Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies Lease Obligations On January 28, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive amendment to its San Francisco headquarters lease whereby the term of the lease has been extended for an additional ten years commencing on November 1, 2016 and ending October 31, 2026 and whereby the Company’s total leased space will be reduced from approximately 158,000 square feet to approximately 129,000 square feet by November 1, 2016. This lease extension will result in total operating lease payments of approximately $71 million over the extension term. Advent’s office space and equipment leased under non-cancelable operating lease agreements expire at various dates through October 2026. Some operating leases contain escalation provisions for adjustments in the consumer price index. Advent is responsible for maintenance, insurance, utilities and property taxes. Excluding leases and associated sub-leases for MicroEdge facilities, as of March 31, 2015, Advent’s remaining operating lease commitments through 2026 were approximately $98.2 million. On October 1, 2009, Advent completed the sale of the Company’s MicroEdge subsidiary. At March 31, 2015, the gross operating lease commitments and sub-lease income related to this discontinued operation facility totaled $4.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively. Indemnifications As permitted or required under Delaware law and to the maximum extent allowable under that law, Advent has certain obligations to indemnify its current and former officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at Advent’s request in such capacity. These indemnification obligations are valid as long as the director or officer acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. The maximum potential amount of future payments Advent could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, Advent has a director and officer insurance policy that mitigates Advent’s exposure and enables Advent to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is minimal. Legal Contingencies From time to time, in the course of its operations, the Company is a party to litigation matters and claims, including claims related to employee relations, business practices and other matters, but does not consider these matters to be material either individually or in the aggregate at this time. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and related events unfold. An unfavorable outcome in any legal matter, if material, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations in the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs and potentially in future periods. Advent reviews the status of each litigation matter or other claim and records a provision for a liability when it is considered both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. If either or both of the criteria are not met, the Company reassesses whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional losses, may be incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, the Company discloses the estimate of the amount of loss or range of loss, discloses that the amount is immaterial (if true), or discloses that an estimate of loss cannot be made. In assessing potential loss contingencies, the Company considers a number of factors, including those listed in the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 450-20, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, regarding assessing the probability of a loss occurring and assessing whether a loss is reasonably estimable. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred. Following the announcement of the proposed merger, three putative class action complaints challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement were filed by purported Advent stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) against Advent, the Board of Directors, SS&C, and Merger Sub (“Defendants”). The complaints were captioned Chitwood v. Advent Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10623-VCL, City of Atlanta Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. David Peter F. Hess, Jr., et al., Case No. 10633-VCL, and Klein v. Advent Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10670-VCL. The complaints were consolidated into a single action by a February 25, 2015 court order and captioned In re Advent Software, Inc., C.A. No. 10623-VCL (the “Consolidated Action”). On February 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Advent’s stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately compensate Advent stockholders, agreeing to certain deal protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that the plaintiffs allege impeded or precluded a potential topping bid, and allegedly failing to disclose material information regarding the proposed merger. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts that Advent, SS&C, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Board of Directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties. The Consolidated Complaint sought to enjoin the merger or, alternatively, an award of rescissory or other compensatory damages in the event it is consummated, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order preliminarily enjoining the Advent stockholder vote on the adoption of the Merger Agreement and approval of the Merger. The Court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for April 10, 2015. On April 1, 2015, following expedited discovery, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) setting forth the terms of a settlement of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the MOU, defendants agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures demanded by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action via a Form 8-K filed on April 1, 2015, without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures were material or required to be made. The MOU further provided that, among other things, (a) the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action would withdraw their motion to preliminarily enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger; (b) the parties will negotiate a definitive stipulation of settlement (the “Stipulation”) and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (c) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice; (d) the Stipulation will include a release of defendants of claims relating to, among other things, the merger and the Merger Agreement; and (e) the settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the merger, completion of confirmatory discovery, class certification, and final approval of the settlement by the Court after notice to the Advent’s stockholders. On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs withdrew their motion to preliminarily enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger. Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the Consolidated Action are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval, intend to defend against them vigorously. Defendants entered into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will not affect the timing of the merger or the amount or form of consideration to be paid in the merger. Management believes that any potential losses associated with the legal proceedings regarding the merger are neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time and accordingly has not accrued any amounts for any potential loss. Based on currently available information, the Company’s management does not believe that the ultimate outcome of unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Obligations

On January 28, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive amendment to its San Francisco headquarters lease whereby the term of the lease has been extended for an additional ten years commencing on November 1, 2016 and ending October 31, 2026 and whereby the Company’s total leased space will be reduced from approximately 158,000 square feet to approximately 129,000 square feet by November 1, 2016. This lease extension will result in total operating lease payments of approximately $71 million over the extension term.

