Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is a party, as either a sole or joint defendant or plaintiff, in various lawsuits, claims and other legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of conducting business (including litigation relating to our Legacy Businesses and discontinued operations). All such matters involve uncertainty and accordingly, outcomes that cannot be predicted with assurance. As of December 31, 2017, we are unable to estimate with certainty the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact that we may incur with respect to these matters. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, could materially affect our financial condition, results of the operations and cash flows.

Intellectual Property Litigation

The company is subject to allegations of patent infringement by our competitors as well as non-practicing entities ("NPEs") - sometimes referred to as "patent trolls" - who may seek monetary settlements from us, our competitors, suppliers and resellers. The nature of such litigation is complex and unpredictable and, consequently, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate with precision the amount of any monetary liability or financial impact that may be incurred with respect to these matters. As of April 2, 2018, except as set forth below with respect to the IOENGINE settlement, given the exits from the Legacy Businesses, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters in the aggregate will not materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On December 31, 2014, IOENGINE, an NPE, filed suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,539,047 by certain products we formerly sold under the IronKey brand. On February 17, 2017, following a trial, the jury returned a verdict against us in the patent infringement case brought by IOENGINE against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The jury awarded the IOENGINE $11.0 million in damages. As previously disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K we filed with the SEC on September 28, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with IOENGINE on September 28, 2017 resolving all claims relating to the IOENGINE lawsuit. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, (i) we paid IOENGINE $3.75 million in cash on October 3, 2017, (ii) issued to IOENGINE a promissory note (the "IOENGINE Note") in the principal amount of $4.0 million under which no payments are due until June 30, 2019 (except in connection with acceleration upon an event of default), and (iii) we pledged certain of our assets to secure our obligations under the IOENGINE Note, notably the NXSN Note.

On May 6, 2016, Nexsan Technologies Incorporated, a subsidiary of NXSN (“NTI”), filed a complaint in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment against EMC Corporation (“EMC”). NTI alleges that NTI has a priority of right to use certain of its UNITY trademarks and that NTI’s prosecution of its trademark applications with the respect to, and to use of, such trademarks does not infringe upon EMC’s trademarks. In addition, NTI seeks injunctive relief to prevent EMC from threatening NTI with legal action related to use of UNITY trademarks, or making any public statements or statements to potential customers calling into question NTI’s right to use UNITY trademarks. EMC has answered and counterclaimed alleging that NTI’s use of the UNITY trademark infringes EMC’s common law rights in the UNITY and EMC UNITY trademarks. On April 14, 2017, the court in the EMC UNITY matter ruled that NTI has priority over EMC to the UNITY trademark in relation to computer data storage and associated technologies. NTI intends to continue to assert its rights to the UNITY trademark in further proceedings.

Trade Related Litigation

On January 26, 2016, CMC, a supplier of our Legacy Businesses, filed a suit in the District Court of Ramsey County Minnesota, seeking damages from the Company and the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary Imation Latin America Corp. (“ILAC”) for alleged breach of contract. CMC also brought similar claims in Japan and the Netherlands against other of our subsidiaries. As previously disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K we filed with the SEC on September 18, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with CMC on September 15, 2017 resolving all claims relating to the CMC lawsuits. Pursuant to the settlement, (i) we agreed that our subsidiary Imation Corporation Japan ("ICJ") will cause the release and payment to CMC of approximately $9.2 million in attached assets, (ii) ICJ made a payment to CMC of $1.5 million on October 10, 2017, (iii) our subsidiary Imation Europe B.V. will cause the release and payment to CMC of approximately $825,000 in attached assets, (iv) ICJ issued to CMC an unsecured promissory note (the "CMC Note") in the amount of $1.5 million, and (v) we guaranteed CMC ICJ’s obligations under the CMC Note. As of December 31, 2017, both ICJ and Europe B.V. had released the required payments to CMC.

Imation Corporation Japan (“ICJ”) is the defendant in a lawsuit in The Tokyo District Court, Civil 49th Division, brought against it by Suntop Art Work Co., Ltd., seeking damages of at least 100 Million Yen ($940,000 at the current exchange rate), based on allegations that ICJ is in violation of a Japanese legal equitable principle requiring long-term business counterparties to provide a judicially-determined adequate notice of cessation of business even when a shorter time has been agreed in writing by the parties. ICJ believes this claim is entirely without merit and is vigorously defending its position.

The Company has various trade disputes with vendors related to either the Legacy Businesses or the Nexsan business. The Company believes it has made adequate accruals with respect to the disputes for which such is appropriate according to our accounting policy.

Employee Matters

On March 29, 2017, three former Legacy Business employees who were among the approximately 100 similarly situated employees terminated as a result of the Restructuring plan, filed a lawsuit in the Minnesota State District Court of Ramsey County asserting state law claims for non-payment of allegedly promised severance benefits. Exposure is estimated to be less than $0.3 million. While full discovery of the relevant facts has not been completed, we believe these state law claims are without merit and are vigorously defending our position.

Imation Europe B.V. (“IEBV”) is the defendant in four separate lawsuits in trial courts in Versailles and Bordeaux, France, brought by former employees based on the alleged failure to have provided them, in accordance with the French labor laws in effect at the time of their termination, with employment opportunities elsewhere in the world commensurate with their abilities and positions prior to termination. The plaintiffs in the IEBV lawsuits are seeking an aggregate of approximately 560,000 Euros (approximately $690,000 at current exchange rates). IEBV believes these claims are entirely without merit and is vigorously defending its position.

The Company has also received demand letters from three Nexsan former executives seeking severance payments in the amount of approximately of $500,000 total. The Company believes those claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the claims.

In many European Union (EU) member countries, the sale of certain of our Legacy Business products is subject to a private copyright levy. The levies are intended to compensate copyright holders with “fair compensation” for the harm caused by private copies made by natural persons of protected works under the European Copyright Directive, which became effective in 2002 (the “Directive”). Levies are generally charged directly to the importer of the product upon the sale of the products. Payers of levies remit levy payments to collecting societies which, in turn, are expected to distribute funds to copyright holders. Levy systems of EU member countries must comply with the Directive, but individual member countries are responsible for administering their own systems. Since implementation, the levy systems have been the subject of numerous litigation and law-making activities. On October 21, 2010, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) ruled that fair compensation is an autonomous European law concept that was introduced by the Directive and must be uniformly applied in all EU member states. The CJEU stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The CJEU ruling made clear that copyright holders are only entitled to fair compensation payments (funded by levy payments made by importers of applicable products, including the Company) when sales of optical media are made to natural persons presumed to be making private copies. Within this disclosure, we use the term “commercial channel sales” when referring to products intended for uses other than private copying and “consumer channel sales” when referring to products intended for uses including private copying. In addition, various decisions and enactments have established that the levy rates in various countries improperly excluded from their calculations and assessments the private copying performed using computers and smartphones. This in turn meant that to the extent levy rates were determined to be retroactively excessive, the Company would be entitled to a rebate on that basis as well.

Since the Directive was implemented in 2002, we estimate that we have paid in excess of $100 million in levies to various ongoing collecting societies related to commercial channel sales. Based on the CJEU’s October 2010 ruling and subsequent litigation and law-making activities, we believe that these payments were not consistent with the Directive and should not have been paid to the various collecting societies. Accordingly, subsequent to the October 21, 2010 CJEU ruling, we began withholding levy payments to the various collecting societies and, in 2011, we reversed our existing accruals for unpaid levies related to commercial channel sales. However, we continued to accrue, but not pay, a liability for levies arising from consumer channel sales, in all applicable jurisdictions except Italy and France due to certain court rulings in those jurisdictions. As of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had accrued liabilities of $5.6 million and $4.9 million, respectively, associated with levies related to consumer channel sales for which we are withholding payment. These accruals are recorded as “Other current liabilities” on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets (and not within discontinued operations). The Company’s management oversees copyright levy matters and continues to explore options to resolve these matters.

Since the October 2010 CJEU ruling, for as long as sales were made in these countries, we evaluated quarterly on a country-by-country basis whether (i) levies should be accrued on current period commercial and/or consumer channel sales; and, (ii) whether accrued, but unpaid, copyright levies on prior period consumer channel sales should be reversed. Our evaluation is made on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis and considers ongoing and cumulative developments related to levy litigation and law making activities within each jurisdiction as well as throughout the EU.

The Company is still subject to several pending or threatened legal actions by the individual European national levy collecting societies in relation to private copyright levies under the Directive. These remaining actions generally seek payment of the commercial and consumer optical levies withheld by IEBV and its German subsidiary. IEBV and its German subsidiary has corresponding claims in those actions seeking reimbursement of levies improperly collected by those collecting societies. IEBV and its German subsidiary are also subject to threatened actions by certain of their former customers seeking reimbursement of funds they allege related to commercial levies that they claim they should not have paid. Although these actions are subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to us, management does not expect the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. As noted below with respect to France and the Netherlands, it is possible, and uncertain as to timing and amount, that by either settlement or litigation, IEBV could recover materially significant amounts from the levy authorities or their government sponsors. We anticipate that additional court decisions may be rendered that may directly or indirectly impact our levy exposure in specific European countries which could cause us to review our levy exposure in those countries.

France. We have overpaid levies related to sales into the Company’s commercial channel in an amount of $55.1 million. We adopted a practice of offsetting ongoing levy liability with the French collecting society for IEBV’s sales in the consumer channel against the $55.1 million we have overpaid for copyright levies in France (due to us paying levies on commercial channels sales prior to the October 21, 2010 CJEU ruling). During the fourth quarter of 2013, GlassBridge reversed $9.5 million of French copyright levies (existing at the time of a 2013 French court decision) that arose from consumer channel sales that had been accrued but not paid to cost of sales. As of December 31, 2017, we had offset approximately $14.4 million. We believe that we have utilized a methodology, and have sufficient documentation and evidence, to fully support our estimates that we have overpaid $55.1 million to the French collection society of levies on commercial channel sales and that we have incurred (but not paid) $14.4 million of levies on consumer channel sales in France. However, such amounts are currently subject to challenge in court and there is no certainty that our estimates would be upheld and supported. In December 2012, IEBV filed a complaint against the French collection society, Copie France, for reimbursement of the $55.1 million in commercial channel levies that IEBV had paid prior to October 2010. A hearing occurred on December 8, 2015, in the High Court of Justice (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (“TGIP”)) on IEBV’s claim and Copie France’s counterclaim. On April 8, 2016, the TGIP rejected all of IEBV’s claims finding that the European Union law arguments raised by IEBV were inapplicable and relied solely on French law to grant Copie France’s counterclaims of approximately $17 million. IEBV has filed a notice of appeal which suspends enforcement of the ruling. We believe Copie France’s counterclaims are without merit and intend to defend IEBV's position vigorously. Despite the April 2016 ruling of the TGIP, the Company does not believe it to be probable that it will have to make any copyright levy payments in the future to Copie France and, accordingly, has not recorded an accrual for this matter. Given a recent decision of one of France’s two highest courts, the Conseil d’Etat, supporting the position taken by the TGIP, the likely outcome and time to reach a final resolution through the appellate process that could involve France’s other highest court, the Cours de Cassation, and possibly also again the CJEU, remains unclear. We estimate, however, that an ultimate net recovery remains reasonably foreseeable, which could be in the millions of dollars.

The Netherlands. IEBV is currently involved in pending litigation in the Netherlands, both as a sole complainant and a co-complainant and counterparty, with Stichting de Thuiskopie (“Thuiskopie”) and the government of the Netherlands (“Dutch State”) concerning disputed levies on optical media based on both improper levies on commercial channel sales and excessive rates due to the exclusion of computer and smartphone and illegal copying. The Dutch State has reduced the levy rates based on the exclusion theory but has as yet refused to apply the reduced rates retroactively for rebate purposes. Specifically, IEBV is (A) the sole Complainant in the action pending versus Thuiskopie and the Dutch State, originally identified as C/09/489719/HA ZA 15-659 of the District Court of The Hague (the “IE Case”), and (B) a co-complainant in the case brought by the association of vendors of similar products, originally identified as C/09/438914/HA ZA 13-264 (the “FIAR Case”). In the IE Case, there has been an interlocutory ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court in IEBV’s favor; however, several important issues and procedural steps remain. We estimate that eventual net recoveries could range between $5 million and $10 million, although it is also possible that there will be no material recoveries. IEBV is only a small part, approximately 15%, of the plaintiff group in the FIAR Case; however, the total amount sought by the plaintiffs therein may be as much as $100 million.

Germany. During the first quarter of 2015, GlassBridge reversed $2.8 million accrual for German copyright levies on optical products as the result of a favorable German court decision retroactively setting levy rates at a level much lower than the rates sought by the German collecting society. The reversal was recorded as a reduction of cost of sales. As of April 2, 2018, IEBV and its German subsidiary are in the process of finalizing an agreed settlement with the German collecting society that would result in mutual releases with no payments owed to either party.

Italy. In December 2015, we settled our claim for reimbursement of the levies that the Company had paid for sales into its commercial channel with the Italian collecting society, S.I.A.E. The settlement was for $1.0 million and is recorded as a reduction in cost of sales. There are no ongoing levy disputes with respect to Italy.

Canada. The Canadian Private Copying Collective (“CPCC”) filed suit in the Ontario Superior Court against our subsidiary Imation Enterprises Corp. (“IEC”) seeking damages of approximated CAD 1 million and penalties and interest of approximately CAD 5 million. On September 29, 2017, after we provided discovery materials to the CPCC which we believe demonstrated that the CPCC’s claims were entirely without merit, the CPCC declined to pursue the lawsuit further, issued to IEC a full and final release of the claims underlying the lawsuit and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 4, 2017.

Indemnification Obligations

In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into agreements that incorporate general indemnification language. Performance under these indemnities would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a supportable third-party claim. There have historically been no material losses related to such indemnifications. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, estimated liability amounts associated with such indemnifications were not material.

Environmental Matters

Our Legacy Business operations and indemnification obligations resulting from our spinoff from 3M subject us liabilities arising from a wide range of federal, state and local environmental laws. For example, from time to time we have received correspondence from 3M notifying us that we may have a duty to defend and indemnify 3M with respect to certain environmental claims such as remediation costs. Environmental remediation costs are accrued when a probable liability has been determined and the amount of such liability has been reasonably estimated. These accruals are reviewed periodically as remediation and investigatory activities proceed and are adjusted accordingly. We did not have any environmental accruals as of December 31, 2017. Compliance with environmental regulations has not had a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Operating Leases

We incur rent expense under operating leases, which primarily relate to office space. Most long-term leases include one or more options to renew at the then fair rental value for a period of approximately one to three years. The following table sets forth the components of net rent expense for the years ended December 31:



	2017		2016
	(In millions)
Minimum lease payments	$	1.2	$	3.6
Contingent rentals	—		(2.0		)
Total rental expense, net	$	1.2	$	1.6

The following table sets forth the minimum rental payments under operating leases with non-cancellable terms in excess of one year as of December 31, 2017. The Company kept a small team and its headquarters in Minnesota starting in 2016, and those lease costs are included below.



	2018		2019		2020		2021		2022		Thereafter		Total
	(In millions)
Minimum lease payments	$	0.7	$	0.4	$	0.2	$	0.1	$	0.1	$	0.1	$	1.6

Contingencies

On October 14, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of CDI for a total purchase price of $6.7 million. The purchase price included future contingent consideration totaling up to $5 million (considered to have an estimated fair value of $0.8 million at the time of acquisition). We used the real option valuation technique for calculating the estimated fair value of contingent consideration with a 15% discount rate. The contingent consideration arrangement included the potential for three separate payments of cash and unregistered shares of GlassBridge common stock to the extent that certain defined revenue targets were achieved for the three consecutive six-month periods commencing January 1, 2016. The period of measurement for the third and final payment was January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017, and the revenue target was not met for this or any other period. Accordingly, we have not made any contingent purchase price payments for CDI as of December 31, 2017. The Company reversed the remaining accruals for $0.3 million and the 57,482 shares for issuance. Upon the acquisition of CDI, we integrated CDI with the Nexsan Business, both operationally and with respect to its management team. In addition, the Company contributed all of the issued and outstanding stock of CDI to Nexsan prior to the consummation of the NXSN Transaction which closed on January 23, 2017. See Note 14 - Segment Information for more information.

Threatened Litigation

As noted above, following the NXSN Transaction, in the first quarter of 2017, Nexsan sold $1.2 million of its accounts receivable to individuals introduced by or affiliated with Spear Point for a discounted purchase price of $1.1 million, subject to a right to repurchase within five months of the original sale at the original sales price plus 2% interest per month. The accounts receivable sale was recorded as a sale of financial assets under ASC 860. After exercising the remedies referred to above pursuant to the NXSN Default Notice and the NXSN Exercise Notice, we were made aware that the proceeds of the sold accounts receivable may have been either paid to Nexsan or cancelled or replaced by the account debtors. As of March 16, 2018, there are outstanding demands made by two of the accounts receivable purchasers for Nexsan to repurchase the accounts receivable purchased by them, in an amount of approximately $500,000. Given that we have determined that the relevant receivables no longer exist, we have rejected the demand. The ultimate outcomes of any disputes between the Company and the accounts receivable purchasers remain too speculative to estimate.