Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings and Contingencies	Note 14 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies We are a party to or have intellectual property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our financial results in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, U.S. GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated. We include various types of indemnification clauses in our customer agreements. These indemnifications may include, but are not limited to, infringement claims related to our intellectual property, direct damages and consequential damages. The type and amount of such indemnifications vary substantially based on our assessment of risk and reward associated with each agreement. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification clauses is minimal, and we cannot determine the maximum amount of potential future payments, if any, related to such indemnification provisions. We have no liabilities recorded for these clauses as of September 30, 2021. A complaint was filed on August 20, 2020 against OneSpan and certain of its officers, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain alleged material misstatements and omissions. The case is captioned Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.) (the “Securities Class Action”). Specifically, the plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges, among other things, that certain statements about OneSpan’s business were misleading because of defendants’ failure to disclose that OneSpan purportedly had inadequate internal procedures and controls over financial reporting and related disclosures; and OneSpan purportedly downplayed the negative impacts of immaterial errors in its financial statements. On April 28, 2021, the Securities Class Action was dismissed by the court without prejudice. A complaint, related in subject matter to the Securities Class Action, was filed on October 23, 2020 against certain of OneSpan’s officers and directors, and names OneSpan as a nominal defendant. The case is captioned Klein v. Boroditzky, et al., No. 1:20-cv-06310 (N.D. Ill.) (the “Derivative Action” and, collectively with the Securities Class Action, the “Litigation”). The plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and corporate waste, as well as a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, based on the same alleged wrongdoing pled in the Securities Class Action. On February 16, 2021, on the parties’ agreed motion, the court stayed the action pending a decision on the then-anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On June 28, 2021 the Klein case was dismissed by the court without prejudice. On April 2, 2021, a different purported shareholder of the Company, represented by one of the same law firms representing plaintiff in the Klein case, filed second derivative suit in the Northern District of Illinois arising out of the same events that led to the filing of the Securities Class Action. The case is captioned Herrera v. Boroditsky, et al., 1:21-cv-01789 (N.D. Ill.). The factual allegations are substantially similar to those in Klein, except that the complaint does not contain express allegations regarding the pendency of the Securities Class Action and only one cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty, is asserted. On June 28, 2021 the Herrera case was dismissed by the court without prejudice. From time to time, we have been involved in litigation and claims incidental to the conduct of our business, such as compensation claims from current or former employees in Europe or commercial disputes with vendors. We expect that to continue. Excluding matters specifically disclosed above, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in management’s opinion, is likely to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations.

Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Note 14 – Legal Proceedings and Contingencies

We are a party to or have intellectual property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our financial results in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress.

Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, U.S. GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

We include various types of indemnification clauses in our customer agreements. These indemnifications may include, but are not limited to, infringement claims related to our intellectual property, direct damages and consequential damages. The type and amount of such indemnifications vary substantially based on our assessment of risk and reward associated with each agreement. We believe the estimated fair value of these indemnification clauses is minimal, and we cannot determine the maximum amount of potential future payments, if any, related to such indemnification provisions. We have no liabilities recorded for these clauses as of September 30, 2021.

A complaint was filed on August 20, 2020 against OneSpan and certain of its officers, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain alleged material misstatements and omissions. The case is captioned Almendariz v. OneSpan Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill.) (the “Securities Class Action”). Specifically, the plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges, among other things, that certain statements about OneSpan’s business

were misleading because of defendants’ failure to disclose that OneSpan purportedly had inadequate internal procedures and controls over financial reporting and related disclosures; and OneSpan purportedly downplayed the negative impacts of immaterial errors in its financial statements. On April 28, 2021, the Securities Class Action was dismissed by the court without prejudice.

A complaint, related in subject matter to the Securities Class Action, was filed on October 23, 2020 against certain of OneSpan’s officers and directors, and names OneSpan as a nominal defendant. The case is captioned Klein v. Boroditzky, et al., No. 1:20-cv-06310 (N.D. Ill.) (the “Derivative Action” and, collectively with the Securities Class Action, the “Litigation”). The plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and corporate waste, as well as a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, based on the same alleged wrongdoing pled in the Securities Class Action. On February 16, 2021, on the parties’ agreed motion, the court stayed the action pending a decision on the then-anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. On June 28, 2021 the Klein case was dismissed by the court without prejudice.

On April 2, 2021, a different purported shareholder of the Company, represented by one of the same law firms representing plaintiff in the Klein case, filed second derivative suit in the Northern District of Illinois arising out of the same events that led to the filing of the Securities Class Action. The case is captioned Herrera v. Boroditsky, et al., 1:21-cv-01789 (N.D. Ill.). The factual allegations are substantially similar to those in Klein, except that the complaint does not contain express allegations regarding the pendency of the Securities Class Action and only one cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty, is asserted. On June 28, 2021 the Herrera case was dismissed by the court without prejudice.

From time to time, we have been involved in litigation and claims incidental to the conduct of our business, such as compensation claims from current or former employees in Europe or commercial disputes with vendors. We expect that to continue. Excluding matters specifically disclosed above, we are not a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in management’s opinion, is likely to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations.