XML 25 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies Minimum lease commitments At June 30, 2017, Veeco’s total future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases (exclusive of renewal options) are payable as follows:
|  | Operating Leases |
|  | (in thousands) |
Payments due by period: |  |  |
2017 |  | $ | 3,528 |
2018 |  | 5,433 |
2019 |  | 4,994 |
2020 |  | 4,756 |
2021 |  | 1,799 |
Thereafter |  | 4,493 |
Total |  | $ | 25,003 |
Purchase commitments Veeco has purchase commitments of $144.5 million at June 30, 2017, substantially all of which become due within one year. Bank guarantees Veeco has bank guarantees and letters of credit issued by a financial institution on its behalf as needed. At June 30, 2017, outstanding bank guarantees and letters of credit totaled $4.1 million, and unused bank guarantees and letters of credit of $67.2 million were available to be drawn upon. Legal proceedings On March 17, 2017, an Ultratech shareholder filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01468-PJH, on behalf of itself and all other Ultratech shareholders against Ultratech, its directors at the time the acquisition was announced, Veeco, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares, agreed to unreasonable deal-protection measures, and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. On March 22, 2017, two other Ultratech shareholders filed a purported class action complaint in the District Court, captioned De Letter et al. v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01542-WHA, on behalf of themselves and all other Ultratech shareholders against Ultratech and its directors at the time the acquisition was announced. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. On May 28, 2017, the District Court dismissed both cases. Veeco is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Veeco does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

X
- Definition Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. This text block may also include disclosure about the concentration risk, minimum lease commitments, lease related costs, restructuring costs, and environmental remediation. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | veco_CommitmentsAndContingenciesConcentrationRiskLeasesOfLesseeEnvironmentalLossContingencyDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | veco_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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