XML 40 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies |
19) | 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. 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 lawsuits named as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and certain then current and former members of Newport’s board of directors. Both complaints alleged that the 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 statement. The complaints also alleged that the Company, Newport, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints sought 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. 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 putative class of Newport’s stockholders for claims related to the Merger Agreement. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Newport, and the then-current members of Newport’s former board of directors. It alleged 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 statement. The complaint also alleged that the Company and Newport aided and abetted the named directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. On December 9, 2016, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. On June 22, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint against all defendants but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which names as defendants certain former directors of Newport. On August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the Company and Newport from the action pursuant to stipulations among the parties. The second amended complaint alleges that the 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 omitting material information from the proxy statement. The second amended complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. On September 1, 2017 the Newport directors filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on December 7, 2017. On January 5, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. The Newport directors answered the second amended complaint, denying the material allegations of the complaint and asserting defenses, on February 20, 2018. On April 13, 2018, the Company received a third-party subpoena duces tecum requesting documents and a deposition on various topics in the state of Nevada. The Company served plaintiffs with objections and responses to the subpoena on April 27, 2018. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration