pending second level decision. |
|
| In December 2013, we sought to enroll the entire amount of tax liabilities in dispute for both the Vitória and Itajai assessments in the REFIS Amnesty. However, because we are named as a jointly-liable party rather than as the primary defendant in these matters, these assessments were not listed in the REFIS Amnesty web-based portal as available for election under the REFIS Amnesty. We believe these matters qualify for inclusion in the REFIS Amnesty and have filed the required notifications to our local tax office and commenced payments to indicate our decision to enroll these matters in the REFIS Amnesty. We expect the tax authorities' confirmation that these matters have been included in the REFIS Amnesty once they complete their procedures to consolidate the enrolled assessments. We elected to make the amnesty payments for these matters in monthly installments over a 30-month period for total payments, inclusive of interest and penalties, of 7.6 million Brazilian reais (approximately $3.4 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). We accrued the full amount of the payments, plus estimated interest, under the REFIS Amnesty for these matters in December 2013 when we enrolled in the program, and made our first payment on December 26, 2013. As of July 31, 2014, we have remaining installment payments totaling 5.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $2.5 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). |
|
| We had previously accrued the estimated liability for both the Vitória and Itajai assessments. Based on our understanding of the underlying facts of these matters, we believe it is probable we may receive an unfavorable decision for each of these assessments unless we are able to resolve these matters through the REFIS Amnesty. Upon confirmation of acceptance of these matters into the REFIS Amnesty, we will reduce our accrued liabilities related to these matters to reflect the discounted amounts due under the REFIS Amnesty. As of July 31, 2014, we have accruals totaling 12.3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $5.5 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). |
|
| Federal Tax Assessments related to Brazilian Subsidiary from Hypercom Acquisition |
|
| The Brazilian subsidiary we acquired as part of our acquisition of Hypercom in August 2011 is the subject of outstanding tax assessments by the federal tax authorities alleging unpaid IRPJ, CSL, COFINS and PIS taxes from 2002 and 2003. The 2002 assessments are the subject of an administrative proceeding and the 2003 assessments are the subject of a civil enforcement action. Three of the four claims for the 2002 assessments were previously settled prior to our acquisition of Hypercom. The first level administrative court issued an unfavorable decision for the remaining claim related to the 2002 tax assessments. Our appeal to the Administrative Tax Appeals Council was denied in December 2013. With respect to the 2003 tax assessments, we received a partially favorable ruling, and our appeal for the remaining assessments is pending decision in the civil courts. In December 2013, we elected to enroll the tax liability for the remaining 2002 assessment in dispute and the portion of the 2003 assessments for which we received an unfavorable ruling in the REFIS Amnesty. |
|
| For the 2002 assessment, we applied available net operating losses, to the extent permitted, toward the interest and penalties portion of the settlement obligation under the REFIS Amnesty. For the remaining balance, we elected to make the amnesty payments in monthly installments over a 90-month period for total payments of 2.2 million Brazilian reais (approximately $994,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). We accrued the full amount of the payments, plus estimated interest, under the REFIS Amnesty for this matter in December 2013 when we enrolled in the program, and made our first payment on December 26, 2013. As of July 31, 2014, we have remaining installment payments totaling 2.1 million Brazilian reais (approximately $960,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). |
|
| For the 2003 assessments, we applied available net operating losses, to the extent permitted, toward the interest and penalties portion of the settlement obligation under the REFIS Amnesty. At the time we initially appealed the 2003 assessments to the civil courts, we were required to make a deposit of 2.8 million Brazilian reais (approximately $1.3 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014) to the court in order to perfect our appeal. In light of our enrollment of certain of the 2003 assessments in the REFIS Amnesty, we have notified the civil court of our enrollment and requested the release of the portion of the deposit for the assessments enrolled in the REFIS Amnesty, which totals 675,000 Brazilian reais (approximately $303,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). Once approved by the court, the released funds will be applied against the settlement obligation under the REFIS Amnesty. Approximately 2.2 million Brazilian reais (approximately $974,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014) will remain deposited in connection with the 2003 assessments that will continue in the civil courts and which deposits will be released to the prevailing party after resolution of the underlying assessments. |
|
| Excluding the assessments that have been enrolled in the REFIS Amnesty for this matter, which have been accrued as described above, the remaining assessments total 4.1 million Brazilian reais (approximately $1.8 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014), including estimated penalties and interest, as of July 31, 2014. Based on our current understanding of the underlying facts of this matter, we believe it is reasonably possible we may receive an unfavorable decision related to these remaining assessments. |
|
