Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies *Securities Class Action Complaints* On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s now-former officers. On March 16, 2015, a second amended complaint in this same action was filed against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015. The second amended complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California. On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015, including all purchasers of the Company’s common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company, (iv) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, (v) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company. The action, Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797, is pending in the Northern District of California. A motion to consolidate Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 and Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160 is also pending. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above. *SEC Enforcement Staff Review* In March 2014, the Company voluntarily reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that the Audit Committee had determined that the Company incorrectly recognized revenue on certain transactions and as a result would restate its financial statements, and that the Audit Committee had commenced an independent investigation. Over the course of 2014 and in the first quarter of 2015, the Company voluntarily produced documents to the SEC regarding the various accounting issues identified during the independent investigation, and whether the Company’s hiring of an accountant from the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm impacted that accounting firm’s independence. On July 22, 2014, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement obtained a Formal Order of Investigation. On March 12, 2015, the SEC issued a subpoena for documents to the Company in connection with its investigation. The Company has and will continue to fully cooperate with the SEC in this investigation. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above. *Shareholder Derivative Complaints* A shareholder derivative action, styled Hemmingson et al. v. Elkins et al., Case No. 1-15-cv-278614, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County on March 25, 2015, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, as well as a shareholder of the Company, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint in this action asserts claims for (i) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers for purportedly knowingly failing to maintain adequate internal controls over its accounting and reporting functions and disseminating to shareholders certain alleged materially false and misleading statements, (ii) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current directors and a current shareholder of the Company for purported insider trading, and (iii) alleged unjust enrichment by a shareholder of the Company for purported insider trading. On May 13, 2015, the court so ordered a stipulation entered into by certain of the parties, agreeing to stay the litigation until Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160 and Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 are resolved, unless the stay is lifted earlier. On June 1, 2015, a shareholder derivative action as styled as Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-cv-281289, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The complaint names as defendants certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, and a shareholder of the Company, with the Company being named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers for knowingly failing to maintain adequate internal controls over the Company’s accounting and reporting functions and disseminating to shareholders certain alleged materially false and misleading statements; and (ii) alleged aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duties by all defendants. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above. In addition, by letter dated May 28, 2015, a purported shareholder demanded to inspect certain of the Company’s books and records, pursuant to Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (8 Del. C. § 220). The demand’s stated purpose is to investigate alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current and former directors, officers, and senior management and otherwise evaluate whether to initiate a derivative action on the Company’s behalf.

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Securities Class Action Complaints

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s now-former officers. On March 16, 2015, a second amended complaint in this same action was filed against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015. The second amended complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California.

On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company’s securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015, including all purchasers of the Company’s common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as

underwriters of the Company’s public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company, (iv) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, (v) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company. The action, Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797, is pending in the Northern District of California. A motion to consolidate Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 and Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160 is also pending. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above.

SEC Enforcement Staff Review

In March 2014, the Company voluntarily reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that the Audit Committee had determined that the Company incorrectly recognized revenue on certain transactions and as a result would restate its financial statements, and that the Audit Committee had commenced an independent investigation. Over the course of 2014 and in the first quarter of 2015, the Company voluntarily produced documents to the SEC regarding the various accounting issues identified during the independent investigation, and whether the Company’s hiring of an accountant from the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm impacted that accounting firm’s independence. On July 22, 2014, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement obtained a Formal Order of Investigation. On March 12, 2015, the SEC issued a subpoena for documents to the Company in connection with its investigation. The Company has and will continue to fully cooperate with the SEC in this investigation. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above.

Shareholder Derivative Complaints

A shareholder derivative action, styled Hemmingson et al. v. Elkins et al., Case No. 1-15-cv-278614, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County on March 25, 2015, naming as defendants certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers, as well as a shareholder of the Company, and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint in this action asserts claims for (i) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current directors and former and now-former officers for purportedly knowingly failing to maintain adequate internal controls over its accounting and reporting functions and disseminating to shareholders certain alleged materially false and misleading statements, (ii) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current directors and a current shareholder of the Company for purported insider trading, and (iii) alleged unjust enrichment by a shareholder of the Company for purported insider trading. On May 13, 2015, the court so ordered a stipulation entered into by certain of the parties, agreeing to stay the litigation until Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160 and Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 are resolved, unless the stay is lifted earlier.

On June 1, 2015, a shareholder derivative action as styled as Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-cv-281289, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The complaint names as defendants certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, and a shareholder of the Company, with the Company being named as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers for knowingly failing to maintain adequate internal controls over the Company’s accounting and reporting functions and disseminating to shareholders certain alleged materially false and misleading statements; and (ii) alleged aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duties by all defendants. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with respect to the matters described above.

In addition, by letter dated May 28, 2015, a purported shareholder demanded to inspect certain of the Company’s books and records, pursuant to Section 220 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (8 Del. C. § 220). The demand’s stated purpose is to investigate alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of the Company’s current and former directors, officers, and senior management and otherwise evaluate whether to initiate a derivative action on the Company’s behalf.