Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Contingencies
Contingencies	Note 8 – Contingencies During the second quarter of 2015, our management became aware that certain of our products which were sold by our European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties whose property and interests in property may be blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224, Executive Order 13382 or that may be identified under Section 560.304 of 31 C.F.R. Part 560 as the “Government of Iran”. We ceased shipping to such distributor. In addition, the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated an internal review of this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. As a precautionary matter, concurrent initial notices of voluntary disclosure were submitted on June 25, 2015 to each of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”). The Audit Committee with the assistance of outside counsel completed their review in 2015. On December 15, 2015, we filed a letter with BIS (Office of Export Enforcement) with the conclusion that the products supplied to the distributor were not subject to United States Export Control jurisdiction. The Office of Export Enforcement issued a “no action” letter, concluding the voluntary self-disclosure process under the Export Administration Regulations. On January 13, 2016, we filed a letter with OFAC, with the conclusions that VASCO and its subsidiaries made no direct sales to Iran or any party listed by OFAC as a Specially Designated National over the five-year period under review (i.e., June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015). The letter further noted that the investigation did not identify any involvement on the part of senior management officials of VASCO, and to the contrary, noted that VASCO executive management officials had sought to implement procedures and provided notices to VASCO’s sales personnel to prevent the diversion of VASCO products to unauthorized destinations and end users. We have not received any response to the letter to OFAC and we cannot predict when OFAC will conclude their review of our voluntary self-disclosures. Based upon the OFAC guidelines for monetary penalties, in the fourth quarter of 2015, we accrued $900 for potential penalties if they are assessed by OFAC. Ultimately no penalty may be assessed or the penalty may be less or greater than the accrual, but in any event we do not believe that the final settlement will have a material adverse impact on our business. On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company’s business and its future prospects. This case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff, Bunk. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on March 31, 2017. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. VASCO is indemnifying its officers and directors for this matter. On October 9, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Elizabeth Herrera v. Hunt, et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑08937, naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain of its current and former executive officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff in the Herrera case voluntarily dismissed the action on July 12, 2017. Two additional complaints, captioned Beth Seltzer v. Hunt, et al., case number 2015‑ch‑15541, and William Hooper v. Hunt, et al., case number 2016‑ch‑04054, were filed on October 22, 2015 and March 22, 2016, respectively, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois naming the same defendants. The complaints assert, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making material misstatements in, and omitting material information from, the Company’s public disclosures and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and properly manage the Company. Among other things, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief. On October 29, 2015, a defendant removed the Seltzer action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thereafter, the plaintiff led a motion to remand the action back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which was denied on February 3, 2016. On February 9, 2016, the court granted an agreed motion for voluntary dismissal of the Seltzer action, which dismissed the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff’s individual claims. As for the Hooper action, the court granted a stay on June 8, 2016 and on July 18, 2017, the plaintiff in Hooper amended the complaint to largely mirror the amended complaint in Bunk. On July 19, 2017, a derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Fancesco D’Angelo v. Hunt, et. al., naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain former officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. This complaint largely follows the allegations in the Bunk case. The D’Angelo case has been consolidated with the Hooper case and remains subject to stay. In February 2017, we learned that one of our integrated reseller customers, and certain of its end customers, were named as defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit in Japan related to our CRONTO technology. We have indemnification obligations in favor of our customer and are working with them to defend such suit. We believe there are strong grounds to argue that the plaintiff’s patent is invalid and we are defending our technology vigorously. However, the outcome of this suit is uncertain. If the plaintiff were able to succeed in this case and impede our ability to sell, and our customers’ ability to use, products utilizing our CRONTO technology, then such result could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations. On March 14, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., claiming VASCO infringed on certain patent rights of the plaintiff. On May 8, 2017, VASCO answered the complaint denying the allegations of patent infringement. The parties are currently engaged in early motion practice in the case. The plaintiff has also brought suit against various other companies in the cybersecurity industry. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Note 8 – Contingencies

During the second quarter of 2015, our management became aware that certain of our products which were sold by our European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties whose property and interests in property may be blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224, Executive Order 13382 or that may be identified under Section 560.304 of 31 C.F.R. Part 560 as the “Government of Iran”.

