19)	Commitments and Contingencies

Newport Litigation

In March 2016, two putative class actions lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, and Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, were 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 (“Newport Merger Agreement”) between the Company, Newport, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”). 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 Newport 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 Newport Merger Agreement, and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and costs, among other relief. On April 14, 2016, the Court consolidated the actions.

On October 19, 2016, plaintiffs in the consolidated action 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 Newport Merger Agreement. The amended complaint contained substantially similar allegations related to Newport’s former board of directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders. The amended complaint sought monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. On June 22, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint against all defendants but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations but naming only Newport’s former directors as defendants. On August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the Company and Newport from the action. The second amended complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. The Court granted a motion for class certification on September 27, 2018, appointing Mr. Pincon and Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers - Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust as class representatives. On June 11, 2018, plaintiff Dixon Chung was voluntarily dismissed from the litigation. Discovery is ongoing in this action.

ESI Litigation

On November 29, 2018, a complaint captioned Brian Morris et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon by alleged former stockholders of ESI in connection with the ESI Merger. The complaint named the Company’s subsidiary, ESI, and the former members of ESI’s board of directors as defendants. Five additional complaints were subsequently filed, two in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and three in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon. The cases filed in the U.S. District Court were dated December 6, 2018 and December 12, 2018 and captioned Melvyn Klein et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Donald Mager et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., respectively. The complaints filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court were dated December 5, 2018, December 5, 2018 and December 13, 2018 and captioned Michael Kent et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al., Christopher Stanley et. al v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et al. and Eduardo Colmenares et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., MKS Instruments, Inc., et al., respectively (collectively with Brian Morris et. al. v. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. et. al., the “Lawsuits”).

The Lawsuits are purported class actions brought on behalf of former ESI stockholders, asserting various claims against the former members of the ESI board of directors, ESI, the Company and the Company’s merger subsidiary, including breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty. The Lawsuits allege that the consideration paid to the ESI shareholders did not appropriately value ESI, and that merger related disclosures failed to disclose certain material information regarding the merger. The Lawsuits purported to seek unspecified damages.

On February 26, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which plaintiffs dismissed their individual claims with prejudice and class claims without prejudice in return for ESI’s previous supplemental merger related disclosures in connection with the transaction. ESI provided supplemental merger related disclosures to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation and to avoid any possible disruption to the merger that could result from further litigation.

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 our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.