19. Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Agreements with SK Hynix

In connection with the acquisition of the non-memory semiconductor business from SK Hynix on October 4, 2004 (the “Original Acquisition”), the Company entered into several agreements with SK Hynix, including a non-exclusive cross license that provides the Company with access to certain of SK Hynix’s intellectual property for use in the manufacture and sale of non-memory semiconductor products. The Company also agreed to provide certain utilities and infrastructure support services to SK Hynix.

Upon the closing of the Original Acquisition, the Company’s Korean subsidiary and SK Hynix also entered into lease agreements under which the Company’s Korean subsidiary leases space to SK Hynix in several buildings, primarily warehouses and utility facilities, in Cheongju, Korea. These leases are generally for an initial term of 20 years plus an indefinite number of renewal terms of 10 years each. Each of the leases is cancelable upon 90 days’ notice by the lessee. The Company also leases certain land from SK Hynix located in Cheongju, Korea. The term of this lease is indefinite unless otherwise agreed by the parties, and as long as the buildings remain on the lease site and are owned and used by the Company for permitted uses.

Operating Leases

The Company leases land, office space and equipment under various operating lease agreements with various terms. Rental expenses were approximately $7,498 thousand, $8,898 thousand and $8,194 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

As of December 31, 2017, the minimum aggregate rental payments due under non-cancelable lease contracts are as follows (in thousands):


2018	$	6,724
2019		3,764
2020		3,459
2021		1,472
2022		1,316
2023 and thereafter		15,448

	$	32,183

Long-term Purchase Agreements

The Company purchases raw materials from a variety of vendors. During the normal course of business, in order to manage manufacturing lead times and help assure adequate supply, the Company from time to time may enter into multi-year purchase agreements, which specify future quantities and pricing of materials to be supplied by the vendors. The Company reviews the terms of the long-term supply agreements and assesses the need for any accrual for estimated losses, such as lower of cost or net realizable value that will not be recovered by future sales prices. No such accrual was required as of December 31, 2017.

SEC Enforcement Staff Review

In March 2014, the Company voluntarily reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, that the Company’s 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 the first two quarters 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. On May 1, 2017, the SEC announced that it had reached a final settlement with the Company, resolving the SEC’s investigation. In that connection, the Company has consented, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, to the entry of an administrative order by the SEC directing that the Company cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws and related SEC regulations. The SEC’s administrative order was entered on May 1, 2017. The SEC imposed a monetary penalty of $3,000 thousand on the Company. In the first quarter ended March 31, 2017, the Company established a reserve in that amount for the potential settlement of this matter. The reserved monetary penalty of $3,000 thousand was paid to the SEC during the second quarter of 2017. The Company also agreed to an undertaking to cooperate fully with the SEC in any and all investigations, litigations or other proceedings relating to or arising from the matters described in the SEC’s order. In connection with the settlement, the SEC considered remedial acts promptly undertaken by the Company and its cooperation with the SEC staff during the course of the investigation. Among other things, as previously disclosed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, the Audit Committee of the Company self-investigated and self-reported the accounting errors, selected new management and implemented various additional controls designed to prevent similar errors going forward.

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 April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) 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 June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and 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 and a putative subclass consisting of 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 consolidated amended complaint asserted claims on behalf of the putative class 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 officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company’s current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserted claims on behalf the subclass for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company’s current directors and 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 current directors and 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 officers, and a shareholder of the Company.

On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs’ representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Class Action Litigation”). On February 5, 2016, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, as well as the stipulation and agreement of settlement and related exhibits. The stipulation and agreement of settlement provided that all claims asserted against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. would be released. The stipulation and agreement of settlement also provided for an aggregate settlement payment by the Company of $23,500 thousand, which would include all attorneys’ fees, costs of administration and plaintiffs’ out-of-pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory awards and disbursements. The settlement also included the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.

On April 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 18, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed their motions for final approval of the settlement and plan of allocation of the settlement and for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and reimbursement of the costs and expenses of Lead Plaintiff Keith Thomas. On December 1, 2016, following a hearing on November 21, 2016 and an order dated November 21, 2016, the court entered a supplemental order and final judgment (the “Judgment”) granting final approval of the settlement. The Judgment was not appealed within the applicable appeals period (on or before January 3, 2017). The settlement therefore became effective after the expiration of the appeals period. The settlement was fully funded by insurance proceeds.

The Company recorded the $23,500 thousand of the settlement obligation for the Class Action Litigation as accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company recorded $29,571 thousand of the proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29,571 thousand were deposited into the Company’s escrow account during the first quarter of 2016 and the Company reclassified the $29,571 thousand deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted cash. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company disbursed the aggregate settlement payment of $23,500 thousand after the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2016. Upon the settlement payment, $6,114 thousand of the insurance proceeds remained in the Company’s escrow account. For subsequent treatment of the escrow amount, see “Shareholder Derivative Complaints” below.

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 asserted 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 June 1, 2015, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County styled Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.). 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 asserted 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.

On January 22, 2016, the Company and the plaintiffs in the Hemmingson and Bushansky actions entered into and filed a stipulation of settlement with the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The settlement provided for the resolution of all of the pending claims in both shareholder derivative actions against the Company and the individual defendants, without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The settlement also provided for an aggregate payment from the Company defendants’ directors and officers insurance policies of $3,000 thousand to be made to an escrow account, which would be remitted to the Company once the settlement becomes final, less (i) any applicable costs of such escrow account, (ii) any amount awarded by the court to the plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses and (iii) the cost of providing notice of the settlement to the Company’s stockholders. The proposed settlement also required that the Company implement certain corporate governance measures. The $3,000 thousand settlement payment was included in the insurance proceeds of $29,571 thousand as discussed in “Securities Class Action Complaints” above.

On February 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed derivative settlement. On June 10, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On October 18, 2016, after a hearing held on October 14, 2016, the court entered its order and final judgment (the “Shareholder Derivative Judgment”) granting final approval of the proposed settlement and awarding plaintiffs’ counsel $750 thousand for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. The Shareholder Derivative Judgment was not appealed within the applicable appeals period (on or before December 19, 2016). The settlement therefore became effective after the expiration of the appeals period and $2,258 thousand ($2,250 thousand plus applicable interest) was paid to the Company from the escrow account, previously recorded as restricted cash, in December 2016. The remaining restricted cash related to insurance proceeds of $3,078 thousand was also released in December 2016.