COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2023 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments to Purchase Inventory The Company uses contract manufacturers for its manufacturing operations. Under these arrangements, the contract manufacturer procures inventory to manufacture products based upon its forecast of customer demand. The Company has similar arrangements with certain other suppliers. The Company is responsible for the financial impact on the supplier or contract manufacturer of any reduction or product mix shift in the forecast relative to materials that the third party had already purchased under a prior forecast. Such a variance in forecasted demand could require a cash payment for inventory in excess of current customer demand or for costs of excess or obsolete inventory. As of March 31, 2023, the Company had issued non-cancelable commitments for $28.7 million to purchase inventory from its contract manufacturers and suppliers.
Leases
At the end of fiscal 2023, the Company had various non-cancelable operating for office facilities. Refer to Note 6: Leases for additional information regarding lease commitments.
Legal Proceedings
Realtime Data Matter
On July 22, 2016, Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (“Realtime Data”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,161,506, 7,378,992, 7,415,530, 8,643,513, 9,054,728, and 9,116,908. The lawsuit was thereafter transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceedings. Realtime Data asserts that the Company has incorporated Realtime Data’s patented technology into its compression products and services. On July 31, 2017, the Court in the Northern District of California stayed proceedings in this litigation pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relating to the asserted Realtime patents. In those proceedings the asserted claims of the ’506 patent, the ’992 patent, and the ’513 patent were found unpatentable. In addition, on July 19, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision finding that all claims of the ’728 patent, the ’530 patent, and the ’908 patent are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (the “Delaware Action”). On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the decision in the Delaware Action and remanded for the Court to “elaborate on its ruling.” In opinions dated May 4, 2021 and August 23, 2021, the Court in the Delaware Action reaffirmed its earlier ruling and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss under Section 101. Realtime Data has appealed those decisions to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit argument occurred on February 10, 2023 and a decision is expected sometime in the latter half of the year. The case pending against Quantum in the Northern District of California remains stayed pending the final outcome of the appeal in the Delaware Action. Quantum believes the probability that this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results or financial condition is remote.
Starboard Matter
On July 14, 2020, Starboard Value LP, Starboard Value and Opportunity Master Fund Ltd., Starboard Value and Opportunity S LLC, and Starboard Value and Opportunity C LP (collectively, “Starboard”) filed a lawsuit against Quantum Corporation, Quantum’s former CEO and board member Jon Gacek, and former Quantum board member Paul Auvil in the California Superior Court in Santa Clara County alleging that between 2012 and 2014, Starboard purchased shares of Quantum’s common stock, obtained three seats on the Board of Directors and then, in July 2014, entered into an agreement with Quantum whereby Starboard would not seek control of the Board of Directors but would instead support Quantum’s slate of board nominees so long as Quantum met certain performance objectives by the end of fiscal 2015. The lawsuit further alleges that Quantum hid its failure to meet those performance objectives by improperly recognizing revenue in fiscal 2015.
Also as previously reported, the California action was stayed and then dismissed. On April 14, 2021, Starboard filed a new action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, naming as defendants Messrs. Gacek and Auvil and Quantum. The new action largely repeats the allegations of the California action, alleging claims for fraud against all defendants, fraudulent concealment against all defendants, negligent misrepresentation against all defendants, breach of contract against Quantum, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Quantum, and breach of fiduciary duty against Messrs. Gacek and Auvil.
As of January 12, 2023, all parties signed a settlement agreement amicably resolving both actions. The litigation will have no material effect on the Company’s financial statements or business operations.
Indemnifications
The Company has certain financial guarantees, both express and implied, related to product liability and potential infringement of intellectual property. Other than certain product warranty liabilities recorded as of March 31, 2023 and 2022, the Company did not record a liability associated with these guarantees, as the Company has little, or no history of costs associated with such indemnification requirements. Contingent liabilities associated with product liability may be mitigated by insurance coverage that the Company maintains.
In the normal course of business to facilitate transactions of the Company’s services and products, the Company indemnifies certain parties with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold certain parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or out of intellectual property infringement or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors, and the Company’s bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to its agents. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of the Company’s indemnification claims, and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on its operating results, financial position, or cash flows.
|