Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]

10. Commitments and Contingencies

Employment Agreements

The Company has employment agreements and retention agreements with certain key employees. A number of these agreements require severance payments, continuation of certain insurance benefits and acceleration of vesting of stock options and restricted stock units in the event of a termination of employment by the Company without cause or by the employee for good reason. In addition, these employees were also granted stock options and awarded restricted stock, the agreements for which provide for acceleration of vesting upon a change in control of the Company.

 Litigation

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Autobytel, certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers ("Autobytel Individual Defendants") and underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. This action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the parties in the Autobytel case, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Autobytel. On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement approval was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the District Court to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to appeal.  The District Court ruled that appellant lacked standing to appeal.  The appellant has filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a notice of appeal of the District Court's opinion that the appellant lacks standing.  Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. If the settlement does not survive appeal, and Autobytel is found liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than Autobytel's insurance coverage, and the impact on Autobytel's financial statements could be material.

Between April and September 2001, eight separate purported class actions virtually identical to the one filed against Autobytel were filed against Autoweb.com, Inc. ("Autoweb"), certain of Autoweb's former directors and officers ("Autoweb Individual Defendants") and underwriters involved in Autoweb's initial public offering. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. It purports to allege violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Autoweb's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. Plaintiffs also allege that the prospectus for Autoweb's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including Autoweb's case, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Autoweb. On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The settlement approval was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the District Court to determine if the appellant is a class member with standing to appeal.  The District Court ruled that appellant lacked standing to appeal.  The appellant has filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a notice of appeal of the District Court's opinion that the appellant lacks standing.  Due to inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. If the settlement does not survive that appeal, and Autoweb is found liable, it is possible that damages could be greater than Autoweb's insurance coverage, and the impact on Autobytel's financial statements could be material.

From time to time, the Company may be involved in other litigation matters arising from the normal course of its business activities. The actions filed against the Company and other litigation, even if not meritorious, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention, and an adverse outcome in litigation could materially adversely affect its business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.