Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims. SEC regulations govern disclosure of legal proceedings in periodic reports and ASC Topic 450 governs the disclosure of loss contingencies and accrual of loss contingencies in respect of litigation and other claims. We record an accrual for a potential loss when it is probable that a loss will occur and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When the reasonable estimate of the potential loss is within a range of amounts, the minimum of the range of potential loss is accrued, unless a higher amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range. Moreover, even if an accrual is not required, we provide additional disclosure related to litigation and other claims when it is reasonably possible (i.e., more than remote) that the outcomes of such litigation and other claims include potential material adverse impacts on us. The outcomes of legal proceedings and other claims are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are outside of our control. There is significant judgment required in the analysis of these matters, including the probability determination and whether a potential exposure can be reasonably estimated. In making these determinations, we, in consultation with outside counsel, examine the relevant facts and circumstances on a quarterly basis assuming, as applicable, a combination of settlement and litigated outcomes and strategies. Moreover, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and the timing of development of factors on which reasonable judgments and estimates can be based can be slow. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of any legal matter will not materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, profitability, cash flows or liquidity. Purchase Transaction Matters On August 1, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Miller v. Kotick, et al., No. BC517086. The complaint names our Board of Directors and Vivendi as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that our Board of Directors committed breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with Vivendi's sale of its stake in the Company and that Vivendi also breached its fiduciary duties. The plaintiff further alleges that demand by it on our Board of Directors to institute action would be futile because a majority of our Board of Directors is not independent and a majority of the individual defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability for approving the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages sustained by the Company, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement, an order restricting our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman from purchasing additional shares of our common stock and an order directing us to take necessary actions to improve and reform our corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law, including ordering a shareholder vote on certain amendments to our by-laws or charter that would require half of our Board of Directors to be independent of Messrs. Kotick and Kelly and Vivendi and a proposal to appoint a new independent Chairman of the Board of Directors. On January 28, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order temporarily staying the California action. On February 6, 2014, the court entered the order granting a stay of the California action. In addition, on August 14, 2013, we received a letter dated August 9, 2013, from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests of the Company. In response to that request, we provided the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality agreement. On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884-VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint were substantially similar to the allegations in the above referenced matter filed on August 1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended complaint under seal. The amended complaint added claims on behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC, investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the investors of ASAC. The added class claims are against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the Board of Directors formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against ASAC. The amended complaint removed the derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC. On October 29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case with the Hayes case described below. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. On December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff. Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013, and Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also on January 31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under seal. In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions to dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of contract claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended complaint containing substantially all of his prior claims, but with the addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the matter. ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of contract claim and the other defendants filed answers in response to the fourth amended complaint. On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint names our Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, the ASAC Entities, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. (“Davis”) and Fidelity Management & Research Co. (“FMR”) as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of our stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates); that our Board of Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that our Board of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale. The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and the Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder approval. Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders under the charter. On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October 29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with the Pacchia case. As noted above, on November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. See the discussion above related to the Pacchia matter (now the consolidated matter) for any further updates to the status of the litigation. Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from another purported stockholder of the Company, Milton Pfeiffer, seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement. On November 11, 2013, Pfeiffer filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia and Miller. The Company answered on November 27, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal. On December 17, 2013, the Company received a letter from Mark Benston requesting certain books and records of the Company pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Benston is represented by the same law firm as Pfeiffer. On January 2, 2014, Benston filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller. The Company answered on January 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal. On March 14, 2014, Benston filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation. As a result, Pacchia continues to serve as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated cases. Certain of defendants filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Pacchia obtained leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, which adds additional color to his allegations of wrongdoing based on information learned in discovery, including with respect to the appointment and subsequent election of several of the directors to our Board of Directors. For the most part, fact and expert discovery was completed in the Pacchia matter, including the exchange of expert damage and other reports. Pacchia's expert's reports allege damages to the Company in excess of $540 million and to the purported class in excess of $640 million, in addition to disgorgement claims, which could, in theory, exceed $1 billion. Defendants' experts' reports maintain there are no damages to the Company or to the purported class because the Purchase Transaction and the Private Sale were the best transactions available to the parties and the alternate transactions hypothesized by the plaintiff were inferior. For the quarter ended September 30, 2014, we accrued a loss contingency in our consolidated financial statements in connection with this matter. The accrual related to potential liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services already received prior to the quarter's end, where such fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the quarter's end, and the Company's potential contribution toward the potential settlement of the matter. Although the Company has D&O insurance in connection with the consolidated litigation in a total amount up to $200 million, various insurers have raised arguments that they believe give them the right to deny coverage for a portion of these fees, costs and expenses, as well as for all or a portion of the ultimate liability which may occur in settlement or at trial. Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and certain agreements with members of our Board of Directors, the Company has indemnification obligations to the director defendants to advance fees, costs and expenses and to pay liabilities which arise in connection with their service to the Company, in each case, to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. In light of these indemnification obligations and the positions taken by the parties and the various insurers, we determined that a liability was probable and estimable, and accordingly, an accrual was required, as of the quarter ended September 30, 2014. On November 19, 2014, the Company announced that an agreement had been reached to settle the Pacchia matter. The Company believes the settlement agreement, which acknowledges no wrongdoing on the part of any party, is in the best interest of the Company and all of its shareholders. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, multiple insurance companies, along with various defendants, will pay $275 million to a settlement fund (“Settlement Fund”). Payment of reasonable and customary fees and costs of plaintiff's attorney, likely not to exceed $72.5 million, will be made from the Settlement Fund. The remaining balance of the Settlement Fund, likely to be at least $202.5 million, will be paid to the Company and will be recorded within “Shareholders' equity” in our consolidated balance sheet. Other terms of the settlement agreement include the addition of two unaffiliated persons to the Company's Board of Directors, an adjustment of certain voting rights and a global release of claims against the defendants. On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K, describing and attaching the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, which was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court with respect to the settlement of the Pacchia matter (the “Stipulation”). Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company has notified the applicable shareholders of the settlement agreement. Applicable shareholders were provided an opportunity to object to the settlement, which is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery Court. Objections to the Stipulation have been filed by several shareholders. The plaintiff in the Hayes matter has objected to the settlement on the grounds that a portion of the $275 million Settlement Fund should be reallocated to the members of the class, that the amount of any attorney's fee award should be reduced and that the court should deny any “special award” to the plaintiff in the Pacchia matter. In the absence of such a reallocation, Hayes argues the court should deny approval of the settlement and appoint Hayes and his counsel to lead the class-based claims. Hayes also contends the notice of settlement provided by the Company is inadequate. The Company disputes this allegation. The plaintiffs in the Benston and Pfeiffer matters have also filed applications to the court requesting that their counsel receive an attorney's fee award of $7.25 million to be paid out of the attorneys' fees contemplated by the proposed Settlement. Certain defendants have also filed objections to the $50,000 “special award” requested by the Pacchia plaintiff. The Delaware Court of Chancery held a hearing on March 4, 2015, to consider the approval of the Stipulation, and a decision by the court is expected on or before June 2, 2015. Since the Stipulation does not require the Company to pay any liability on behalf of its defendant directors, the Company reversed the accrual described above as of December 31, 2014. The reversal of the accrual was partially offset by a new accrual for liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services already received prior to the year's end, where such fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the year's end. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the possibility that the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation, other potential outcomes are reasonably possible, including outcomes which could include an increase in the Company's liability. The Company believes the possibility that this lawsuit will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity is remote. However, if this assessment is incorrect, then an unfavorable resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity, particularly in the period in which any potential liabilities may be recognized. We believe that the defendants have meritorious defenses. If the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation and the parties are not otherwise able to settle the matter subsequently, then we believe the defendants intend to defend the lawsuit and other related cases vigorously at trial. However, these lawsuits and any other lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual outcome and costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of litigation is necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits and the Company and the defendants may not prevail. The Company also may be subject to additional claims in connection with the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale. Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business. Other Matters In addition, we are party to routine claims, suits, investigations, audits and other proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business, including with respect to intellectual property rights, contractual claims, labor and employment matters, regulatory matters, tax matters, unclaimed property matters, compliance matters, and collection matters. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant and we do not expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2015

