XML 18 R11.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
Contingencies
6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies  
Contingencies

NOTE 6. CONTINGENCIES

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed against the Company and seven of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially similar to the allegations described above. On May 23, 2011 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint; that motion is scheduled to be heard on August 11, 2011.

On August 19, 2010, an alleged stockholder caused a purported stockholder's derivative lawsuit entitled Himmel v. Smith et al., No. 1-10-CV-180416, to be filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara naming the Company as a nominal defendant, and naming 14 of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit seeks to recover, for the Company's benefit, unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company's financial reporting for the period between February 1, 2008 and January 7, 2009. It also seeks a series of changes to the Company's corporate governance policies and an award of attorneys' fees. On September 15, 2010, another purported stockholder filed an essentially identical lawsuit entitled Applbaum v. Guthart et al., No. 1-10-CV-182645, in the same court against 15 of the Company's current and former officers and directors. On October 5, 2010 the court ordered that the two cases be consolidated for all purposes. By agreement with the plaintiffs, formal discovery has been stayed in the case.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome of the above cases at this time, and therefore no amounts have been accrued related to the outcome of the cases above. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the above actions and that the resolution of these cases is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position or future results of operations.

The Company is also a party to various other legal actions that arose in the ordinary course of its business. The Company does not believe that any of these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on its business, financial position or results of operations.