| We also elected to enroll a number of outstanding tax offset requests that were previously applied for by the Brazilian subsidiary we acquired as part of our acquisition of Hypercom in August 2011 in the REFIS Amnesty. These outstanding tax offset requests relate to non-income tax debts, primarily for IRPJ, PIS and COFINS for past tax years, and total approximately 2.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $1.1 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014), including estimated penalties and interest. We applied available net operating losses toward the interest and penalties portion of the settlement obligation under the REFIS Amnesty. For the remaining balance, we elected to make the amnesty payments in monthly installments over a 90-month period for total payments of 1.3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $600,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). We accrued the full amount of the payments, plus estimated interest, under the REFIS Amnesty for these matters in December 2013 when we enrolled in the program, and made our first payment on December 26, 2013. As of July 31, 2014, we have remaining installment payments totaling 1.3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $579,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). |
|
| Municipality Services Tax Assessments |
|
| In December 2009, one of the Brazilian subsidiaries that were acquired as part of the Lipman acquisition was notified of a tax assessment regarding alleged nonpayment of tax on services rendered for the period from September 2004 to December 2004. This assessment was issued by the municipality of São Paulo (the "municipality"), and asserts a services tax deficiency and related penalties totaling 875,000 Brazilian reais (approximately $393,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014), excluding interest. The municipality claims that the Brazilian subsidiary rendered certain services within the municipality of São Paulo but simulated that those services were rendered in another city. At the end of December 2010 the municipality issued further tax assessments alleging the same claims for 2005 through June 2007. These additional subsequent claims assert services tax deficiencies and related penalties totaling 5.9 million Brazilian reais (approximately $2.6 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014), excluding interest. We received unfavorable decisions from the administrative courts, which ruled to maintain the tax assessments for each of these matters. No further grounds of appeal are available to us for these assessments within the administrative courts. In October 2012, as a result of the decision at the administrative level, the tax authorities filed an enforcement action in the civil courts to collect on the services tax assessments amounts awarded by the administrative court, and seeking other related costs and fees. On March 6, 2013, we filed our defensive claims in the civil courts in response to the tax authorities' enforcement action. In February 2013 the tax authorities filed an additional enforcement action in the civil courts to collect on the penalties related to the services tax assessments amounts awarded by the administrative courts. Based on our understanding of the underlying facts of this matter and our evaluation of the potential outcome at the judicial level, we believe it is reasonably possible that our Brazilian subsidiary will be required to pay some amount of the alleged tax assessments and penalties related to these matters, as well as amounts of interest and certain costs and fees imposed by the court related thereto. As of July 31, 2014, the amount of the alleged tax assessments and penalties related to these matters was approximately 5.8 million Brazilian reais (approximately $2.6 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014), and the estimated interest, costs and fees related thereto were approximately 12.4 million Brazilian reais (approximately $5.6 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). |
|
| The Brazilian subsidiary we acquired as part of our acquisition of Hypercom in August 2011 received an unfavorable administrative decision on a tax enforcement action against it filed by the municipality of Curitiba for collection of alleged services tax deficiency. An appeal against this unfavorable administrative decision was filed in a judicial proceeding and currently the case is pending the municipality of Curitiba's compliance with the writ of summons. As of July 31, 2014, the underlying assessment, including estimated interest, was approximately 7.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $3.4 million at the foreign exchange rate as of July 31, 2014). Based on our current understanding of the underlying facts of this matter, we believe it is reasonably possible that we may receive an unfavorable decision in this proceeding. |
| Patent Infringement and Commercial Litigation |
|
| Cardsoft, Inc. et al v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., VeriFone, Inc., Hypercom Corporation, et al |
|
| On March 6, 2008, Cardsoft, Inc. and Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC (collectively, “Cardsoft”) commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against us and Hypercom Corporation, among others, alleging infringement of U.S. Patents No. 6,934,945 and No. 7,302,683 purportedly owned by Cardsoft. Cardsoft sought, in its complaint, a judgment of infringement, an injunction against further infringement, damages, interest and attorneys' fees. On June 8, 2012, the jury returned an unfavorable verdict finding that Cardsoft's patents were valid and were infringed by the accused VeriFone and Hypercom devices, and further determined that a royalty rate of $3 per unit should be applied. Accordingly, the jury awarded Cardsoft infringement damages and royalties of approximately $15.4 million covering past sales of the accused devices by VeriFone and Hypercom. The jury concluded there was no willful infringement by either VeriFone or Hypercom. |
|
| Following the jury's verdict, we determined that it is probable we will incur a loss on this litigation based on the jury's verdict and current status of the litigation proceedings. |
|
