Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies

Warranty

The Company typically provides standard warranty coverage on its systems for one year from the date of final acceptance by providing labor and parts necessary to repair the systems during the warranty period. The Company accounts for the estimated warranty cost when revenue is recognized on the related system. Warranty cost is included in “Cost of sales” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. The estimated warranty cost is based on the Company’s historical experience with its systems and regional labor costs. The Company calculates the average service hours by region and parts expense per system utilizing actual service records to determine the estimated warranty charge. The Company updates its warranty estimates on a quarterly basis when the actual product performance or field expense differs from original estimates.

Changes in the Company’s product warranty reserves were as follows:


		December 31,
	2018		2017		2016
		(in thousands)
Balance, beginning of the year	$	6,532	$	4,217	$	8,159
Warranties issued		6,737		5,817		3,916
Addition from Ultratech acquisition		—		1,889		—
Consumption of reserves		(6,573)		(6,330)		(6,433)
Changes in estimate		1,156		939		(1,425)
Balance, end of the year	$	7,852	$	6,532	$	4,217

Minimum Lease Commitments

Minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2018 for property and equipment under operating lease agreements (exclusive of renewal options) are payable as follows:


	Operating
	Leases
	(in thousands)
Payments due by period:
2019	$	5,143
2020		5,056
2021		2,432
2022		1,812
2023		1,066
Thereafter		548
Total	$	16,057

Lease expense was $6.3 million, $5.3 million, and $2.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. In addition, the Company is obligated under such leases for certain other expenses, including real estate taxes and insurance.

Legal Proceedings

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the “Wolther Action”). On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute. The defendants filed a demurrer on January 10, 2019, asking the court to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. The demurrer is scheduled to be heard by the court on March 15, 2019. Veeco believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously contest this matter.

On December 21, 2018, a purported Veeco stockholder filed a derivative action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Peeler, et al., Case No. 18CV339925, on behalf of nominal defendant Veeco. The complaint seeks to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against current and former Veeco directors premised on purported misstatements and omissions in the registration statement relating to the Ultratech acquisition. On January 2, 2019, the court ordered this action stayed until the case management conference, which is scheduled for March 15, 2019. Veeco believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously contest this matter.

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. The Company 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.

Concentrations of Credit Risk

The Company depends on purchases from its ten largest customers, which accounted for 61% and 67% of net accounts receivable at December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

Customers who accounted for more than 10% of net accounts receivable or net sales are as follows:


	Accounts Receivable				Net Sales
	December 31,				For the Year Ended December 31,
Customer	2018		2017		2018		2017		2016
Customer A	*		24	%	*		21	%	14	%
Customer B	22	%	*		*		*		*
Customer C	*		*		12	%	*		*

*Less than 10% of aggregate accounts receivable or net sales

The Company manufactures and sells its products to companies in different geographic locations. Refer to Note 18, “Segment Reporting and Geographic Information,” for additional information. In certain instances, the Company requires deposits from its customers for a portion of the sales price in advance of shipment and performs periodic credit evaluations on its customers. Where appropriate, the Company requires letters of credit on certain non-U.S. sales arrangements. Receivables generally are due within 30 to 90 days from the date of invoice.

Receivable Purchase Agreement

In December 2017, the Company entered into a Receivable Purchase Agreement with a financial institution to sell certain of its trade receivables from customers without recourse, up to $23.0 million at any point in time for a term of one year. Pursuant to this agreement, the Company sold $15.0 million of Receivables during the year ended December 31, 2017 and maintained $8.0 million available under the agreement for additional sales of Receivables as of December 31, 2017. No sales were made under this agreement in 2018, and the agreement was terminated in 2018. The net sale of accounts receivable, under the agreement is reflected as a reduction of accounts receivable in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at the time of sale and any fees for the sale of trade receivables were not material for the periods presented.

Suppliers

The Company outsources certain functions to third parties, including the manufacture of several of its systems. While the Company relies on its outsourcing partners to perform their contracted functions, the Company maintains some level of internal manufacturing capability for these systems. In addition, certain of the components and sub-assemblies included in the Company’s products are obtained from a single source or a limited group of suppliers. The failure of the Company’s present outsourcing partners and suppliers to meet their contractual obligations and the Company’s inability to make alternative arrangements or resume the manufacture of these systems could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s revenues, profitability, cash flows, and relationships with its customers.

The Company had deposits with its suppliers of $12.8 million and $7.6 million at December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, that were included in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Purchase Commitments

The Company had purchase commitments of $91.5 million at December 31, 2018, substantially all of which will come due within one year. Purchase commitments are primarily for inventory used in manufacturing products and are partially offset by existing deposits with suppliers.

Bank Guarantees

The Company has bank guarantees and letters of credit issued by a financial institution on its behalf as needed. At December 31, 2018, outstanding bank guarantees and letters of credit totaled $6.8 million and unused bank guarantees and letters of credit of $58.9 million were available to be drawn upon.

Other

On November 1, 2018, the Company announced an attack on its computer systems. Upon learning of the attack, forensic experts were promptly engaged to assist with the investigation. The Company also notified law enforcement of the incident.

The investigation, which has largely been completed, determined that the Company’s computer systems were accessed by what appears to be a highly-sophisticated actor at various times over a period of years. It appears that proprietary and confidential information of the Company and certain personal information of the Company’s employees was accessed and may have been compromised as a result of the incident. Based on the evidence available at this time, the extent and impact of the compromise cannot be determined. The Company notified employees of this incident. The Company is continuing to analyze the incident, along with appropriate remediation of the Company’s computer systems. That analysis and the related remediation efforts could ultimately reveal that additional information was revealed or compromised.

Based on the evidence available at this time, the Company does not know if or when it will be able to determine the potential impact to the Company, whether it will be able to identify who is responsible for this attack or whether it will be able to pursue legal action or other remedies to protect any compromised information or recover damages related to the attack. This attack, including the expenses incurred to address it, may have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and/or financial condition. In addition, this attack may have caused the loss or misuse of proprietary and confidential information of the Company or others, result in litigation and potential liability, damage the Company’s reputation and/or otherwise harm its business.