Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Oct. 01, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

10.  Commitments and Contingencies

Securities Litigation

On December 6, 2001, a class action complaint for violations of U.S. federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, four officers individually and the three investment banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in connection with the Company’s initial public offering of common stock. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the Company’s initial public offering did not disclose that (1) the underwriters solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors, and (2) the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices. The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the four officers of the Company who had been named individually. On December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit vacated a decision by the District Court granting class certification in six of the coordinated cases, which are intended to serve as test, or “focus” cases. The plaintiffs selected these six cases, which do not include the Company. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including the parties in the case against the Company, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the Company. On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Judgment was entered on January 10, 2010. 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 the appellant is not a class member with 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 opinion that he is not a class member.

As the litigation process is inherently uncertain, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the above described matter if the settlement does not survive appeal. While the Company does maintain liability insurance, it could incur losses that are not covered by its liability insurance or that exceed the limits of its liability insurance. Such losses could have a material impact on the Company’s business and its results of operations or financial position.

Other

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that have arisen in the normal course of business. While the ultimate results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not expect them to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Operating Leases

In March 2006, the Company entered into an operating lease agreement and a related participation agreement for a facility at 400 W. Cesar Chavez (“400 WCC”) in Austin, Texas for its corporate headquarters. In March 2008, the Company entered into an operating lease agreement and a related participation agreement for a facility at 200 W. Cesar Chavez (“200 WCC”) in Austin, Texas for the expansion of its corporate headquarters. During the terms of the leases, the Company has on-going options to purchase the buildings for purchase prices of approximately $44.3 million for 400 WCC and $50.1 million for 200 WCC. Alternatively, the Company can cause each such property to be sold to third parties provided it is not in default under that property’s lease. The Company is contingently liable on a first dollar loss basis for up to $35.3 million to the extent that the 400 WCC sale proceeds are less than the $44.3 million purchase option and up to $40.0 million to the extent that the 200 WCC sale proceeds are less than the $50.1 million purchase option.

Discontinued Operations Indemnification

In fiscal 2007, the Company sold its Aero® transceiver, AeroFONE™ single-chip phone and power amplifier product lines (the “Aero product lines”) to NXP B.V. and NXP Semiconductors France SAS (collectively “NXP”). In connection with the sale of the Aero product lines, the Company agreed to indemnify NXP with respect to liabilities for certain tax matters. There is no contractual limit on exposure with respect to such matters. As of October 1, 2011, the Company had no material liabilities recorded with respect to this indemnification obligation.