| We filed our motions for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the jury's verdict and motions for a new trial, which the District Court denied. Cardsoft filed a motion for permanent injunction or in the alternative for a future royalty of $8 per unit on our future U.S. sales of the accused products through the March 16, 2018 expiration date of the patents. Cardsoft also filed a motion seeking pre-judgment interest at a rate of 5%. On October 30, 2013, the District Court issued judgment upholding the jury's verdict that the patent was valid and infringed. The judgment confirmed the jury's award of infringement damages and royalties of approximately $15.4 million covering past sales of the VeriFone and Hypercom accused devices, plus pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs. The court also ruled that an ongoing royalty should be applied for sales of the accused devices after the verdict date. However, the court did not set an ongoing royalty rate but instead ordered the parties to mediate on the issue of an ongoing royalty rate. The judgment confirmed that there was no willful infringement and that an injunction was not warranted. On December 18, 2013, we and Cardsoft participated in mediation but we were unable to reach resolution on this matter. In March 2014, Cardsoft filed a motion requesting the court to set an ongoing royalty rate. In April 2014, we filed our opposition to such motion as well as a motion requesting the court to issue a ruling as to whether an ongoing royalty applies in light of our redesigns of the products subject to the court’s infringement ruling. The parties have since agreed on a discovery schedule and discovery is under way with respect to the redesign. |
|
| Given that we believed it probable that the District Court would award an ongoing royalty, and such amount was deemed estimable effective from our fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2012 when the jury verdict was issued, we accrued $3 per unit to Cost of net revenues for potential ongoing royalties, plus estimated pre-judgment interest. During the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2012, we completed redesigns of the terminals subject to the jury's verdict specifically to address the Cardsoft allegations, and implemented such redesigns in the U.S. We obtained the legal opinion of independent intellectual property counsel that our terminals, as redesigned, do not infringe the Cardsoft patents-in-suit, taking into account the claim construction of the District Court in the Cardsoft action. Accordingly, although the question of whether our products, as redesigned, infringe the Cardsoft patents-in-suit is subject to determination by a court, whether the District Court in the underlying trial or another court, we concluded based on the procedures taken and legal reviews obtained, that it is not probable that an ongoing royalty based on the jury's verdict applies to our terminals as redesigned, and ceased accruing an ongoing royalty on the basis of our implementation of the redesigns. We continued to accrue for pre-judgment interest until judgment was entered. Our estimate of pre-judgment interest applies a rate of 4.12% which represents the seven year Treasury rate as of August 23, 2005, the date of the relevant hypothetical negotiation of the underlying claim. As noted above, Cardsoft previously filed a motion claiming royalties on our future U.S. sales of the accused products at a royalty rate higher than the rate awarded by the jury and pre-judgment interest at a rate higher than used in our estimates. Following entry of judgment, we have accrued for post-judgment interest at the statutorily determined rate equal to the one year constant maturity Treasury rate, currently 0.11% per annum, compounded annually. |
|
| Based on our assessment and the status of this case as described above, we have accrued an estimated loss through July 31, 2014, including estimated pre-judgment interest, potential ongoing royalties and post-judgment interest, totaling $20.0 million related to this ongoing litigation. |
|
| On February 18, 2014, we filed our opening brief in our appeal of the District Court’s judgment before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cardsoft filed its responsive brief in the appeal on April 30, 2014 and we filed our reply brief on May 19, 2014. A hearing for our appeal is set for September 11, 2014. We intend to vigorously pursue our appeal of any unfavorable judgment issued by the District Court and to defend any further claims related to this litigation. At this time we are unable to estimate the range of additional loss exceeding amounts already recognized, if any, related to any further amounts Cardsoft may seek and the District Court may award. Unfavorable rulings on such motions, including any unfavorable rulings by the District Court with respect to our redesigns, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
|
| Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. |
|
| On December 17, 2012, Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC (“CMT”), a provider of in-taxi payment processing solutions, filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging breach by VeriFone Systems, Inc. and VeriFone Media, LLC (f/k/a Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC) (“VML”) of a sales representation agreement between CMT and VML. According to the complaint, CMT seeks damages and accounting, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract. On January 15, 2013, we removed this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 13, 2013, we filed our answer and counterclaim, setting forth our general denial of the allegations, responses to specific allegations, our affirmative defenses and our counterclaim. The initial status conference was held in April 2013 and the parties engaged in discovery in the case. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law, we entered into an agreement-in-principle on April 25, 2014, and a confidential settlement agreement on May 27, 2014, with CMT to settle the case for a total consideration of $9.0 million consisting of a $7.5 million one-time cash payment and a $1.5 million credit that may be applied by CMT within 24 months against purchases of certain VeriFone electronic payment terminals. We accrued the full amount of the settlement consideration in April 2014 when we entered into the agreement-in-principle. We paid the cash portion of the settlement consideration in June 2014. On June 4, 2014, the parties jointly filed with the court a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice to dismiss the action. On June 5, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. |
|
| Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits |
|
| In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation |
|
| On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our officers, former officers, and a former director. These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and are currently captioned as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140 EMC. The original actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW. On August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors, based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business and operations during the putative class periods, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We filed our motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008. The court granted our motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling. The proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009 followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the hearing on our motion was held on May 17, 2010. In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on our motion, lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on the basis that it had newly obtained evidence. Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court we submitted our motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and lead plaintiff filed its opposition, following which the court took the matter under submission without further hearing. On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the consolidated securities class action without leave to amend. On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal on July 28, 2011. We filed our answering brief on September 28, 2011 and lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011. A hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was held before a judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012. On December 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the district court's dismissal of the consolidated shareholder securities class action against us and certain of our officers and directors, with the exception of the dismissal of lead plaintiff's claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. On January 4, 2013, we filed a petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing. On February 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceeding on lead plaintiff's claims, except for the dismissed Section 20(a) claim. |
|
| On August 9, 2013, we entered into a stipulation of settlement in this consolidated shareholder securities class action with and among the other defendants and the lead plaintiff therein. The settlement was subject to various customary conditions, including preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, notice to class members, class member opt-out thresholds and final approval by the court. Upon the settlement becoming final, the total settlement consideration paid for the benefit of the settlement class would be $95.0 million, plus a potential contingent adjustment if we had been acquired on or before April 15, 2014. We have coverage from our insurance carriers for this settlement consideration in the amount of approximately $33.8 million. The net amount of approximately $61.2 million (excluding the contingent adjustment) would be paid by us. On October 15, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On November 5, 2013, we deposited approximately $61.2 million, and our insurance carriers have deposited the remaining portion, of the $95.0 million settlement consideration into an escrow account for the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement was held on February 14, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting the parties’ motion for settlement, and indicated that it intended to issue a final approval of the settlement, subject to the lead plaintiff's submission of a notice plan regarding Israeli investors that includes (i) a longer time period for Israeli class members to file their claims and (ii) the dissemination to Israeli investors of a Hebrew language version of the notice of the proposed settlement, proof of claim and release form (the “Hebrew-Language Notice”). On February 20, 2014, in response to the court’s order, the lead plaintiff filed a proposed notice plan that included (i) an extension of the time period for Israeli class members to file claims to April 30, 2014, (ii) a plan to mail the Hebrew-Language Notice to Israeli investors, (iii) a plan to publish the Hebrew-Language Notice in a leading newspaper in Israel, and (iv) a revision to the claims website to post the Hebrew-Language Notice and make clear that the claims deadline for Israeli class members has been extended to April 30, 2014. On February 25, 2014, the court issued a final order approving the settlement, dismissing the case with prejudice and entering judgment in the action. One of the objectors to the settlement filed a notice of appeal to the court’s February 25, 2014 judgment and orders, but subsequently filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice. On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order and mandate, dismissing the appeal with prejudice. |
|
| We have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the consolidated shareholder securities class action. Nonetheless, we have agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further litigation. This settlement also applies to members of the putative class of plaintiffs in the Israel class action described below under U.S. law. |
|
| In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Proceedings |
|
| Beginning on December 13, 2007, several actions were also filed against certain current and former directors and officers derivatively on our behalf. These derivative lawsuits were filed in: (1) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. C 07-6347 MHP, which consolidates King v. Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 07-CV-6347), Hilborn v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 08-CV-1132), Patel v. Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 08-CV-1133), and Lemmond, et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 08-CV-1301); and (2) the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-07-CV-100980, which consolidates Catholic Medical Mission Board v. Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 1-07-CV-100980) and Carpel v. Bergeron, et al. (Case No. 1-07-CV-101449). We prevailed in our motion to dismiss the federal derivative claims before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and, on November 28, 2011, in ruling on lead plaintiff's appeal against the district court's judgment dismissing lead plaintiff's derivative claims, the Ninth Circuit issued judgment affirming the dismissal of lead plaintiff's complaint against us. The time period for the lead plaintiff to appeal the Ninth Circuit's judgment has expired. |
|
| On October 31, 2008, the state derivative plaintiffs filed their consolidated derivative complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara naming us as a nominal defendant and bringing claims for insider selling, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against certain of our current and former officers and directors and our largest stockholder as of October 31, 2008, GTCR Golder Rauner LLC. On February 18, 2009, plaintiff Catholic Medical Mission Board voluntarily dismissed itself from the action. In November 2008, we filed a motion to stay the state court action pending resolution of the parallel federal actions, and the parties agreed by stipulation to delay briefing on the motion to stay until after the issue of demand futility was resolved in the federal derivative case. On June 2, 2011, the court entered a stipulated order requiring the parties to submit a case status report on August 1, 2011 and periodically thereafter. The parties submitted status reports to the court through February 1, 2013 as requested by the court. On January 30, 2013, counsel for plaintiff informed us that Mr. Carpel, the nominal plaintiff, had sold his shares in the company and therefore no longer had standing to maintain a derivative action against us. On February 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to publish notice to our stockholders seeking a new nominal plaintiff. On May 10, 2013, the court adopted its tentative order granting the motion to publish notice, which was formally entered on May 17, 2013. Under the terms of the order, the parties were ordered to publish notice of the potential dismissal of the action and any qualifying shareholder who wishes to intervene must notify the court within ninety days from the formal entry of the order. Otherwise, the action will be dismissed. On August 14, 2013, counsel for the former nominal plaintiff, Mr. Carpel, filed a notice of intent to substitute a new nominal plaintiff, Joel Gerber, into the action. On September 16, 2013, counsel for former plaintiff Carpel filed a motion to substitute a new plaintiff, Joel Gerber, into the action. On October 16, 2013, the court granted the motion and deemed the amended complaint filed as of the same date. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, VeriFone’s demurrer to the amended complaint was filed on April 7, 2014. On May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to VeriFone's demurrer and filed a motion to stay the action to allow plaintiff to make a demand on VeriFone's current Board of Directors. A hearing on the demurrer and the motion to stay is scheduled for September 5, 2014. A case management conference is scheduled for October 3, 2014. |
|
| Israel Class Action |
|
| On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action. |
|
| On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed above unless an individual plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S. court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the applicable law. A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the court’s request. We filed our reply pleading on August 19, 2014. |
|
| In re VeriFone Securities Litigation |
|
| On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us certain of our former officers and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding our business, operations, and financial controls during the putative class period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013. On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011 and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer who was named in the original complaint from the action. We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014 and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, lead plaintiff's second amended complaint is to be filed by October 7, 2014 and we shall answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by December 8, 2014. The court has set a hearing on April 3, 2015 for any forthcoming motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. |
|
| Dolled v. Bergeron et al. |
|
| On April 19, 2013, a derivative action, Dolled v. Bergeron et al., Case No. 113-CV-245056, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara in connection with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action, brought derivatively on behalf of VeriFone, names VeriFone as a nominal defendant and brings claims for insider selling, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment variously against certain of our current and former officers and directors. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits and compensation paid to defendants, injunctive relief directing us to reform its corporate governance, and payment of the plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2013, the court entered the parties' stipulation and proposed order, which appointed plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively, in the consolidated action, captioned In re VeriFone Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation. The next case management conference is scheduled for October 3, 2014. |
|
| Zoumboulakis v. McGinn et al. |
|
| On May 24, 2013, a federal derivative action, Zoumboulakis v. McGinn et al., Case No. 13-CV-02379, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against certain current and former directors and officers derivatively on our behalf. The complaint, which names us as a nominal defendant, alleges breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control and asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for false or misleading financial statements and proxy statement disclosures. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including exemplary damages, restitution from defendants, injunctive relief directing us to make certain corporate governance reforms, and payment of the plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees. On August 12, 2013, the court entered defendants' motion seeking to relate this action to the pending shareholder class action, Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. On October 31, 2013, the court entered a stipulation and order setting a December 31, 2013 deadline for the filing of an amended complaint and setting a January 30, 2014 deadline for defendants to move or answer. An initial case management conference was held on January 17, 2014. On January 21, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which removed one of our former officers from the action and added an additional former director as a defendant. The amended complaint brings claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, violations of Securities Exchange Act Section 14(a), and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint also brings claims for insider trading against three of the named former and current directors. We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 7, 2014, plaintiff filed her opposition on April 23, 2014, and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument. On August 7, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. The court has set September 8, 2014 as the deadline for plaintiff to file an amended complaint. |
|
| If any of these class action or derivative lawsuits is resolved adversely to us, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. |
|
| Antitrust Investigation |
|
| The Competition Commission of India ("CCI") is investigating certain complaints made against us alleging unfair practices based on certain provisions in our software development license arrangements in India. We have cooperated with requests by the CCI in its investigation. In March 2014, the director general of the CCI investigating the allegations issued a report rejecting certain of the allegations, but also finding that certain provisions of our licenses may constitute unfair business practices. We are preparing our response to the director general's report. Hearings in this matter are scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014. |
|
| Other Litigation |
|
| After termination of their services, several former contractors of one of our Brazilian subsidiaries filed individual lawsuits in the Labor Court of São Paulo against the subsidiary alleging an employer-employee relationship and wrongful termination, and claiming, among other damages, statutorily-imposed salaries, vacations, severance and bonus amounts, social contributions and penalties and moral damages. In October 2012, we received a partially unfavorable judgment for one of these lawsuits, with the court ruling that an employer-employee relationship existed. We did not prevail in our appeal of the unfavorable judgment and this matter is now pending final appeal. We believe it is probable that we may not prevail on this matter. As of July 31, 2014, we have accrued for the estimated probable loss for this matter, which amount is not material to our results of operations. We have settled, without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law, the other filed lawsuits, in each case, for a cash payment. The amounts of these settlements are not material to our results of operations. |
|
| Certain of the foregoing cases are still in the preliminary stages, and we are not able to quantify the extent of our potential liability, if any. Further, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If any of these matters are resolved adversely to us, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, defending these legal proceedings is likely to be costly, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and may divert management's attention from the day-to-day operations of our business. We are subject to various other legal proceedings related to commercial, customer, and employment matters that have arisen during the ordinary course of business, including a number of pending labor-related claims that arose in the ordinary course of business against the Hypercom Brazilian subsidiary prior to our acquisition of Hypercom. The outcome of such legal proceedings is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of these matters, our management has determined, based upon the information available at the date of these financial statements, including expected availability of insurance coverage, that the expected outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
| Export Control Matters |
|
| As disclosed in Part II Item 5, Other Information, of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for our fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013, we previously discovered certain unauthorized activities which may potentially constitute violations of U.S. export control laws and regulations that prohibit the shipment of our products and the provision of our services to countries, governments and persons targeted by U.S. sanctions. In connection with our discoveries we have made a voluntary disclosure to the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) regarding these potential violations. This voluntary disclosure process with OFAC is in the initial stages and we cannot predict whether or when OFAC would review this matter or what enforcement action, if any, it may take. If we were found to be in violation of U.S. sanctions or export control laws, it could result in fines or penalties for us, which could harm our results of operations. |
|
| Income Tax Uncertainties |
|
| As of July 31, 2014, the amount payable for unrecognized tax benefits was $64.9 million, including accrued interest and penalties, none of which is expected to be paid within one year. This amount is included in Other long-term liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of July 31, 2014. We are unable to make a reasonably reliable estimate as to when cash settlement with a taxing authority may occur. |
