Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Contingencies [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

13. CONTINGENCIES

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 with leave to amend 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. On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2012, plaintiffs filed their opening appeals brief. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed its response brief.

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.

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 responded accordingly. On October 24, 2011, the shareholder filed a motion seeking to compel further responses to the demand. The Company believes that its responses complied with the Court’s ruling and have opposed the shareholder’s motion. On May 30, 2012, the same shareholder filed a putative shareholder derivative action in San Francisco Superior Court, entitled Kasmer v. Richardson et. al. purportedly on behalf of the Company and naming certain of its former directors and officers as individual defendants. The Complaint in that action has yet to be served on either the Company or any of the individual defendants. On June 5, 2012, the parties participated in a mediation session, and on the same day reached an agreement in principle to settle both the Delaware Chancery and San Francisco Superior Court actions. The settlement remains subject to approval.

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.