(15) CONTINGENCIES

On February 15, 2012, the staff of the Division of Enforcement of the SEC initiated with the Company an informal inquiry, and later a formal action, regarding the Company’s treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. To date, the SEC has not asserted any formal claims.

Following the June 11, 2012 announcement of the pending restatement (the “June 11, 2012 Announcement”), shareholders of the Company commenced three purported class actions in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the “Securities Actions”), entitled, respectively:

•

Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June 12, 2012 (the “Collier Action”);

•

Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June 18, 2012 (the “Shnerer Action”); and

•

Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C. Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July 11, 2012 (the “Heszkel Action”).

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of those persons who purchased shares of the Company between September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the “Class Period”) and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period rendered defendants’ public statements concerning the Company’s financial condition materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 11, 2013, following the Company’s restatement, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Action. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013.

On July 13, 2012, a fourth shareholder commenced a purported derivative action in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company (as nominal defendants), and certain of its current and former directors and officers, entitled, Samuel Montini, Derivatively On Behalf Of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. v. Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, Francis J. Jules, Virginia G. Breen, Michael J. Mardy, Edward E. Lucente, Jeffrey J. Fenton, Joseph M. O’Donnell, William R. McLennan, Thomas H. Johnson, And Anthony J. Bay, Defendants, And ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case 1:12-CV-11296-DJC and on July 31, 2012, a fifth shareholder commenced a purported derivative action in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company (as nominal defendants), and certain of its current and former directors and officers, entitled, Edward Tansey, Derivatively On Behalf Of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. v. Joseph C. Lawler, Steven G. Crane, Francis J. Jules, Virginia G. Breen, Michael J. Mardy, Edward E. Lucente, Jeffrey J. Fenton, Joseph M. O’Donnell, William R. McLennan, Thomas H. Johnson, And Anthony J. Bay, Defendants, And ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Civil Action No. 12-CV-11399 (DJC) (collectively, the “Derivative Actions”). The Derivative Actions further assert that as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged actions and course of conduct, the Company is now the subject of the Securities Actions and will incur related expenses and a possible judgment against it. These litigation matters also arise from the issues raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement and allege that the individual defendants breached their duty of loyalty to the Company by allowing defendants to cause, or by themselves causing, the Company to make improper statements regarding its business prospects and/or by failing to prevent the other Individual Defendants from taking such purportedly illegal actions. The plaintiffs are scheduled to file a consolidated amended complaint in the Derivative Actions on March 4, 2013, and the Company is to file its initial response to that complaint on April 3, 2013.

Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, will deny liability, and intends to defend this litigation vigorously.

On October 10, 2012, a sixth shareholder, Donald Reith, served upon the Company’s Board of Directors a demand to institute litigation and take other purportedly necessary, but unidentified, remedial measures to redress and prevent a recurrence of purported breaches of fiduciary duties on the part of the Board and unspecified corporate officers allegedly arising from the same facts and circumstances asserted in the Derivative Actions. On February 4, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to reject Mr. Reith’s demand.