We ceased shipping to such distributor. In addition, the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated an internal review of this matter with the assistance of outside counsel. As a precautionary matter, concurrent initial notices of voluntary disclosure were submitted on June 25, 2015 to each of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”).

The Audit Committee with the assistance of outside counsel completed their review in 2015. On December 15, 2015, we filed a letter with BIS (Office of Export Enforcement) with the conclusion that the products supplied to the distributor were not subject to United States Export Control jurisdiction. The Office of Export Enforcement issued a “no action” letter, concluding the voluntary self-disclosure process under the Export Administration Regulations.

On January 13, 2016, we filed a letter with OFAC, with the conclusions that VASCO and its subsidiaries made no direct sales to Iran or any party listed by OFAC as a Specially Designated National over the five-year period under review (i.e., June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015). The letter further noted that the investigation did not identify any involvement on the part of senior management officials of VASCO, and to the contrary, noted that VASCO executive management officials had sought to implement procedures and provided notices to VASCO’s sales personnel to prevent the diversion of VASCO products to unauthorized destinations and end users.

We have not received any response to the letter to OFAC and we cannot predict when OFAC will conclude their review of our voluntary self-disclosures. Based upon the OFAC guidelines for monetary penalties, in the fourth quarter of 2015, we accrued $900 for potential penalties if they are assessed by OFAC. Ultimately no penalty may be assessed or the penalty may be less or greater than the accrual, but in any event we do not believe that the final settlement will have a material adverse impact on our business.

On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company’s business and its future prospects. This case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff, Bunk. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on March 31, 2017. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. VASCO is indemnifying its officers and directors for this matter.

On October 9, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Elizabeth Herrera v. Hunt, et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑08937, naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain of its current and former executive officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff in the Herrera case voluntarily dismissed the action on July 12, 2017. Two additional complaints, captioned Beth Seltzer v. Hunt, et al., case number 2015‑ch‑15541, and William Hooper v. Hunt, et al., case number 2016‑ch‑04054, were filed on October 22, 2015 and March 22, 2016, respectively, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois naming the same defendants.

The complaints assert, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making material misstatements in, and omitting material information from, the Company’s public disclosures and by failing to maintain adequate internal controls and properly manage the Company. Among other things, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

On October 29, 2015, a defendant removed the Seltzer action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thereafter, the plaintiff led a motion to remand the action back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which was denied on February 3, 2016. On February 9, 2016, the court granted an agreed motion for voluntary dismissal of the Seltzer action, which dismissed the action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff’s individual claims. As for the Hooper action, the court granted a stay on June 8, 2016 and on July 18, 2017, the plaintiff in Hooper amended the complaint to largely mirror the amended complaint in Bunk.

On July 19, 2017, a derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Fancesco D’Angelo v. Hunt, et. al., naming VASCO’s Board of Directors and certain former officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. This complaint largely follows the allegations in the Bunk case. The D’Angelo case has been consolidated with the Hooper case and remains subject to stay.

In February 2017, we learned that one of our integrated reseller customers, and certain of its end customers, were named as defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit in Japan related to our CRONTO technology. We have indemnification obligations in favor of our customer and are working with them to defend such suit. We believe there are strong grounds to argue that the plaintiff’s patent is invalid and we are defending our technology vigorously. However, the outcome of this suit is uncertain. If the plaintiff were able to succeed in this case and impede our ability to sell, and our customers’ ability to use, products utilizing our CRONTO technology, then such result could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

On March 14, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., claiming VASCO infringed on certain patent rights of the plaintiff. On May 8, 2017, VASCO answered the complaint denying the allegations of patent infringement. The parties are currently engaged in early motion practice in the case. The plaintiff has also brought suit against various other companies in the cybersecurity industry. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.