XML 23 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases The Company leases various facilities under operating leases expiring through March 2023. Some of these leases require the Company to pay certain executory costs (such as insurance and maintenance). Future minimum lease payments for operating leases are approximately as follows (dollars in thousands):
Years Ending |  |  |
December 31, |  |  |
2014 |  | $ | 4,522 |
2015 |  |  | 3,267 |
2016 |  |  | 2,363 |
2017 |  |  | 1,710 |
2018 |  |  | 944 |
Thereafter |  |  | 2,499 |
|  | $ | 15,305 |
Rental expense for all leases was approximately $4.9 million, $3.4 million and $3.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Other Commitments The Company submits purchase orders for raw materials to various vendors throughout the year for current production requirements, as well as forecasted requirements. Certain of these purchase orders relate to special purpose material and, as such, the Company may incur penalties if an order is cancelled. The Company had outstanding purchase orders related to raw materials in the amount of $23.4 million and $18.8 million at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The Company also had outstanding purchase orders related to capital expenditures in the amount of $3.0 million and $1.7 million at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Legal Proceedings The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al. brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas in November 2007 (“SynQor I case”). The plaintiff alleged that eleven defendants, including Bel, infringed its patents covering certain power products. With respect to the Company, the plaintiff claimed that the Company infringed its patents related to unregulated bus converters and/or point-of-load (POL) converters used in intermediate bus architecture power supply systems. The case went to trial in December 2010 and a partial judgment was entered on December 29, 2010 based on the jury verdict. The jury found that certain products of the defendants directly and/or indirectly infringe the SynQor patents. The jury awarded damages of $8.1 million against the Company, which was recorded by the Company as a litigation charge in the consolidated statement of operations in the fourth quarter of 2010. On July 11, 2011, the Court awarded supplemental damages of $2.5 million against the Company. Of this amount, $1.9 million is covered through an indemnification agreement with one of Bel’s customers and the remaining $0.6 million was recorded as an expense by the Company during the second quarter of 2011. During the third quarter of 2011, the Company recorded costs and interest associated with this lawsuit of $0.2 million. A final judgment in the case was entered on August 17, 2011. The Company filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on October 28, 2011. In November 2011, the Company posted a $13.0 million supersedeas bond to the Court in the Eastern District of Texas while the case was on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The amount of the bond was reflected as restricted cash in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2012. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) heard oral argument in the SynQor I case on October 2, 2012 and issued its opinion on March 13, 2013. In its opinion, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s findings and judgment on all issues up on appeal. The Company and the other Defendants jointly filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the CAFC on April 12, 2013, which was denied by the CAFC on May 14, 2013. The Defendants filed a joint petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on September 23, 2013. In November 2013, the Supreme Court denied the joint petition for certiorari, and the Company released a payment to SynQor of $10.9 million. The Company subsequently received a $2.1 million payment from one of its customers related to the aforementioned indemnification agreement and reimbursement of certain legal fees. The remaining $2.1 million in escrow was released back to the Company in December 2013 and as such, there was no balance in restricted cash remaining on the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2013. In a related matter, on September 29, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered SynQor, Inc.’s continuing causes of action for post-injunction damages to be severed from the original action and assigned to a new case number. The new action captioned SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., et al. (Case Number 2:11cv444) is a patent infringement action for damages in the form of lost profits and reasonable royalties for the period beginning January 24, 2011 (“SynQor II case”). SynQor, Inc. also seeks enhanced damages. The Company has an indemnification agreement in place with one of its customers specifically covering post-injunction damages related to this case. As a result, the Company does not anticipate that its consolidated statement of operations will be materially impacted by any potential post-injunction damages. This case went to trial on July 30, 2013. A decision has yet to be rendered on this case. The Company is a plaintiff in a lawsuit captioned Bel Fuse Inc. et al. v. Molex Inc. brought in the United District Court of New Jersey in April 2013. The Company claims that Molex infringed three of the Company’s patents related to integrated magnetic connector products. Molex filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 6, 2013. The Company filed an amended complaint and response on August 20, 2013. Molex withdrew its original Motion to Dismiss and filed a second, revised Motion to Dismiss on September 6, 2013. The Company filed its response on October 7, 2013. The Company, through its subsidiary Cinch Connectors Inc., is a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit captioned Richard G. Becker vs. Adience Inc., et al. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne in the State of Michigan. The complaint was amended to include Cinch Connectors Inc. and other defendants on August 13, 2012. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on October 19, 2012. This case was settled for a de minimis amount on September 25, 2013. The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. (“Halo”) v. Bel Fuse Inc., Pulse Engineering, Inc. and Technitrol, Inc. brought in Nevada Federal District Court. The plaintiff claimed that the Company had infringed its patents covering certain surface mount discrete magnetic products made by the Company. Halo sought unspecified damages, which it claimed should be trebled. In December 2007, this case was dismissed by the Nevada Federal District Court for lack of personal jurisdiction. Halo then re-filed this suit, with similar claims against the Company, in the Northern California Federal District Court, captioned Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., Elec & Eltek (USA) Corporation, Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc., and Xfmrs, Inc. In June 2011, a memorandum of understanding was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby the Company has agreed to pay Halo a royalty on past sales. The Company recorded a $2.6 million liability related to past sales during the second quarter of 2011. This was included as a litigation charge in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011. Bel also agreed to take a license with respect to the Halo patents at issue in the lawsuit and pay an 8% royalty on all net worldwide sales of the above-mentioned products from June 7, 2011 through August 10, 2015. The Company was a plaintiff in a lawsuit captioned Bel Fuse Inc. v. Halo brought in the United States District Court of New Jersey during June 2007. The Company claimed that Halo infringed a patent covering certain integrated connector modules made by Halo. The Company was seeking an unspecified amount of damages plus interest, costs and attorney fees. In August 2011, a settlement agreement was signed by the Company and Halo with regard to this lawsuit, whereby Halo agreed to pay the Company a 10% royalty related to its net worldwide sales of its integrated connector modules in exchange for a fully paid-up license of the Bel patent. This royalty income was included in net sales in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is not a party to any other legal proceeding, the adverse outcome of which is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

X
- 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 FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration