| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments There have been no material changes to our leases and manufacturing agreements since October 31, 2015 . 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 April 30, 2016 , the maximum amount that may become payable under these guarantees was $11.9 million , of which $1.4 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 if material. Except as otherwise disclosed below, we do not believe that material 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 April 30, 2016 for this matter totals approximately 8.8 million Brazilian reais (approximately $2.5 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). As of April 30, 2016 , we have not accrued for this matter, but we have posted a bank bond as a guaranty. 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 forgo 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 $1.3 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ) to 1.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $410,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ) 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 $1.3 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ) 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 $560,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ) 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 $2.1 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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 April 30, 2016 , we have remaining installment payments totaling 0.3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $70,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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 April 30, 2016 , we have accruals totaling 12.3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $3.5 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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 $630,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, based on new provisions made available under the REFIS Amnesty, we elected to pay all remaining outstanding amounts due under the REFIS Amnesty in relation to the 2002 assessment, and settled such payments using cash and additional available net operating losses. 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 $800,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ) 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 $190,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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 $610,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ) 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, and excluding the net operating losses still at issue, the remaining assessments total approximately 3.1 million Brazilian reais (approximately $870,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ), including estimated penalties and interest, as of April 30, 2016 . 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 different tax debts, primarily for IRPJ, PIS and COFINS for past tax years, and total approximately 2.5 million Brazilian reais (approximately $710,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ), 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 $380,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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. After further review, the tax authorities agreed with our positions in certain of these cases and reduced our liabilities under the REFIS Amnesty. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, based on new provisions made available under the REFIS Amnesty, we elected to pay all remaining outstanding amounts due under the REFIS Amnesty in relation to the remaining tax offset requests, and settled such payments using cash and additional available net operating losses. Municipality Services Tax Assessments In December 2009, one of the Brazilian subsidiaries that was 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 $250,000 at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ), 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 $1.7 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ), 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 April 30, 2016 , the amount of the alleged tax assessments and penalties related to these matters was approximately 23.3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $6.6 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ), including interest, costs and fees related thereto. 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 April 30, 2016 , the underlying assessment, including estimated interest, was approximately 5.4 million Brazilian reais (approximately $1.5 million at the foreign exchange rate as of April 30, 2016 ). 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 Claims 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 was probable we would incur a loss on this litigation based on the jury's verdict and the status of the litigation proceedings at that time. Accordingly, we accrued for the full amount of the jury's verdict plus estimated pre-judgment interest and, effective from July 31, 2012, we began accruing estimated ongoing royalties of $3 per unit of accused device to Cost of net revenues. 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 further obtained the legal opinion of independent intellectual property counsel that our terminals, as redesigned, do not infringe the Cardsoft patents-in-suit. We concluded based on the procedures taken and legal reviews obtained, that it was 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 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 and ordered the parties to mediate on the issue of an ongoing royalty rate. The parties participated in mediation but were unable to reach a resolution. In March 2014, Cardsoft filed a motion requesting the court to set an ongoing royalty rate. We opposed, arguing (among other things) that no ongoing royalty applies in light of our redesigns of the products subject to the District Court's infringement ruling. We appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous opinion in our favor. The Federal Circuit ruling reversed the District Court's judgment and, further, concluded that our products did not infringe the Cardsoft patents as a matter of law. As a result, the District Court's finding of infringement and order of past and ongoing royalties, as well as related interest and costs, have been reversed. Previously, based on our assessment and the status of this matter before the District Court, we had accrued a total estimated loss of approximately $20.0 million , including estimated pre-judgment interest, potential ongoing royalties and statutory post-judgment interest related to this litigation. As a result of the Federal Circuit's favorable opinion reversing the District Court's judgment and ruling that our products do not infringe as a matter of law, in October 2014, we reversed the total estimated loss previously accrued. On December 22, 2014, the Federal Circuit denied Cardsoft's petition for rehearing by the panel and hearing en banc, and issued its mandate on December 29, 2014. On March 23, 2015, Cardsoft filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the Court to grant its petition, vacate the Federal Circuit's decision and remand for the Federal Circuit to review using a more deferential standard of review of the District Court’s claim construction. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Cardsoft’s petition, vacated the Federal Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration under a more deferential standard of review of the District Court’s claim construction. On August 24, 2015, both parties submitted briefs regarding this more deferential standard of review and its applicability to the case. Cardsoft also filed motions before the District Court claiming that it was entitled to a new trial to allege infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and seeking to reopen the case before the District Court. We opposed these motions and filed a cross motion to dismiss this matter in its entirety. On December 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit again granted judgment in our favor of no infringement as a matter of law. Cardsoft did not timely file another petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 28, 2016, the District Court entered a Stipulation of Dismissal, and this matter is now concluded. Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Proceedings Beginning on December 13, 2007, several actions were 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. Our demurrer to the amended complaint was filed on April 7, 2014. On May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to our demurrer and filed a motion to stay the action to allow plaintiff to make a demand on our current Board of Directors. We filed our opposition to the motion to stay on June 18, 2014 and plaintiff filed his reply on July 25, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court issued an order sustaining our demurrer and granting plaintiff's motion to stay. Plaintiff made a demand on the Board of Directors on December 23, 2014. On June 11, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, pursuant to which we agreed to implement certain non-monetary corporate governance reforms and to provide support for plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees. On December 9, 2015, the Court entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement. The deadline for us to implement the non-monetary corporate governance reforms will be August 5, 2016, unless an appeal is timely filed. Israel Securities Class Actions 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 sought 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 U.S., 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 25, 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 21, 2009. The Israeli District Court 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 24, 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. 247, 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 th |
