Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
Contingencies | Contingencies |
In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various claims, charges, disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations. The Company establishes reserves for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where it believes an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against the Company, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the Company's liquidity, results of operations or financial condition, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management's view of these matters may change in the future. The Company also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. These matters, if resolved adversely against the Company, may result in monetary damages, fines and penalties or require changes in business practices. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on the Company's liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. |
Legal Proceedings |
The Company is not currently aware of any pending or threatened material claims, charges, disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations except as follows: |
Securities Class Action. On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The initial complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business prospects, financial condition and performance in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period"). On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation Period. On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action ("Consolidated Class Action"). On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“Consolidated Class Action Complaint”) that, in addition to the original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in Intralinks’ April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material information required to be stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012. On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s April 6, 2011 offering. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit denied defendants’ petition. Fact discovery is now complete, and on March 12, 2015, the Court suspended the remaining deadlines in the current scheduling order pending mediation. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. |
Horbal Derivative Action. On April 16, 2012, a shareholder derivative complaint (the "Horbal Action") was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County ("New York State Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements about the Company's business operations and financial condition during the same Allegation Period alleged in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 24, 2012, one of the director defendants removed the Horbal Action to the SDNY, and on May 22, 2012, the plaintiff moved to remand the case to New York State Court. On March 11, 2013, the SDNY granted plaintiff's motion to remand, and the case is currently pending in New York State Court. On June 6, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation with the New York State Court agreeing to stay all proceedings in the Horbal Action, including discovery, until ninety days after the SDNY issues a scheduling order in the Consolidated Class Action. On January 13, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation with the New York State Court agreeing to work together on a schedule for defendants’ time to answer, move against or otherwise respond to the complaint or an amended complaint. On June 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that continues to assert the same claims against the same defendants. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint on July 14, 2014. On February 4, 2015, following oral argument, the New York State Court announced from the bench that it would grant defendants’ motions to dismiss. On February 19, 2015, the director defendants served plaintiff with a notice of entry of that dismissal and, on March 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes the claims in the Horbal Action are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. |
Levine Shareholder Demand Letter/Complaint. The Company received a shareholder demand letter, dated May 16, 2013, demanding that the Company's Board take action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by current and former directors and officers of the Company. These alleged breaches are based on the same alleged misconduct in the complaints in the Horbal and Consolidated Class Actions. The letter specifically demands that the Company's Board undertake an independent internal investigation into the alleged breaches and commence a civil action against each of the allegedly breaching current and former directors and officers. On June 26, 2013, the Company's Board created a Demand Committee to conduct an investigation into the allegations in the letter. On December 13, 2013, the shareholder filed a derivative complaint (the “Levine Action”) in New York State Court against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The Levine Action alleges that since the Company’s Board has not responded substantively to the shareholder’s demand letter in over six months, this has resulted in an improper “functional refusal” of the demand. The Levine Action makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to, the Horbal and Consolidated Class Actions. It alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making materially false and misleading statements related to the strength of the Company’s business and customer satisfaction. On March 27, 2014, counsel for the Demand Committee sent a letter to shareholder’s counsel stating that after thorough investigation of the allegations in the demand letter, the Board concluded that taking any or all of the demanded actions would not serve the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, and voted unanimously to reject the demand. Pursuant to a stipulation filed on June 2, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on July 2, 2014. Pursuant to a stipulation filed on June 2, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on July 2, 2014. On February 4, 2015, following oral argument, the New York State Court announced from the bench that it would grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss, without prejudice. The Company believes the claims in the Levine Action are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. |
Due to the early stages of these matters and the nature of the potential claims, a range of loss cannot be determined at this time. |