COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Commitments

Leases

See Note 14 "Leases" for lease-related commitments as of September 30, 2019.

Purchase commitments

At September 30, 2019, the Company had the following non-cancelable purchase commitments:

	(in thousands)
2019 (remainder of the year)	$	133,395
2020	93,383
2021	2,248
2022	440
Total	$	229,466

Other Commitments

Unrecognized tax benefits

Due to the inherent uncertainty with respect to the timing of future cash outflows associated with the Company's unrecognized tax benefits, it is unable to reliably estimate the timing of cash settlement with the respective taxing authorities. As of September 30, 2019, the Company's unrecognized tax benefits totaled $64.2 million, out of which an amount of $41.3 million would reduce the Company's income tax expense and effective tax rate, if recognized.

Contingencies

Legal proceedings

On May 1, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Marc Henzel v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and the members of its board of directors. On May 2, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Michael Kent v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Also on May 2, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled David Thornton v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 3, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Lewis Stein v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, the members of its board of directors, NVIDIA International Holdings Inc., Teal Barvaz Ltd., and NVIDIA Corporation.  Also on May 3, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and the members of its board of directors. On May 23, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Ronald Grutz v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All six suits alleged that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company on April 22, 2019 with the SEC in connection with the proposed Merger omits material information with respect to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rendering it false and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Each plaintiff sought, among other things, injunctive relief, rescission, declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages.

None of the plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief before the shareholder vote, which occurred on June 20, 2019, and all of the lawsuits have now been dismissed. On June 25, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit entitled Michael Kent v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al. filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 31, 2019, the plaintiff of the lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 26, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit entitled David Thornton v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 2, 2019, the plaintiff of the lawsuit entitled Ronald Grutz v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 3, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit entitled Marc Henzel v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al.,

filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 14, 2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit entitled Lewis Stein v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., filed a voluntary dismissal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby may be filed in the future.

The Company is involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, taxation, employment, benefits, securities, personal injuries and other matters. The results of these proceedings in the ordinary course of business are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The Company records a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least quarterly, developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued and makes adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both the probability and the estimated amount of a loss or potential loss. The Company may be unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for a particular legal contingency. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.