XML 33 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

Commitments And Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | (14) Commitments and Contingencies ﻿ The Company leases office space and certain furniture and fixtures under various non-cancelable operating leases. For the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, rent expense under operating leases was $3,256 and $3,204, respectively. ﻿ As of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company had supply commitments on printer assemblies that totaled $51,674 and $50,663, respectively. ﻿ Certain of the Company’s acquisitions contain earnout and deferred payment provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liability recorded for these earnouts and deferred payments at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 was $10,110 and $9,832, respectively. ﻿ Put Options ﻿ Owners of interests in a certain subsidiary have the right in certain circumstances to require the Company to acquire either a portion of or all of the remaining ownership interests held by them. The owners’ ability to exercise any such “put option” right is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including conditions requiring notice in advance of exercise. In addition, these rights cannot be exercised prior to a specified exercise date. The exercise of these rights at their earliest contractual date would result in obligations of the Company to fund the related amounts in 2019. ﻿ Management estimates, assuming that the subsidiary owned by the Company at March 31, 2016, performs over the relevant future periods at its forecasted earnings levels, that these rights, if exercised, could require the Company, in future periods, to pay approximately $8,872 to the owners of such rights to acquire such ownership interests in the relevant subsidiary. This amount has been recorded as redeemable noncontrolling interests on the balance sheet at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The ultimate amount payable relating to this transaction will vary because it is dependent on the future results of operations of the subject business. ﻿ Litigation ﻿ Securities and Derivative Litigation ﻿ The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for t he District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et a l., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the “Complaint”), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company’s common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14, 2016, which motion is currently pending. ﻿ Six related derivative complaints have been filed by purported Company stockholders against certain of the Company’s former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in all six actions. The derivatives complaints are styled as follows: (1) Steyn v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225, filed on July 27, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina; (2) Piguing v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2396, filed on August 7, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina; (3) Booth v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-692-RGA, filed on August 6, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Booth”); (4) Nally v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03756-MGL, filed on September 18, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina; (5) Gee v. Hull, et al. Case No. BC-610319, filed on February 17, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles; and (6) Foster v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01016-MGL, filed on April 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The derivative complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanage ment, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and seek, among other things, monetary damages and certain corporate governance actions. ﻿ Four of the derivative complaints have been stayed until the earlier of the close of discovery or the deadline for appealing a dismissal in the KBC Asset Management NV securities class action. Gee v. Hull and Foster v. Reichental have not yet been stayed. ﻿ The Company believes the claims alleged in the putative securities class action and the derivative lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the Company and its officers and directors vigorously. ﻿ Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, et. al. ﻿ On August 23, 2013, Ronald Barranco, a former Company employee, filed two lawsuits against the Company and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The first lawsuit (“Barranco I”) is captioned Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-411 LEK RLP, and alleges seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of Print3D Corporation (of which Mr. Barranco was a 50% shareholder) and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. The second lawsuit (“Barranco II”) is captioned Ronald Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., Abraham Reichental, and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-412 LEK RLP, and alleges the same seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of certain website domains from Mr. Barranco and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. Both Barranco I and Barranco II allege the Company breached certain purchase agreements in order to avoid paying Mr. Barranco additional monies pursuant to royalty and earn out provisions in the agreements. The Company and its officers timely filed responsive pleadings on October 22, 2013 seeking, inter alia, to dismiss Barranco I due to a mandatory arbitration agreement and for lack of personal jurisdiction and to dismiss Barranco II for lack of personal jurisdiction. ﻿ With regard to Barranco I, the Hawai i district court, on February 28, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to South Carolina for the convenience of the parties. However, the Hawaii court recognized that the plaintiff’s claims are all subject to mandatory and binding arbitration in Charlotte, No rth Carolina. Because the Hawai i court was without authority to comp el arbitration outside of Hawai i, the court ordered that the case be transferred to the district court encompassing Charlotte (the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina) so that court could compel arbitration in Charlotte. On April 17, 2014, Barranco I was transferred in to the Western District of North Carolina. Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration on October 29, 2014. On December 9, 2014, the Company filed its answer to plaintiff’s demand for arbitration. On February 2, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended demand that removed Mr. Gregoire as a defendant from the matter and on February 4, 2015 the Company filed its amended answer. The parties selected an arbitrator and arbitration took place in June 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina. ﻿ On September 28, 2015, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Mr. Barranco with respect to two alleged breaches of contract and implied covenants arising out of the contract. The arbitrator found that the Company did not commit fraud or make any negligent misrepresentations to Mr. Barranco. Pursuant to the award, the Company is to pay approximately $11,282, which includes alleged actual damages of $7,254, fees and expenses of $2,318 and prejudgment interest of $1,710. The Company disagrees with the single arbitrator’s findings and conclusions and believes the arbitrator’s decision exceeds his authority and disregards the applicable law. As an initial response, the Company filed a motion for modification on September 30, 2015, based on mathematical errors in the computation of damages and fees. On October 16, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Company’s motion and sua sponte issuing a modified final award in favor of Mr. Barranco in the same above-referenced amounts, but making certain substantive changes to the award, which changes the Company believes were improper and outside the scope of his authority and the AAA rules. On November 20, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award in the federal court in the Western District of North Carolina. Claimants also filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award. Both motions have been fully briefed and are current ly pending before the court. ﻿ Notwithstanding the Company’s right to appeal, given the arbitrator’s decision, the Company recorded an $11,282 expense provision for t his matter in the quarter ended September 30, 2015. The provision is subject to adjustment based on the ultimate outcome of the Company’s appeal. If it is ultimately determined that money is owed following the full appellate process in federal court, the Company intends to fund any amounts to be paid from cash on hand. This amount has been classified as a long-term liability given the customary timeline of an appeals process. The Company will review this classification periodically. ﻿ With r egard to Barranco II, the Hawai i district court, on March 17, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to Sou th Carolina. However, the Hawai i court dismiss ed Count II in plaintiff’s complaint alleging breach of the employment agreement. The Company filed an answer to the complaint in the Hawai i district court on March 31, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims which was heard on January 20, 2015. On January 30, 2015, the court entered an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The Order narrowed the plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. As a result, Messrs. Reichental and Gregoire were dismissed from the lawsuit. The case was previously scheduled for trial on April 21, 2015, but has now been continued to May 17, 2016. The Company believes the claims alleged in the lawsuit are without merit and intend s to defend itself vigorously. The Company is involved in various other legal matters incidental to its business. Although the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with certainty, the Company believes that the disposition of these legal matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or consolidated financial position. ﻿ Indemnification ﻿ In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual pro perty infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant, and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on its future results of operations. ﻿ To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies its directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable the Company to recover future amounts paid, subject to a deductible and the policy limits. There is no assurance that the policy limits will be sufficient to cover all damages, if any.

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 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: 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=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: 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 5: 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 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration