12. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

Derivative Lawsuit

In October 2007, a purported Sycamore Networks, Inc. stockholder filed a complaint for violation of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits short-swing trading, against the Company’s Initial Public Offering underwriters. The complaint, Vanessa Simmonds v. Morgan Stanley, et al., filed in the District Court for the Western District of Washington (“District Court”) seeks recovery of short-swing profits. On April 28, 2008, the District Court established a briefing schedule for motions to dismiss and ruled that all discovery be stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. The District Court found the motions appropriate for oral argument which was held on January 6, 2009. On March 16, 2009, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case. On March 31, 2009, the plaintiff 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. In remanding, the Ninth Circuit advised the non-moving issuers and underwriters to file in the District Court the same challenges to plaintiff’s demand letters that moving issuers had filed.

On December 16, 2010, the underwriters filed a petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Appellant Vanessa Simmonds also filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On January 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. It further ordered that no further petitions for rehearing may be filed.

On January 24, 2011, the underwriters filed a motion to stay the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in the cases involving the non-moving issuers. On January 25, 2011, the Ninth Circuit granted the underwriters’ motion and ordered that the mandate in the cases involving the non-moving issuers is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”). Appellant Vanessa Simmonds moved to join the underwriters’ motion and requested the Ninth Circuit stay the mandate in all cases. On January 26, 2011, the Ninth Circuit granted Appellant’s motion and ruled that the mandate in all cases (including the Company’s and other moving issuers) was stayed for ninety days. On April 5, 2011, Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s December 2, 2010 decision. On April 15, 2011, the underwriters filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s December 2, 2010 decision relating to the statute of limitations 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 Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 29, 2011. On March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s holding that petitioner’s claims were not time-barred, and remanded the cases to the District Court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. On June 7, 2012, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit was formally entered. On June 11, 2012, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice as to the adequacy-of-the-pre-suit demand issue, and without prejudice as to all other issues.

The Company is named as a nominal defendant. No recovery is sought from the Company in this matter.

Other Matters

From time to time the Company is a party to litigation and other disputes which it considers routine and incidental to its business. Our management does not expect the results of any of these actions to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition.

Guarantees

As of July 31, 2012, the Company’s guarantees requiring disclosure consist of its accrued warranty obligations, indemnifications for intellectual property infringement claims and indemnifications for officers and directors.

In the normal course of business, the Company may also agree to indemnify other parties, including customers, lessors and parties to other transactions with the Company with respect to certain matters. The Company has agreed to hold these other parties harmless against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or other claims made against certain parties. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company’s operating results or financial position. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a liability for these agreements at July 31, 2012 or July 31, 2011 as the Company believes the fair value is not material.

The Company has agreed to indemnify its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences arising as a result of the officer or director serving in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is not limited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that reduces its exposure and may enable the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company did not incur any expense under these arrangements in fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2011. Due to the Company’s inability to estimate its liabilities in connection with these agreements, the Company has not recorded a liability for these agreements at July 31, 2012 or July 31, 2011. The Company maintains insurance policies whereby certain payments may be recoverable.

Warranty Liability

The Company records a warranty liability for parts and labor on its products at the time revenue is recognized. Warranty periods are generally three years from installation date. The estimate of the warranty liability is based primarily on the Company’s historical experience in product failure rates and the expected material and labor costs to provide warranty services.

The following table summarizes the activity related to the product warranty liability (in thousands):


	Year Ended July 31,
	2012			2011
Beginning Balance	$	1,140		$	1,720
Accruals for warranties during the period		238			203
Settlements		(306	)		(451	)
Adjustments		—			(332	)

Ending Balance	$	1,072		$	1,140