Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

19) Commitments and Contingencies

In 2016, two putative class actions lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, and Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, were filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the merger agreement (“Newport Merger Agreement”) between the Company, Newport, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merger Sub”). The lawsuits named as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub, and certain then current and former members of Newport’s board of directors. Both complaints alleged that Newport directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders by agreeing to sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices and by omitting material information from the proxy statement. The complaints also alleged that the Company, Newport and Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Court consolidated the actions, and plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint captioned In re Newport Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-16-733154-B, in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of Newport’s stockholders for claims related to the Newport Merger Agreement. The amended complaint alleged Newport’s former board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Newport’s stockholders and that the Company, Newport and Merger Sub had aided and abetted these breaches and sought monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. In June 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint against all defendants but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint containing substantially similar allegations but naming only Newport’s former directors as defendants. On August 8, 2017, the Court dismissed the Company and Newport from the action. The second amended complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest. The Court granted a motion for class certification on September 27, 2018, appointing Mr. Pincon and Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers - Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust as class representatives. On June 11, 2018, plaintiff Dixon Chung was voluntarily dismissed from the litigation. On August 9, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which was denied on October 10, 2019. On August 23, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 23, 2020, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On February 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as from the court’s prior orders granting defendants’ motion for a bench trial and denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On March 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion to retax and settle costs, and defendants filed a motion for costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. On August 4, 2020, the court issued a bench ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion for costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees, and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion to retax and settle costs.

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.