(10) 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. We have been cooperating fully with the investigation. In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, we recorded a charge of $1.5 million with respect to this matter. The Company believes that any resolution of this matter would include monetary penalties and other relief within the SEC’s authority. There can be no assurance that we will be able to reach a settlement with the SEC or that the amount of monetary penalties agreed in any settlement will not exceed the accrued conditions of any potential settlement.

On June 11, 2012, we announced the pending restatement of the Company’s financial statements for the periods ending on or before April 30, 2012 (the “June 11, 2012 Announcement”), related to the Company’s accounting treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The restated financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013. After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders 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, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Securities Actions. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 11, 2013. On March 26, 2014, following a November 8, 2013 hearing, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, and, on May 26, 2014, the Company answered the Amended Complaint. In October 2014, the parties agreed to a stipulation for a proposed $4 million class settlement to be covered by insurance proceeds, subject to Court approval. On November 24, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, certification of the settlement class, and provision of notice of the settlement to the settling class. The Court held a final approval hearing for the settlement on March 11, 2015, and on March 15, 2015 the Court entered the order and final judgment concluding this matter.

On October 15, 2014, a Company shareholder commenced a purported derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, entitled Mohammad Ladjevardian v. Anthony Bergamo, Jeffrey J. Fenton, Glen M. Kassan, Warren G. Lichtenstein, Jeffrey S. Wald, and Philip E. Lengyel, Steel Partners Holdings L.P., Handy & Harman Ltd.; Defendants, And ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 10237-VCL , and Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (“Steel”) Handy & Harman Ltd. The Plaintiff alleges that the individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, unjust enrichment, duty of disclosure, waste of corporate assets and aiding and abetting such breaches. On November 6, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for (i) failure to make a pre-suit demand upon the Board or sufficiently plead demand futility, and (ii) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The parties stipulated that all discovery concerning claims asserted in the Complaint shall be stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. Oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss are scheduled for July 13, 2015. Although there can be no assurance to the ultimate outcome, the Company believes it has meritorious defense, will deny liability, and intends to defend this litigation vigorously.

On July 18, 2014, Scott R. Crawley (“Crawley”), a former executive officer of the Company, filed a lawsuit against the Company in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County (the “Court”) (the “First Lawsuit”) alleging that the Company breached the Executive Severance Agreement that it had with Crawley and wrongfully terminated Crawley in violation of public policy. In the First Lawsuit Crawley seeks both economic damages as well as emotional distress damages, both related to what he claims was the Company’s termination of his employment. The First Lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase. On November 25, 2014, Crawley filed a second lawsuit against the Company in the Court (the “Second Lawsuit”). In the Second Lawsuit, Crawley demanded that the Company indemnify him for the attorneys’ fees and expenses that Crawley had incurred to-date as a result of the First and Second Lawsuits and advance him the anticipated attorneys’ fees and expenses that he expected to incur in the First and Second Lawsuits. Crawley sought a Preliminary Injunction from the Court that would have required the Company to immediately pay his past attorneys’ fees and expenses and advance him for anticipated attorneys’ fees and expenses. On December 16, 2014 the Court denied Crawley’s request for a Preliminary Injunction. The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions that would resolve both Lawsuits.

On December 22, 2014, ModusLink received a letter from a major customer, which claimed that ModusLink’s failure to implement required security measures proximately caused the theft of the customer’s proprietary data from two of ModusLink’s sites in China. The letter alleged that the customer had suffered significant losses as a result of the alleged theft. ModusLink has vigorously denied the allegations contained in the letter and continues to engage the customer in discussions regarding the matter. Based upon the information available at this time, ModusLink is not able to estimate a possible range of loss with respect to this matter. In the event that litigation is commenced and the customer prevails and is awarded a significant monetary judgment not fully covered by insurance, such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on the ModusLink’s financial condition.