Note 18 - Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	*Note 18.* Contingencies Litigation** Overview 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 & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6, 2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was denied on March 28, 2019. 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. On April 7, 2020, by joint motion of the parties, the Fifth Circuit extended the order for another 40 days, up to and including June 2, 2020. On June 2, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter pursuant to a mediator’s recommendation. On June 4, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement with the Court, in order to allow the parties to finalize their settlement and file a motion for preliminary approval with the court no later than August 3, 2020. On August 3, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court. The Stipulation of Settlement contemplates—among other things and contingent upon Court approval of the settlement and customary terms and conditions—settlement of the action, a release of all claims made in the action, and dismissal of the claims made in the action with prejudice. As consideration for entering into the settlement, Plaintiffs will receive for distribution to the members of the class they purport to represent (in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement) a payment of $15.5 million funded by the Company's applicable directors’ and officers’ insurance policies. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed motions with the Court seeking final approval of the class action settlement and an award of attorneys’ fees to be paid out of the $15.5 million settlement fund. A hearing at which the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement has been set for November 24, 2020. Additional information regarding the settlement can be obtained by reviewing the settlement documents publicly filed with the Court in the matter. After taking into account all currently available information, the advice of our counsel, and the extent and currently-expected availability of our existing insurance coverage, we believe that the eventual outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our overall financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, and we have not recorded any accrual with regard to this matter. On August 7, 2018, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas styled Lei Jin, derivatively on behalf of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Chih-Hsiang (“Thompson”) Lin, Stefan J. Murry, William H. Yeh, Alex Ignatiev, Richard B. Black, Min-Chu Chen, Alan Moore, and Che-Wei Lin and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-02713 alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on similar factual allegations as in the Abouzied Securities Class Action. On December 18, 2018, a second derivative complaint was filed styled Yiu Kwong Ng v. Chih-Hsiang (“Thompson”) Lin, Stefan J. Murry, William H. Yeh, Alex Ignatiev, Richard B. Black, Min-Chu Chen, Alan Moore, and Che-Wei Lin and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-4751 alleging the same causes of actions as the Jin complaint and additional factual allegations regarding our announcement on September 28, 2018 that we had “identified an issue with a small percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment.” On January 11, 2019, the court consolidated these two derivative actions, and on January 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying the actions pending the resolution of the securities class actions. On June 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice that the stay of proceedings had been terminated, and on July 2, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order. The court entered the stipulated scheduling order on the same date, under which Defendants were required to file and serve their response or responsive pleading to the complaint by August 3, 2020. By agreement of the parties, the Court subsequently extended the deadline for Defendants to file and serve their response or responsive pleading to November 2, 2020. The complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. At this stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Note 18 - Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 18. Contingencies

Litigation

Overview

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 & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6, 2018. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 4, 2018, which was denied on March 28, 2019. 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. On April 7, 2020, by joint motion of the parties, the Fifth Circuit extended the order for another 40 days, up to and including June 2, 2020.

On June 2, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter pursuant to a mediator’s recommendation. On June 4, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement with the Court, in order to allow the parties to finalize their settlement and file a motion for preliminary approval with the court no later than August 3, 2020.

On August 3, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court. The Stipulation of Settlement contemplates—among other things and contingent upon Court approval of the settlement and customary terms and conditions—settlement of the action, a release of all claims made in the action, and dismissal of the claims made in the action with prejudice. As consideration for entering into the settlement, Plaintiffs will receive for distribution to the members of the class they purport to represent (in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement) a payment of $15.5 million funded by the Company's applicable directors’ and officers’ insurance policies. On October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed motions with the Court seeking final approval of the class action settlement and an award of attorneys’ fees to be paid out of the $15.5 million settlement fund. A hearing at which the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement has been set for November 24, 2020. Additional information regarding the settlement can be obtained by reviewing the settlement documents publicly filed with the Court in the matter. After taking into account all currently available information, the advice of our counsel, and the extent and currently-expected availability of our existing insurance coverage, we believe that the eventual outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our overall financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, and we have not recorded any accrual with regard to this matter.

On August 7, 2018, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas styled Lei Jin, derivatively on behalf of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Chih-Hsiang (“Thompson”) Lin, Stefan J. Murry, William H. Yeh, Alex Ignatiev, Richard B. Black, Min-Chu Chen, Alan Moore, and Che-Wei Lin and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-02713 alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on similar factual allegations as in the Abouzied Securities Class Action. On December 18, 2018, a second derivative complaint was filed styled Yiu Kwong Ng v. Chih-Hsiang (“Thompson”) Lin, Stefan J. Murry, William H. Yeh, Alex Ignatiev, Richard B. Black, Min-Chu Chen, Alan Moore, and Che-Wei Lin and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-4751 alleging the same causes of actions as the Jin complaint and additional factual allegations regarding our announcement on September 28, 2018 that we had “identified an issue with a small percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment.” On January 11, 2019, the court consolidated these two derivative actions, and on January 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying the actions pending the resolution of the securities class actions. On June 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice that the stay of proceedings had been terminated, and on July 2, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order. The court entered the stipulated scheduling order on the same date, under which Defendants were required to file and serve their response or responsive pleading to the complaint by August 3, 2020. By agreement of the parties, the Court subsequently extended the deadline for Defendants to file and serve their response or responsive pleading to November 2, 2020. The complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. At this stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.