Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 5 - Commitments and Contingencies Minimum lease commitments At March 31, 2017, Veeco’s total future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases have not changed significantly from the disclosure in the 2016 Form 10-K. Purchase commitments Veeco has purchase commitments of $81.5 million at March 31, 2017, substantially all of which become due within one year. Bank guarantees Veeco has bank guarantees and letters of credit issued by a financial institution on its behalf as needed. At March 31, 2017, outstanding bank guarantees and letters of credit totaled $4.7 million, and unused bank guarantees and letters of credit of $66.0 million were available to be drawn upon. Legal proceedings On March 17, 2017, an Ultratech shareholder filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01468-PJH, on behalf of itself and all other Ultratech shareholders against Ultratech, its directors at the time the acquisition was announced, Veeco, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares, agreed to unreasonable deal-protection measures, and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed on March 13, 2017. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already implemented, an order directing the dissemination of a proxy statement that is not false or misleading, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On March 22, 2017, two other Ultratech shareholders filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned De Letter et al. v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01542-WHA, on behalf of themselves and all other Ultratech shareholders against Ultratech and its directors at the time the acquisition was announced. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. The complaint further alleges that the sale process was flawed and tainted by the self-interest of certain directors. The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed on March 13, 2017. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already implemented, compensatory damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The defendants have not yet responded to either complaint. While it is too early to predict the outcome of litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses, Veeco believes these lawsuits are without merit. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. Veeco is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Veeco does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Note 5 - Commitments and Contingencies

Minimum lease commitments

At March 31, 2017, Veeco’s total future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases have not changed significantly from the disclosure in the 2016 Form 10-K.

Purchase commitments

Veeco has purchase commitments of $81.5 million at March 31, 2017, substantially all of which become due within one year.

Bank guarantees

Veeco has bank guarantees and letters of credit issued by a financial institution on its behalf as needed. At March 31, 2017, outstanding bank guarantees and letters of credit totaled $4.7 million, and unused bank guarantees and letters of credit of $66.0 million were available to be drawn upon.

Legal proceedings

On March 17, 2017, an Ultratech shareholder filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01468-PJH, on behalf of itself and all other Ultratech shareholders against Ultratech, its directors at the time the acquisition was announced, Veeco, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares, agreed to unreasonable deal-protection measures, and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed on March 13, 2017. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already implemented, an order directing the dissemination of a proxy statement that is not false or misleading, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

On March 22, 2017, two other Ultratech shareholders filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned De Letter et al. v. Ultratech, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01542-WHA, on behalf of themselves and all other Ultratech shareholders against Ultratech and its directors at the time the acquisition was announced. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. The complaint further alleges that the sale process was flawed and tainted by the self-interest of certain directors. The complaint seeks to recover under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed on March 13, 2017. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already implemented, compensatory damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees.

The defendants have not yet responded to either complaint. While it is too early to predict the outcome of litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses, Veeco believes these lawsuits are without merit. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future.

Veeco is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Veeco does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.