2.2.0.7 false Commitments and Contingencies 11801 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingencies true false false false 1 USD false false Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit13 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Notes to Financial Statements 0 har_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstract har false na duration Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string Notes to Financial Statements [Abstract] false 3 Commitments and Contingencies 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> <div> <div> Note 18 – Commitments and Contingencies At September 30, 2010, we were subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. The outcome of these legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty; however, management, based upon advice from legal counsel, believes such actions are either without merit or will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "1934 Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with KKR and GSCP was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan (the "Boca Raton Plaintiff") filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint, which extends the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contends that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed. Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of our officers and directors alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman International Industries, Incorporated Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"), compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007 to the present, defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaint further claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's Participants." On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.   Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. The motion is now fully briefed. Automotive Supply Arrangements We have arrangements with our automotive customers to provide products that meet predetermined technical specifications and delivery dates. In the event that we do not satisfy the performance obligations under these arrangements, we may be required to indemnify the customer. We accrue for any loss that we expect to incur under these arrangements when that loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. For the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, we incurred zero and $11.7 million, respectively, of costs relating to settlement of a claim associated with an automotive supply arrangement. An inability to meet performance obligations on automotive platforms to be delivered in future periods could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition in future periods.</div></div> </div> Note 18 – Commitments and Contingencies At September 30, 2010, we were subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true