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims. SEC regulations govern disclosure of legal proceedings in periodic reports and ASC Topic 450 governs the disclosure of loss contingencies and accrual of loss contingencies in respect of litigation and other claims. We record an accrual for a potential loss when it is probable that a loss will occur and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When the reasonable estimate of the potential loss is within a range of amounts, the minimum of the range of potential loss is accrued, unless a higher amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range. Moreover, even if an accrual is not required, we provide additional disclosure related to litigation and other claims when it is reasonably possible (i.e., more than remote) that the outcomes of such litigation and other claims include potential material adverse impacts on us.

The outcomes of legal proceedings and other claims are subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are outside of our control. There is significant judgment required in the analysis of these matters, including the probability determination and whether a potential exposure can be reasonably estimated. In making these determinations, we, in consultation with outside counsel, examine the relevant facts and circumstances on a quarterly basis assuming, as applicable, a combination of settlement and litigated outcomes and strategies. Moreover, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and the timing of development of factors on which reasonable judgments and estimates can be based can be slow. As such, there can be no assurance that the final outcome of any legal matter will not materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, profitability, cash flows or liquidity.

Purchase Transaction Matters

On August 1, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Miller v. Kotick, et al., No. BC517086. The complaint names our Board of Directors and Vivendi as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that our Board of Directors committed breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with Vivendi's sale of its stake in the Company and that Vivendi also breached its fiduciary duties. The plaintiff further alleges that demand by it on our Board of Directors to institute action would be futile because a majority of our Board of Directors is not independent and a majority of the individual defendants face a substantial likelihood of liability for approving the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages sustained by the Company, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement, an order restricting our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman from purchasing additional shares of our common stock and an order directing us to take necessary actions to improve and reform our corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law, including ordering a shareholder vote on certain amendments to our by-laws or charter that would require half of our Board of Directors to be independent of Messrs. Kotick and Kelly and Vivendi and a proposal to appoint a new independent Chairman of the Board of Directors. On January 28, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order temporarily staying the California action. On February 6, 2014, the court entered the order granting a stay of the California action.

In addition, on August 14, 2013, we received a letter dated August 9, 2013, from a shareholder seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to ascertain whether the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale were in the best interests of the Company. In response to that request, we provided the stockholder with certain materials under a confidentiality agreement. On September 11, 2013, a complaint was filed under seal by the same stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in an action captioned Pacchia v. Kotick et al., C.A. No. 8884-VCL. A public version of that complaint was filed on September 16, 2013. The allegations in the complaint were substantially similar to the allegations in the above referenced matter filed on August 1, 2013. On October 25, 2013, Pacchia filed an amended complaint under seal. The amended complaint added claims on behalf of an alleged class of Activision stockholders other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Vivendi, ASAC, investors in ASAC and other stockholders affiliated with the investors of ASAC. The added class claims are against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, the Vivendi affiliated directors, the members of the special committee of the Board of Directors formed in connection with the Company's consideration of the transactions with Vivendi and ASAC, and Vivendi for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against ASAC. The amended complaint removed the derivative claims for waste of corporate assets and disgorgement but continued to allege derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, certification of a class, damages, reformation of the Private Sale, and disgorgement of any alleged profits received by the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and ASAC. On October 29, 2013, Pacchia filed a motion to consolidate the Pacchia case with the Hayes case described below. On November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. On December 3, 2013, the court selected Pacchia as lead plaintiff. Pacchia filed a second amended complaint on December 11, 2013, and Activision filed an answer on January 31, 2014. Also on January 31, 2014, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On February 21, 2014, Pacchia filed a third amended complaint under seal. In response to Pacchia's filing of a third amended complaint, the special committee, ASAC, Messrs. Kotick and Kelly, Vivendi and the Vivendi-affiliated directors each filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the third amended complaint. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied the defendants' motions to dismiss such claims, with the exception of a breach of contract claim. Subsequently, Pacchia filed a fourth amended complaint containing substantially all of his prior claims, but with the addition of new allegations gleaned from discovery in the matter. ASAC filed a motion to dismiss the re-pleaded breach of contract claim and the other defendants filed answers in response to the fourth amended complaint.

On September 11, 2013, another stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action and stockholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Hayes v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 8885-VCL. The complaint names our Board of Directors, Vivendi, New VH, the ASAC Entities, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. (“Davis”) and Fidelity Management & Research Co. (“FMR”) as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation by failing to submit the matters contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement for approval by a majority of our stockholders (other than Vivendi and its controlled affiliates); that our Board of Directors committed breaches of their fiduciary duties in approving the Stock Purchase Agreement; that Vivendi violated fiduciary duties owed to other stockholders of the Company in entering into the Stock Purchase Agreement; that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman usurped a corporate opportunity from the Company; that our Board of Directors and Vivendi have engaged in actions to entrench our Board of Directors and officers in their offices; that the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the Board of Directors and Vivendi; and that our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR will be unjustly enriched through the Private Sale. The complaint seeks, among other things, the rescission of the Private Sale; an order requiring the transfer to the Company of all or part of the shares that are the subject of the Private Sale; an order implementing measures to eliminate or mitigate the alleged entrenching effects of the Private Sale; an order requiring our Chief Executive Officer and our Chairman, the ASAC Entities, Davis and FMR to disgorge to the Company the amounts by which they have allegedly been unjustly enriched; and alleged damages sustained by the class and the Company. In addition, the stockholder sought a temporary restraining order preventing the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement without stockholder approval. Following a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order, on September 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued a preliminary injunction order, enjoining the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement pending (a) the issuance of a final decision after a trial on the merits; (b) receipt of a favorable Activision Blizzard stockholder vote on the transactions contemplated by the Stock Purchase Agreement under Section 9.1(b) of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation or (c) modification of such preliminary injunction order by the Court of Chancery or the Delaware Supreme Court. On September 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery certified its order issuing the preliminary injunction for interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The defendants moved the Delaware Supreme Court to accept and hear the appeal on an expedited basis. On September 23, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Court of Chancery's decision and granted the defendant's motion to hear the appeal on an expedited basis.

Following a hearing on October 10, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's order issuing a preliminary injunction, and determined that the Stock Purchase Agreement was not a merger, business combination or similar transaction that would require a vote of Activision's unaffiliated stockholders under the charter.

On October 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed. It added factual allegations but no new claims or relief. Also on October 29, 2013, Hayes filed a motion to consolidate the Hayes case with the Pacchia case. As noted above, on November 2, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Pacchia and Hayes cases and ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental papers related to determining lead plaintiff and lead counsel no later than November 8, 2013. See the discussion above related to the Pacchia matter (now the consolidated matter) for any further updates to the status of the litigation.

Further, on September 18, 2013, the Company received a letter from another purported stockholder of the Company, Milton Pfeiffer, seeking, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, to inspect the books and records of the Company to investigate potential wrongdoing or mismanagement in connection with the approval of the Stock Purchase Agreement. On November 11, 2013, Pfeiffer filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia and Miller. The Company answered on November 27, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal.

On December 17, 2013, the Company received a letter from Mark Benston requesting certain books and records of the Company pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Benston is represented by the same law firm as Pfeiffer. On January 2, 2014, Benston filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Delaware Section 220 containing claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller. The Company answered on January 17, 2014. On February 14, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal.

On March 14, 2014, Benston filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery, captioned Benston v. Vivendi S.A. et al., No. 9447-VCL. The complaint makes claims similar to Hayes, Pacchia, Pfeiffer and Miller, but also adds J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as defendants and a so-called Brophy claim for insider trading against certain of the defendants. Benston and his attorneys petitioned the Court of Chancery to appoint them as co-lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel, respectively, for purposes of pursuing the Brophy claim as part of the consolidated Pacchia litigation. On June 6, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied Benston's motion for a leadership role in the consolidated Pacchia litigation. As a result, Pacchia continues to serve as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated cases.

Certain of defendants filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Pacchia obtained leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, which adds additional color to his allegations of wrongdoing based on information learned in discovery, including with respect to the appointment and subsequent election of several of the directors to our Board of Directors. For the most part, fact and expert discovery was completed in the Pacchia matter, including the exchange of expert damage and other reports. Pacchia's expert's reports allege damages to the Company in excess of $540 million and to the purported class in excess of $640 million, in addition to disgorgement claims, which could, in theory, exceed $1 billion. Defendants' experts' reports maintain there are no damages to the Company or to the purported class because the Purchase Transaction and the Private Sale were the best transactions available to the parties and the alternate transactions hypothesized by the plaintiff were inferior.

