XML 18 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Commitments And Contingencies
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies  
Commitments And Contingencies

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is, from time to time, party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. For example, the Company is currently named as a defendant or co-defendant in a number of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. and is indirectly participating in other U.S. patent infringement actions pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations to certain customers. Based on evaluation of these matters and discussions with Company's counsel, the Company believes that liabilities arising from or sums paid in settlement of these existing matters would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 27, 2007 and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that we issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of our products and market share, our financial results and our internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. The court has denied defendants' motions to dismiss. In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers of Company common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15, 2008. On February 14, 2011, following extensive discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. A trial date had been set for May 10, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. Following the reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's consideration of dispositive motions. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011, after which the court took the matter under submission. The court has not yet issued a ruling on the motion. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. We are unable at this time to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

On October 8, 2008, a purported shareholder, Jerry Rosenbaum, filed a derivative action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, against the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and directors, as defendants. Two other purported shareholders, Mark Campos and Chris Arnsdorf, separately filed substantially similar lawsuits in the same court on October 20, 2008 and November 5, 2008, respectively. On October 16, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint, Case No. 37-2008-00093576-CU-NP-CTL, alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, violations of certain provisions of the California Corporations Code, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement. In February 2010, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the federal securities class action described above. In July 2010, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms to be included in a contemplated settlement. Any settlement would be subject to court approval. The memorandum of understanding does not contemplate any restitution from the defendants. Following execution of the memorandum of understanding, plaintiffs conducted certain confirmatory discovery and sought to negotiate an award of legal fees as part of the terms to be included in a stipulation of settlement. Plaintiffs have since purported to terminate the memorandum of understanding. On January 28, 2011, the court held an informal status conference, at which plaintiffs requested that the court lift the stay of the action. The court declined plaintiffs' request. Following certain additional confirmatory discovery, the Company anticipates seeking to enforce the terms of the parties' memorandum of understanding. At this time the Company is unable to estimate the amount of attorney's fees that may be approved by the court.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements that require the Company to indemnify and defend its customers for, among other things, claims alleging that the Company's products infringe third-party patents or other intellectual property rights. The Company's maximum exposure under these indemnification provisions cannot be estimated but the Company does not believe that there are any matters individually or collectively that would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

Credit Facility

During July 2011, the Company entered into a credit facility with a bank to allow margin borrowings based on the Company's investments in cash equivalents and marketable securities held with the bank. This facility is collateralized by the Company's cash equivalents and marketable securities held with the bank. Borrowings under the facility incur interest rate at the bank's base rate plus 1%. This margin account facility provides us with the flexibility to access cash for short periods of time and avoid the need to sell marketable securities for these short-term requirements. At August 1, 2011, the Company had approximately $25 million in cash equivalents and marketable securities held at this bank. Any monies borrowed and interest incurred are payable on demand, and there is no express expiration date to the credit facility. As of August 1, 2011, the Company has outstanding borrowings of $8 million under the credit facility.