Commitments, Contingencies and Other

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

13. Commitments, Contingencies and Other

Purchase Obligations

Aggregate annual future minimum payments under non-cancelable agreements are as follows:


As of June 30, 2020	Non-cancelable agreements
2020	$	17,541
2021	3,665
2022	2,207
2023 and thereafter	1,563
Total	$	24,976

Legal Matters

In the ordinary course of business, the Company is regularly subject to various claims, suits, regulatory inquiries and investigations. The Company records a liability for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable, and the loss can be reasonably estimated. Management has also identified certain other legal matters where they believe an unfavorable outcome is not probable and, therefore, no reserve is established. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against the Company, including claims where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, will not have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. The Company also evaluates other contingent matters, including income and non-income tax contingencies, to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and estimated extent of potential loss. It is possible that an unfavorable outcome of one or more of these lawsuits or other contingencies could have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of the Company.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Securities Law Action”). After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead plaintiff Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between October 28, 2014 and June 13, 2017. On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. On August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material information concerning the Company’s financial results, business operations, and prospects. On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. On May 29, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without prejudice. The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

On September 15, 2017, October 24, 2017, October 27, 2017 and October 30, 2017, the Company’s shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against certain of its officers and directors and the Company (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Derivative Suits”). On May 24, 2018, the Court consolidated the Derivative Suits and appointed Lisa LeBoeuf as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff designated as the Operative Complaint the complaint she previously had filed on October 27, 2017. On March 11, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Operative Complaint, which the Court granted in substantial part on November 26, 2019. On December 10, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration respecting the only claim to survive the motion to dismiss.. On June 12, 2020, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim without prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. On July 13, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges claims related to breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint’s allegations relate substantially to the same facts as those underlying the Securities Law Action described above. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and for the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

On March 7, 2019, Synchronoss shareholders, Beth Daniel and Juan Solis, filed a separate derivative lawsuit against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors and the Company (as nominal defendant) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, asserting substantially the same allegations as those underlying the Derivative Suits and the Securities Law Action described above. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and for the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. On May 20, 2019, the parties stipulated to a stay of the action pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Derivative Suits. The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the Derivative Suits at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

On June 11, 2020 and June 12, 2020, the Company’s shareholders filed derivative lawsuits against certain of its officers and directors and the Company (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Demand Refused Derivative Complaints”). The Demand Refused Derivative Complaints allege claims related to breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and alleged violations of securities laws. The complaints’ allegations relate substantially to the same facts as those underlying the Securities Law Action described above. The Demand Refused Derivative Complaints further allege that each plaintiff made a demand upon the Company’s Board of Directors to investigate the alleged misconduct and that such demand was wrongfully refused. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and for the Company to take steps to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Except as set forth above, the Company is not currently subject to any legal proceedings that could have a material adverse effect on its operations; however, it may from time to time become a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is currently the plaintiff in several patent infringement cases. The defendants in several of these cases have filed counterclaims. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of the cases at this time due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company continues to pursue its claims and believes that the counterclaims are without merit, and the Company intends to defend against all of such counterclaims.