For the quarter ended September 30, 2014, we accrued a loss contingency in our consolidated financial statements in connection with this matter. The accrual related to potential liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services already received prior to the quarter's end, where such fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the quarter's end, and the Company's potential contribution toward the potential settlement of the matter. Although the Company has D&O insurance in connection with the consolidated litigation in a total amount up to $200 million, various insurers have raised arguments that they believe give them the right to deny coverage for a portion of these fees, costs and expenses, as well as for all or a portion of the ultimate liability which may occur in settlement or at trial. Under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and certain agreements with members of our Board of Directors, the Company has indemnification obligations to the director defendants to advance fees, costs and expenses and to pay liabilities which arise in connection with their service to the Company, in each case, to the maximum extent permitted by Delaware law. In light of these indemnification obligations and the positions taken by the parties and the various insurers, we determined that a liability was probable and estimable, and accordingly, an accrual was required, as of the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

On November 19, 2014, the Company announced that an agreement had been reached to settle the Pacchia matter. The Company believes the settlement agreement, which acknowledges no wrongdoing on the part of any party, is in the best interest of the Company and all of its shareholders. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, multiple insurance companies, along with various defendants, will pay $275 million to a settlement fund (“Settlement Fund”). Payment of reasonable and customary fees and costs of plaintiff's attorney, likely not to exceed $72.5 million, will be made from the Settlement Fund. The remaining balance of the Settlement Fund, likely to be at least $202.5 million, will be paid to the Company and will be recorded within “Shareholders' equity” in our consolidated balance sheet. Other terms of the settlement agreement include the addition of two unaffiliated persons to the Company's Board of Directors, an adjustment of certain voting rights and a global release of claims against the defendants. On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K, describing and attaching the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, which was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court with respect to the settlement of the Pacchia matter (the “Stipulation”). Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company has notified the applicable shareholders of the settlement agreement. Applicable shareholders were provided an opportunity to object to the settlement, which is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery Court.

Objections to the Stipulation have been filed by several shareholders. The plaintiff in the Hayes matter has objected to the settlement on the grounds that a portion of the $275 million Settlement Fund should be reallocated to the members of the class, that the amount of any attorney's fee award should be reduced and that the court should deny any “special award” to the plaintiff in the Pacchia matter. In the absence of such a reallocation, Hayes argues the court should deny approval of the settlement and appoint Hayes and his counsel to lead the class-based claims. Hayes also contends the notice of settlement provided by the Company is inadequate. The Company disputes this allegation. The plaintiffs in the Benston and Pfeiffer matters have also filed applications to the court requesting that their counsel receive an attorney's fee award of $7.25 million to be paid out of the attorneys' fees contemplated by the proposed Settlement. Certain defendants have also filed objections to the $50,000 “special award” requested by the Pacchia plaintiff. The Delaware Court of Chancery held a hearing on March 4, 2015, to consider the approval of the Stipulation, and a decision by the court is expected on or before June 2, 2015.

Since the Stipulation does not require the Company to pay any liability on behalf of its defendant directors, the Company reversed the accrual described above as of December 31, 2014. The reversal of the accrual was partially offset by a new accrual for liabilities associated with legal fees, costs and expenses for services already received prior to the year's end, where such fees, costs and expenses had not yet been paid at the year's end.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the possibility that the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation, other potential outcomes are reasonably possible, including outcomes which could include an increase in the Company's liability. The Company believes the possibility that this lawsuit will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity is remote. However, if this assessment is incorrect, then an unfavorable resolution of this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operation or liquidity, particularly in the period in which any potential liabilities may be recognized.

We believe that the defendants have meritorious defenses. If the Delaware Chancery Court does not approve the Stipulation and the parties are not otherwise able to settle the matter subsequently, then we believe the defendants intend to defend the lawsuit and other related cases vigorously at trial. However, these lawsuits and any other lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual outcome and costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of litigation is necessarily uncertain, and the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits and the Company and the defendants may not prevail. The Company also may be subject to additional claims in connection with the Purchase Transaction and Private Sale. Monitoring and defending against legal actions is time consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business.

Other Matters

In addition, we are party to routine claims, suits, investigations, audits and other proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business, including with respect to intellectual property rights, contractual claims, labor and employment matters, regulatory matters, tax matters, unclaimed property matters, compliance matters, and collection matters. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant and we do not expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details