Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Operating Lease Commitments

The Company leases its facilities under non-cancelable operating leases. These operating leases expire at various dates through December 2019 and generally require the payment of real estate taxes, insurance, maintenance and operating costs.

The expected minimum aggregate future obligations under non-cancelable leases as of September 30, 2011 were as follows (in thousands):



	Operating Leases
Remaining 2011	$	6,218
2012	23,682
2013	22,079
2014	20,919
2015	19,447
Thereafter	56,288
Total	$	148,633

Purchase Commitments

The Company has long-term commitments for bandwidth usage and co-location services with various network and Internet service providers. For the remainder of 2011 and for the years ending December 31, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, the minimum commitments pursuant to these contracts in effect as of September 30, 2011, are approximately $37.0 million, $51.3 million, $8.6 million, $0.3 million and $0.1 million, respectively. In addition, as of September 30, 2011, the Company had entered into purchase orders with various vendors for aggregate purchase commitments of $50.6 million, which are expected to be paid over the next twelve months.

Litigation

Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class action lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company as well as against the underwriters of its October 28, 1999 initial public offering of common stock. The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock during different time periods, all beginning on October 28, 1999 and ending on various dates. The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection with the Company’s initial public offering. On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in the previously filed separate actions. The consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class period as October 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000. A Special Litigation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and their insurers. The parties negotiated a settlement that was subject to approval by the District Court. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement agreement. On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating the settlement. On August 25, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of a new proposed settlement (among plaintiffs, the underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer defendants), plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes. On October 5, 2009, the District Court issued an opinion and order granting the lead plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes. An order and final judgment was entered on November 4, 2009. Notices of appeal of the District Court’s October 5, 2009 opinion and order have been filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by certain objecting plaintiffs. If the District Court’s order is upheld on appeal, the Company would have no material liability in connection with this litigation, and the litigation would be resolved. The Company has recorded no liability for this matter as of September 30, 2011.

In addition, on or about October 3, 2007, a purported Akamai shareholder, Vanessa Simmonds, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, against the underwriters of its 1999 initial public offering of common stock, alleging violations of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint alleges that the combined number of shares of the Company’s common stock beneficially owned by the lead underwriters and certain unnamed officers, directors and principal shareholders exceeded ten percent of its outstanding common stock from the date of the Company’s initial public offering on October 29, 1999, through at least October 28, 2000. The complaint further alleges that those entities and individuals were thus subject to the reporting requirements of Section 16(a) and the short-swing trading prohibition of Section 16(b) and failed to comply with those provisions. The complaint seeks to recover from the lead underwriters any “short-swing profits” obtained by them in violation of Section 16(b). The Company was named as a nominal defendant in the action but has no liability for the asserted claims. None of the Company’s directors or officers serving in such capacities at the time of its initial public offering are currently named as defendants in this action, but there can be no guarantee that the complaint will not be amended or a new complaint or suit filed to name such directors or officers as defendants in this action or another action alleging a violation of the same provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On March 12, 2009, the Court granted a joint motion by the Company and other issuer defendants to dismiss the complaint without prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to make an adequate demand on the Company prior to filing her complaint. In its order, the Court stated it would not permit the plaintiff to amend her demand letters while pursuing her claims in the litigation.

Because the Court dismissed the case on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it did not specifically reach the issue of whether the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. However, the Court also granted a Joint Motion to Dismiss by the underwriter defendants in the action with respect to cases involving non-moving issuers, holding that the cases were barred by the applicable statute of limitations because the issuers’ shareholders had notice of the potential claims more than five years prior to filing suit. Ms. Simmonds appealed. On December 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss the moving issuers’ cases (including the Company’s) on the grounds that plaintiff’s demand letters were insufficient to put the issuers on notice of the claims asserted against them and further ordered that the dismissals be made with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the District Court’s decision on the underwriters’ motion to dismiss as to the claims arising from the non-moving issuers’ IPOs, finding plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. On January 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied various parties’ petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc but stayed its rulings to allow for appeals to the United States Supreme Court. On April 5, 2011, Ms. Simmonds filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision relating to the adequacy of the pre-suit demand. On April 15, 2011, underwriter defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision relating to the statute of limitation issue. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court denied Simmonds' petition regarding the demand issue and granted the underwriters' petition relating to the statute of limitations issue. The Company does not expect the results of this action to have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. The Company has recorded no liability for this matter as of September 30, 2011.

The Company is party to various other litigation matters that management considers routine and incidental to its business. Management does not expect the results of any of these routine actions to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

Guarantees

The Company has identified guarantees in accordance with the authoritative guidance for guarantor’s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees, including indirect guarantees of indebtedness of others, which is an interpretation of previous accounting statements and a rescission of previous guidance. This guidance elaborates on the existing disclosure requirements for most guarantees, including loan guarantees such as standby letters of credit. The guidance also clarifies that at the time an entity issues a guarantee, that entity must recognize an initial liability for the fair value, or market value, of the obligation it assumes under the guarantee and must disclose that information in its interim and annual financial statements. The Company evaluates losses for guarantees under the statement for accounting for contingencies, as interpreted by the guidance for guarantor’s accounting and disclosure requirements for guarantees, including direct guarantees of indebtedness of others. The Company considers such factors as the degree of probability that the Company would be required to satisfy the liability associated with the guarantee and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss. To date, the Company has not encountered material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in its financial statements. The fair value of the Company’s outstanding guarantees as of September 30, 2011 was determined to be immaterial.