Commitments and Contingencies | 17. Commitments and Contingencies Securities Class Action Complaints On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s now-former officers. On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) was filed against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings. On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company’s common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserts claims on behalf the subclass for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former officers, and a shareholder of the Company. On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs’ representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Class Action Litigation”). On February 5, 2016, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, as well as the stipulation and agreement of settlement and related exhibits. The stipulation and agreement of settlement releases all claims asserted against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. and does not release claims asserted in the derivative actions Hemmingson, et al. v. Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.). The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides for an aggregate settlement payment by the Company of $23.5 million, which includes all attorneys’ fees, costs of administration and plaintiffs’ out-of-pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory awards and disbursements. The Company expects the settlement will be fully funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. On April 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 18, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has scheduled the fairness hearing for November 21, 2016. The settlement remains subject to stockholder notice, court approval and other customary conditions. The Company recorded the $23.5 million of the obligation as accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company recorded $29.6 million of the proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29.6 million were deposited into the Company’s escrow account during the first quarter of 2016 and the Company reclassified the $29.6 million deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted cash. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company disbursed the aggregate settlement payment of $23.5 million after the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2016. SEC Enforcement Staff Review In March 2014, the Company voluntarily reported to the SEC that the Company’s Audit Committee had determined that the Company incorrectly recognized revenue on certain transactions and as a result would restate its financial statements, and that the Audit Committee had commenced an independent investigation. Over the course of 2014 and the first two quarters of 2015, the Company voluntarily produced documents to the SEC regarding the various accounting issues identified during the independent investigation, and whether the Company’s hiring of an accountant from the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm impacted that accounting firm’s independence. On July 22, 2014, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement obtained a Formal Order of Investigation. On March 12, 2015, the SEC issued a subpoena for documents to the Company in connection with its investigation. The Company will continue to cooperate with the SEC in this investigation, and has produced documents in response to the subpoena. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above. Shareholder Derivative Complaints A shareholder derivative action, styled Hemmingson et al. v. Elkins et al., Case No. 1-15-cv-278614, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County on March 25, 2015, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, as well as a shareholder of the Company, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint in this action asserts claims for (i) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers for purportedly knowingly failing to maintain adequate internal controls over its accounting and reporting functions and disseminating to shareholders certain alleged materially false and misleading statements, (ii) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current directors and a current shareholder of the Company for purported insider trading, and (iii) alleged unjust enrichment by a shareholder of the Company for purported insider trading. On June 1, 2015, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County styled Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.). The complaint names as defendants certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, and a shareholder of the Company, with the Company being named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers for knowingly failing to maintain adequate internal controls over the Company’s accounting and reporting functions and disseminating to shareholders certain alleged materially false and misleading statements; and (ii) alleged aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duties by all defendants. On January 22, 2016, the Company and the plaintiffs in the Hemmingson and Bushansky actions entered into and filed a stipulation of settlement with the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending claims in both shareholder derivative actions against the Company and the individual defendants, without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The settlement provides for an aggregate payment from the Company defendants’ directors and officers insurance policies of $3.0 million to be made to an escrow account, which will be remitted to the Company once the settlement becomes final, less (i) any applicable costs of such escrow account, (ii) any amount awarded by the court to the plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and (iii) the cost of providing notice of the settlement to the Company’s stockholders. The proposed settlement also requires that the Company implement certain corporate governance measures. On February 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed derivative settlement. On June 10, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 18, 2016, after a hearing held on October 14, 2016, the court entered its order and final judgment (the “Judgment”) granting final approval of the proposed settlement and awarding plaintiffs’ counsel $750,000 for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. The Judgment is subject to appeal. In the event that no appeal is filed, the settlement will become effective at the expiration of the appeal period, which is 60 days from October 18, 2016, the date the Judgment was entered by the Court. |