LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
LITIGATION	8. LITIGATION Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action complaints were filed against us, and certain of our then serving officers and directors and underwriters connected with our initial public offering of common stock. The class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations of “laddering” whereby underwriters required their customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO shares. The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between September 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000. Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over 1,000 actions were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig. In 2003, we and the other issuer defendants (but not the underwriter defendants) reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to our liability and that of our officers and directors. The settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by us or our officers and directors and no admission of liability. On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters proceeded. In October 2004, the Court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class certified by the District Court could not be certified. In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007). The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement could be approved. On June 25, 2007, the district court entered a stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer settlement. Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed. In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as issuers. Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to us, and we would bear no financial liability. We, as well as the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive complete dismissals from the case. On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving the settlement. Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to the certification of a settlement class (which occurred as part of the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the Court for permission to appeal from the order certifying the settlement class, and on October 29 and November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge the Court’s approval of the settlement. On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement dismissing all claims involving us. The appeals remain pending and briefing on the appeals was set to begin in October 2010 and end in the spring of 2011. On October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the objectors filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors withdrawing their appeals with prejudice. The remaining two objectors, however, are continuing to pursue their appeals and have filed their opening briefs. On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeals. On March 2, 2011, one of the two appellants, appearing pro se, filed a stipulated dismissal of his appeal with prejudice. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals of two of the three remaining appellants, and directed the district court to determine whether the third and final appellant had standing. On August 25, 2011, the district court determined that the final appellant lacked standing. On January 9, 2012, the remaining parties entered into a settlement. In accordance with the settlement agreement the appeal and all related matters were dismissed with prejudice. This litigation has concluded. We did not accrue any liability in connection with this matter as we did not expect the outcome of this litigation to have a material impact on our financial condition. In May 2010, Microlog Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 6:10-CV-260 LED against a number of defendants, including several current and past eGain customers. LaQuinta Corporation, a named defendant in the Microlog case and a former eGain customer had subsequently filed a third party claim against us requesting indemnification from us in connection with the Microlog case. We filed a motion to dismiss this claim, which was denied by the court on September 29, 2011. In addition, the court denied LaQuinta Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. In October 2011, we filed our answer to LaQuinta Corporation’s third party claim. On February 15, 2012, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with LaQuinta and LaQuinta filed a Motion to dismiss the case. The Court dismissed the matter on March 6, 2012. From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We believe that the resolution of these matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

8. LITIGATION

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action complaints were filed against us, and certain of our then serving officers and directors and underwriters connected with our initial public offering of common stock. The class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations of “laddering” whereby underwriters required their customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO shares. The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between September 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000. Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over 1,000 actions were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig. In 2003, we and the other issuer defendants (but not the underwriter defendants) reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to our liability and that of our officers and directors. The settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by us or our officers and directors and no admission of liability. On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement. Meanwhile the consolidated case against the underwriters proceeded. In October 2004, the Court certified a class. On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class certified by the District Court could not be certified. In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007). The Second Circuit’s holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement could be approved. On June 25, 2007, the district court entered a stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer settlement. Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed. In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as issuers. Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to us, and we would bear no financial liability. We, as well as the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive complete dismissals from the case. On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving the settlement. Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to the certification of a settlement class (which occurred as part of the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned the Court for permission to appeal from the order certifying the settlement class, and on October 29 and November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge the Court’s approval of the settlement. On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the settlement dismissing all claims involving us. The appeals remain pending and briefing on the appeals was set to begin in October 2010 and end in the spring of 2011. On October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the objectors filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors withdrawing their appeals with prejudice. The remaining two objectors, however, are continuing to pursue their appeals and have filed their opening briefs. On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeals. On March 2, 2011, one of the two appellants, appearing pro se, filed a stipulated dismissal of his appeal with prejudice. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals of two of the three remaining appellants, and directed the district court to determine whether the third and final appellant had standing. On August 25, 2011, the district court determined that the final appellant lacked standing. On January 9, 2012, the remaining parties entered into a settlement. In accordance with the settlement agreement the appeal and all related matters were dismissed with prejudice. This litigation has concluded. We did not accrue any liability in connection with this matter as we did not expect the outcome of this litigation to have a material impact on our financial condition.

In May 2010, Microlog Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 6:10-CV-260 LED against a number of defendants, including several current and past eGain customers. LaQuinta Corporation, a named defendant in the Microlog case and a former eGain customer had subsequently filed a third party claim against us requesting indemnification from us in connection with the Microlog case. We filed a motion to dismiss this claim, which was denied by the court on September 29, 2011. In addition, the court denied LaQuinta Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. In October 2011, we filed our answer to LaQuinta Corporation’s third party claim. On February 15, 2012, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with LaQuinta and LaQuinta filed a Motion to dismiss the case. The Court dismissed the matter on March 6, 2012.

From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We believe that the resolution of these matters will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.