Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Although the amount of any liability that could arise with respect to these actions cannot be determined with certainty, in the Company’s opinion, any such liability will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, consolidated results of operations or liquidity. Shareholders Class Action : On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric Sound Corporation) announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by agreeing to a merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company’s Board of Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to participate. On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada case denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger. The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. On September 14, 2017, a unanimous en banc panel of the Nevada Supreme Court granted defendants’ petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the complaint but provided a limited basis upon which plaintiffs could seek to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on December 1, 2017 to assert the same claims in a derivative capacity on behalf of the Company, as a well as in a direct capacity, against VTBH, Stripes Group, LLC, SG VTB Holdings, LLC, and the former members of the Company’s Board of Directors. All defendants moved to dismiss this amended complaint on January 2, 2018, and those motions were denied on March 13, 2018. Defendants petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse this ruling on April 18, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court denied defendants’ writ petition without prejudice. The district court subsequently entered a pretrial schedule and set trial for November 2019. On January 18, 2019, the district court certified a class of shareholders of the Company as of January 15, 2014. Commercial Dispute : On July 20, 2016, Bigben Interactive S.A. (“BigBen”) filed a statement of claim before the Regional Court of Berlin, Germany against VTB, which statement of claim was formally serviced upon VTB on June 28, 2017. The statement of claim alleges that VTB’s termination of a distribution agreement by and between BigBen and VTB breached the terms thereof and was invalid, and that BigBen is entitled to damages amounting to €5.0 million plus accrued interest thereon plus certain additional damages as a result of such invalid termination. VTB filed its statement of defense with the court on September 21, 2017. On January 7, 2019, the Regional Court of Berlin issued its judgment on this dispute, dismissing BigBen's claim in its entirety. On February 7, 2019, BigBen Interactive S.A. has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court of Berlin of January 7, 2019 (the "Judgment"). On April 15, 2019, Big Ben provided the reasoning for its appeal against the Judgment. The Higher Regional Court of Berlin has set VTB a deadline for the reply to the reasoning for the appeal until May 24, 2019. The Higher Regional Court of Berlin will review and decide the provisions of the Judgment specifically relating to preliminary enforceability of the Judgment in separate proceedings and before the appellate proceedings regarding the main part of the Judgment. The Higher Regional Court of Berlin has scheduled an oral hearing regarding the provisions of the Judgment on the preliminary enforceability for June 11, 2019. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in the foregoing matters. However, litigation and investigations are inherently uncertain. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. The Company has not recorded any accrual at March 31, 2019 for contingent losses associated with these matters based on its belief that losses, while possible, are not probable. Further, any possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The unfavorable resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. The Company is engaged in other legal actions, not described above, arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, believes that the ultimate outcome of these other legal actions will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Warranties We warrant our products against certain manufacturing and other defects. These product warranties are provided for specific periods of time depending on the nature of the product. Warranties are generally fulfilled by replacing defective products with new products. The following table provides the changes in our product warranty reserve, which are included in accrued liabilities: Three Months Ended March 31, 2019 2018 (in thousands) Warranty, beginning of period $ 668 $ 472 Warranty costs accrued 243 234 Settlements of warranty claims (207 ) (172 ) Warranty, end of period $ 704 $ 534 Operating Leases - Right of Use Assets The Company adopted ASU 2016-02, Leases , on January 1, 2019. The Company determines whether an arrangement is a lease at inception. The Company leases office spaces that provide for future minimum rental lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases that have remaining lease terms of one year to nine years, and do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. The components of the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities were as follows: Balance Sheet Classification March 31, 2019 (in thousands) Right-of-use assets Other assets $ 2,946 Lease liability obligations, current Other current liabilities 1,361 Lease liability obligations, noncurrent Other liabilities 1,885 Total lease liability obligations $ 3,246 Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years) 2.10 Weighted-average discount rate 3.75 % During the three months ended March 31, 2019 , the Company recognized approximately $0.2 million of lease costs in operating expenses and operating cash flows from operating leases of approximately $0.4 million . Approximate future minimum lease payments for our right of use assets over the remaining lease periods as of March 31, 2019 , are as follows: (in thousands) 2019 $ 1,194 2020 1,233 2021 434 2022 117 2023 103 Thereafter 397 Total minimum payments $ 3,478 Less: Imputed interest $ (232 ) Total $ 3,246 |