Note T - Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Notes to Financial Statements

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE T—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments 

The Company conducts part of its operations from leased facilities and also leases equipment. Rent expense was $1.3 million, $1.1 million and $1.1 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

At December 31, 2019, the approximate minimum rental commitments under noncancellable leases in excess of one year that expire at varying dates through 2029 were as follows (in thousands):  

Year ended December 31,	Amount
2020	$	1,256
2021		1,181
2022		1,120
2023		1,156
2024		1,090
thereafter		5,040
	$	10,843

Employment Agreements and Consultancy Agreements 

The Company has entered into employment and indemnification agreements with three executive officers. These agreements provide that if their employment is terminated as a result of a change of control of the Company, or if their employment is terminated for certain other reasons set forth in the agreements, the Company will be required to pay a severance payment in an amount equal to their annual base salary, and other additional compensation due under the terms of the agreements.

The Company has also entered into employment and indemnification agreements with one other executive officer. These agreements provide that if their employment is terminated as a result of a change of control of the Company, the Company will be required to pay a severance payment in an amount equal to six months of their annual base salary and other additional compensation due under the terms of the agreements.

Contingencies 

From time to time, the Company may be subject to legal proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, inquiries, investigations, audits and other regulatory proceedings, such as described below.  The Company records a loss provision when it believes it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Unless otherwise disclosed, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the legal proceeding described below.

Except for the lawsuits described below, the Company believes that there are no claims or actions pending or threatened against it, the ultimate disposition of which would have a material adverse effect on it.

Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-02399. The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of the Company’s shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of its announcement on August 3, 2017 that “we see softer than expected demand for our 40G solutions with one of our large customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased demand we expect in 100G.” A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was denied on March 28, 2019.  The Company disputes the allegations, and intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.  On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin, and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier, “Plaintiffs”) to the case. The court granted the motion on May 16, 2019. The substantive allegations in the Plaintiffs’ operative second amended consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and Levi & Korsinsky as class counsel. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed a response in opposition to the motion for class certification, and on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief. On November 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted, to which Defendants filed written objections on November 27, 2019. On December 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ objections, and on December 16, 2019, Defendants filed their reply brief. The court entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation over Defendants’ objections on December 20, 2019. Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, Defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed an answer in opposition to Defendants’ petition on January 13, 2020, and Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of the petition for permission to appeal on January 21, 2020. On January 23, 2020, Defendants filed an unopposed motion in the Fifth Circuit requesting that the court stay further proceedings for 90 days to allow the parties to conduct settlement negotiations. The Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the motion on January 24, 2020. The case is currently in the discovery phase, and fact discovery is scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2020.  At this stage, The Company is not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

On August 7, 2018, Plaintiff Lei Jin filed a purported derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer and board of directors (Case No. 4:18-cv-02713).  This case was consolidated with a later filed derivative lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Yiu Kwong Ng in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:18-cv-4751). The allegations in the consolidated derivative complaints are substantially similar to those underlying the Abouzied securities class action and the Taneja securities class action discussed below. The consolidated derivative action is stayed pending a ruling on defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss in the Taneja securities class action. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter.

On October 1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of its officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544. The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of the Company’s shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of its announcement on September 28, 2018 that it was revising its third quarter revenue guidance due to “an issue with a small percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment.” This case was consolidated with two identical cases styled Davin Pokoik v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3722 and Stephen McGrath v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J. Murry.  Mark Naglich was appointed as Lead Plaintiff on the consolidated matter on January 4, 2019.  Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on March 5, 2019, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on May 6, 2019. On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its reply brief in further support of the motion on August 5, 2019. On January 29, 2020, the district court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the amended consolidated complaint with prejudice. The court also entered an order denying Lead Plaintiff’s request for leave to further amend the complaint, and entered a final judgment terminating the case. An appeal by Lead Plaintiff, if any, must be filed with the Fifth Circuit by February 28, 2020. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter should an appeal be filed.