COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
9 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2020 | |
| 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 the Company’s 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 December 31, 2020, the Company had issued non-cancelable commitments for $18.9 million to purchase inventory from its contract manufacturers and suppliers.
Legal Proceedings
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 has been 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. Realtime Data seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief that the Court deems appropriate. On July 31, 2017, the District Court stayed proceedings in this litigation pending decision in Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relating to the 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 invalid 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.” As of now, the case pending against Quantum in the Northern District of California remains stayed. The Court in the Northern District of California has scheduled a Case Management Conference for March 29, 2021 and will decide at that point whether to keep the stay in place pending further developments in the Delaware Action or lift the stay and set a schedule for discovery and other proceedings. The Company believes the probability that this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition is remote.
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. The complaint alleges that between 2012 and 2014, Starboard purchased a large number of shares of Quantum’s common stock, obtained three seats on Quantum’s board of directors and then, in July 2014, entered into an agreement with Quantum whereby Starboard would not seek control of Quantum’s board 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 complaint further alleges that Quantum did not meet those performance objectives but hid that by improperly recognizing revenue in fiscal 2015, with the alleged objective of entrenching Messrs. Gacek and Auvil and then-current management. Mr. Gacek resigned from the board effective May 1, 2017 and as CEO effective November 7, 2017; Mr. Auvil resigned from the board effective November 8, 2017. The complaint’s accounting allegations largely repeat allegations made in now-concluded shareholder class actions, shareholder derivative actions and SEC investigation, the settlement of which we previously reported in the Company’s Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on January 29, 2020 and Form 10-K filed with the SEC on August 6, 2019 (among other SEC filings). Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts putative claims for intentional misrepresentation/fraud in the inducement, intentional misrepresentation/fraud and negligent misrepresentation against Quantum, Gacek and Auvil, false promise/promissory fraud and unjust enrichment against Quantum and breach of fiduciary duty against Gacek and Auvil. Starboard is demanding a jury trial, and seeks unspecified damages including punitive damages, an award of rescission or rescissory damages, and award of restitution in an amount necessary to compensate for the alleged unjust enrichment of Quantum, attorney fees and costs and other relief deemed just or appropriate by the court. On September 14, 2020, all defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss this action on grounds of forum non conveniens and the mandatory Delaware forum selection clauses set forth in the contracts between Starboard and Quantum. On November 19, 2020, Starboard filed a first amended complaint, in which Quantum was not named as a defendant and therefore, in effect Quantum has been dismissed from the action and is no longer a party. The first amended complaint reasserts with only minor modifications the existing claims against Messrs. Gacek and Auvil, and adds a new claim against Messrs. Gacek and Auvil, alleging that they aided and abetted Quantum in committing a fraud on plaintiffs by intentionally or recklessly misrepresenting its financial performance and concealing the misstatements to allow the alleged fraud to continue. The amended complaint seeks no relief from Quantum. However, Quantum expects to continue to incur expenses related to this litigation, subject to potential offset from insurance. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the range of possible outcomes with respect to this matter.
Other Commitments
Additionally, from time to time, the Company is a party to various legal proceedings and claims arising from the normal course of business activities. Based on current available information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome of any of these other currently pending unresolved matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
|