Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Contingencies

Contingencies

15. CONTINGENCIES

In re Immersion Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

The Company is involved in legal proceedings relating to a class action lawsuit filed on November 9, 2001 in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Immersion Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.). The named defendants are the Company and three of its current or former officers or directors (the "Immersion Defendants"), and certain underwriters of its November 12, 1999 initial public offering ("IPO"). Subsequently, two of the individual defendants stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from the date of the Company's IPO through December 6, 2000. It alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading analyst reports were issued. The complaint does not claim any specific amount of damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In September 2008, all of the parties to the lawsuits reached a settlement, subject to documentation and approval of the District Court. Subsequently, an underwriter defendant filed for bankruptcy and other underwriter defendants were acquired. On April 2, 2009, final documentation evidencing the settlement was presented to the District Court for approval. On October 6, 2009, the District Court approved the settlement, and the Court subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal. Under the judgment, the Immersion Defendants are not required to contribute to the settlement. Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative class members challenging the settlement. If the settlement is reversed on appeal, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

In re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. (One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The securities class action complaints name the Company and certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements. The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. Following the Company's restatement of its financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted on March 11, 2011. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 1, 2011.

In re Immersion Corporation Derivative Litigation

On September 15, 2009, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of the Company and naming certain of its current and former directors and officers as individual defendants. Thereafter, two additional putative derivative complaints were filed in the same court.

The derivative complaints arise from the same or similar alleged facts as the federal securities actions and seek to bring state law causes of action on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, breach of contract, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, as well as for violations of federal securities laws. The federal derivative complaints seek compensatory damages, corporate governance changes, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, the imposition of a constructive trust, and restitution. On November 17, 2009, the court consolidated these actions as In re Immersion Corporation Derivative Litigation and appointed lead counsel. The court has issued an order staying this action.

Shaw v. Richardson et al.

On October 7, 2009, a putative shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, purportedly on behalf of the Company, seeking compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and restitution. The complaint names certain current and former directors and officers of the Company as individual defendants. This complaint arises from the same or similar alleged facts as the federal securities actions and seeks to bring causes of action on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On April 4, 2011, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action, with prejudice, and an order of dismissal was entered that same day.

Kasmer v. Immersion Corporation

On May 5, 2010, an action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by a shareholder seeking to enforce a demand to inspect certain of the Company's records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as a possible prelude to the shareholder bringing a derivative action. The Company filed an answer on June 14, 2010, questioning whether a proper purpose for the records inspection had been stated and raising other defenses concerning the scope of the demand, among other deficiencies. Following a one-day trial on December 2, 2010, the Court significantly narrowed the scope of the demand and the Company has responded accordingly.

The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the above-mentioned federal and state actions, and it is unable to estimate any potential liability it may incur.

Other Contingencies

From time to time, the Company receives claims from third parties asserting that the Company's technologies, or those of its licensees, infringe on the other parties' intellectual property rights. Management believes that these claims are without merit. Additionally, periodically, the Company is involved in routine legal matters and contractual disputes incidental to its normal operations. In management's opinion, the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

In the normal course of business, the Company provides indemnifications of varying scope to customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company's intellectual property, technology, or products. Historically, costs related to these guarantees have not been significant, and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these guarantees on its future results of operations.

As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby it indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at its request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer's or director's lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, the Company currently has director and officer insurance coverage that reduces its exposure and enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. Management believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements in excess of applicable insurance coverage is indeterminable.