Advent’s office space and equipment leased under non-cancelable operating lease agreements expire at various dates through October 2026. Some operating leases contain escalation provisions for adjustments in the consumer price index. Advent is responsible for maintenance, insurance, utilities and property taxes. Excluding leases and associated sub-leases for MicroEdge facilities, as of March 31, 2015, Advent’s remaining operating lease commitments through 2026 were approximately $98.2 million.

On October 1, 2009, Advent completed the sale of the Company’s MicroEdge subsidiary. At March 31, 2015, the gross operating lease commitments and sub-lease income related to this discontinued operation facility totaled $4.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively.

Indemnifications

As permitted or required under Delaware law and to the maximum extent allowable under that law, Advent has certain obligations to indemnify its current and former officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at Advent’s request in such capacity. These indemnification obligations are valid as long as the director or officer acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. The maximum potential amount of future payments Advent could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, Advent has a director and officer insurance policy that mitigates Advent’s exposure and enables Advent to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is minimal.

Legal Contingencies

From time to time, in the course of its operations, the Company is a party to litigation matters and claims, including claims related to employee relations, business practices and other matters, but does not consider these matters to be material either individually or in the aggregate at this time. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and related events unfold. An unfavorable outcome in any legal matter, if material, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations in the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs and potentially in future periods.

Advent reviews the status of each litigation matter or other claim and records a provision for a liability when it is considered both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available. If either or both of the criteria are not met, the Company reassesses whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional losses, may be incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, the Company discloses the estimate of the amount of loss or range of loss, discloses that the amount is immaterial (if true), or discloses that an estimate of loss cannot be made. In assessing potential loss contingencies, the Company considers a number of factors, including those listed in the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 450-20, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, regarding assessing the probability of a loss occurring and assessing whether a loss is reasonably estimable. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred.

Following the announcement of the proposed merger, three putative class action complaints challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement were filed by purported Advent stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) against Advent, the Board of Directors, SS&C, and Merger Sub (“Defendants”). The complaints were captioned Chitwood v. Advent Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10623-VCL, City of Atlanta Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. David Peter F. Hess, Jr., et al., Case No. 10633-VCL, and Klein v. Advent Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10670-VCL. The complaints were consolidated into a single action by a February 25, 2015 court order and captioned In re Advent Software, Inc., C.A. No. 10623-VCL (the “Consolidated Action”). On February 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to Advent’s stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately compensate Advent stockholders, agreeing to certain deal protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that the plaintiffs allege impeded or precluded a potential topping bid, and allegedly failing to disclose material information regarding the proposed merger. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts that Advent, SS&C, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Board of Directors’ breaches of fiduciary duties. The Consolidated Complaint sought to enjoin the merger or, alternatively, an award of rescissory or other compensatory damages in the event it is consummated, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order preliminarily enjoining the Advent stockholder vote on the adoption of the Merger Agreement and approval of the Merger. The Court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for April 10, 2015.

On April 1, 2015, following expedited discovery, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) setting forth the terms of a settlement of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the MOU, defendants agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures demanded by plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action via a Form 8-K filed on April 1, 2015, without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures were material or required to be made. The MOU further provided that, among other things, (a) the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action would withdraw their motion to preliminarily enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger; (b) the parties will negotiate a definitive stipulation of settlement (the “Stipulation”) and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for review and approval; (c) the Stipulation will provide for dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice; (d) the Stipulation will include a release of defendants of claims relating to, among other things, the merger and the Merger Agreement; and (e) the settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the merger, completion of confirmatory discovery, class certification, and final approval of the settlement by the Court after notice to the Advent’s stockholders. On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs withdrew their motion to preliminarily enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger.

Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the Consolidated Action are without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final approval, intend to defend against them vigorously. Defendants entered into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. The settlement will not affect the timing of the merger or the amount or form of consideration to be paid in the merger.

Management believes that any potential losses associated with the legal proceedings regarding the merger are neither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time and accordingly has not accrued any amounts for any potential loss.

Based on currently available information, the Company’s management does not believe that the ultimate outcome of unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.