XML 39 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

14.	Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnifications and Guarantees - In accordance with Delaware law, we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at our request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under this indemnification is uncertain and may be unlimited, depending upon circumstances. However, our Directors’ and Officers’ insurance does provide coverage for certain of these losses.

In the ordinary course of business we may occasionally enter into agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to pay for the failure of the performance of others, such as the use of corporate credit cards issued to employees. Based on historical experience, we believe that the risk of sustaining any material loss related to such guarantees is remote.

We have entered into a number of agreements pursuant to which we indemnify the other party for losses and expenses suffered or incurred in connection with any patent, copyright, or trademark infringement or misappropriation claim asserted by a third party with respect to our equipment or services. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is uncertain and is typically not limited by the terms of the agreements.

Linksmart Litigation - On April 20, 2018, Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC filed suit against Gogo Inc., Gogo LLC and eight of our airline partners in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that our redirection server and login portal infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff. The suits seek an unspecified amount of damages. We are required under our contracts with these airlines to indemnify them for defense costs and any liabilities resulting from the suit. The Court has stayed the suits against our airline customers pending resolution of the suit against Gogo. Linksmart has also filed suit against other defendants asserting the same patent. Following the filing by one of those defendants of a petition to commence an inter partes review against the asserted patent in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Court stayed the litigation against such other defendant and Gogo, but such stay was lifted in July 2019 when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office determined that the petitioner had not met the standard of proof required to commence the inter partes review. We believe that the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. The outcome of this litigation is inherently uncertain. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses.

Securities Litigation - On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by us purporting to relate to our 2Ku antenna’s reliability and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to recover from us and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint. In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity that defendants acted with scienter. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and in December 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In February 2020 we filed a motion to dismiss such second amended complaint. In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a proposed third amendment complaint, which was granted by the Court. Plaintiffs proceeded to file the third amended complaint in July 2020 and we filed a motion to dismiss in September 2020. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to continue to defend the claims vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors’ and Officers’ insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses.

Derivative Litigation - On September 25, 2018 and September 26, 2018, two purported stockholders of the Company filed substantively identical derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, styled Nanduri v. Gogo Inc. and Hutsenpiller v. Gogo Inc., respectively. Both lawsuits were purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of us and name us as a nominal defendant and name as defendants each member of the Company’s Board of Directors, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation. The complaints assert claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and allege misrepresentations or omissions by us purporting to relate to our 2Ku antenna’s reliability and installation and remediation costs, as well as allegedly excessive bonuses, stock options, and other compensation paid to current Officers and Directors and excessive severance paid to former Officers. The two lawsuits were consolidated and are stayed until a final disposition of the motion to dismiss in the class action suit. We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously if the litigation resumes. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on our behalf, an unspecified amount of damages from the individual defendants. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors’ and Officers’ insurance policy with respect to these suits. No amounts have been accrued for any potential costs under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential costs.