18)	Commitments and Contingencies

On March 9, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al, Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the Merger Agreement between the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub. The complaint, filed on March 9, 2016, named as defendants the Company, Newport and Merger Sub, and certain then-current and former members of Newport’s former board of directors. The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, monetary damages, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, among other relief. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the Chung action filed an amended complaint, which adds certain allegations, including that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Newport on March 15, 2016 (the “Proxy”) omitted material information. The amended complaint also names as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and then-current members of Newport’s board of directors.

Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport’s stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub and the then-current members of Newport’s former board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to enjoin or rescind the Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, among other relief.

On April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung actions and appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead counsel. Also on April 14, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016. On April 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the hearing on their anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction and notified the Court that they did not presently intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the Merger Agreement. On April 22, 2016, the Court vacated the hearing on plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. In August, plaintiffs completed the expedited discovery that the Court ordered.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a class of Newport’s stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport’s former board of directors. It alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices, and by omitting material information from the Proxy. The complaint also alleges that the Company and Newport aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 9, 2016, both the Company and the Newport defendants filed motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on January 13, 2017. On February 3, 2017, the Company and the Newport defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held on February 15, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the amended complaint have no merit and the Company, Newport and the named directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.