(b) Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

Legacy TCS Intellectual Property Matter - Vehicle IP

In December 2009, Vehicle IP, LLC ("Vehicle IP") filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court"), seeking monetary damages, fees and expenses and other relief from, among others, our customer Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), based on the VZ Navigator product, and TCS is defending Verizon against Vehicle IP. In 2013, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that the products in question did not infringe plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff appealed that decision and, in 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's claim construction, overturned the District Court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Fact discovery and expert discovery has closed. Substantive settlement conversations have occurred but, to-date, the parties have been unable to reach a settlement. As discussed in Note (6) - "Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities," we have accrued certain legal and settlement costs related to the Vehicle IP matter. The accrued settlement costs related to this matter do not reflect the final amounts we actually may pay, if any.

On May 30, 2017, we received positive news that the District Court issued a supplemental claim construction order in our favor. As a result, the plaintiff agreed to file a joint status report to the District Court that requested that the District Court cancel the trial date (which was scheduled for July 2017). On July 28, 2017, the parties entered into a stipulation that the defendants’ accused products do not infringe Vehicle IP’s patent under the District Court’s current revised construction of the disputed patent claim term and requested that the District Court therefore enter a judgment of noninfringement. On August 18, 2017, the court entered such a judgment of noninfringement. As expected, following the judgment, Vehicle IP filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2017. Vehicle IP's opening brief on appeal of the District Court's claim construction was submitted in October 2017. TCS' brief in response was filed on January 19, 2018. Vehicle IP's reply brief was filed on February 23, 2018. Oral argument was held on August 8, 2018 and an appellate ruling may take several months to be issued. If the District Court's current claim construction is ultimately upheld at the appellate level, it is possible that we may not have to go to trial or pay any monetary damages.

Ongoing legal expenses associated with defending this matter and its ultimate resolution could vary and have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows in future periods.

Other Matters

In October 2014, we disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") that we learned during a self-assessment of our export transactions that a shipment of modems sent to a Canadian customer by Comtech EF Data Corp. was incorporated into a communication system, the ultimate end user of which was the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority. The sales value of this equipment was approximately $288,000. At the time of shipment, OFAC regulations prohibited U.S. persons from doing business directly or indirectly with Sudan. In late 2015, OFAC issued an administrative subpoena seeking further information about the disclosed transaction. We have responded to the subpoena, including alerting OFAC to Comtech’s repair of three modems for a customer in Lebanon who may have rerouted the modems from Lebanon to Sudan without the required U.S. licensing authorization. Subsequently, in October 2017, U.S. sanctions with respect to Sudan were revoked. Consistent with the revocation of the Sudan Sanction Regulations ("SSR"), shipments to the Sudan Civil Aviation Authority by U.S. persons are now permissible. We are not able to predict when OFAC will complete its review, nor whether it will take any enforcement action against us in light of the recent revocation of the SSR. If OFAC determines that we have violated U.S. trade sanctions, civil and criminal penalties could apply, and we may suffer reputational harm. Even though we take precautions to avoid engaging in transactions that may violate U.S. trade sanctions, those measures may not be effective in every instance.

In May 2018, we were informed by the Office of Export Enforcement ("OEE") of the Department of Commerce ("DoC") that it was forwarding to the DoC's Office of Chief Counsel, the results of its audit of international shipments by Comtech Xicom Technology, Inc. for further review and possible determination of an administrative penalty. We fully cooperated with the OEE in their audit and, based on our self-assessment of the approximately 7,800 individual transactions audited, have determined that six (6) transactions may not have been fully in compliance with the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"). These six (6) items, for which export licenses were not obtained, were either spares or repaired power amplifier subassembly components valued at less than $100,000 (in aggregate) and were shipped to Brazil, Italy, Russia, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. The EAR provides an exception to the requirement to obtain an export license for the replacement of a defective or damaged component. During our self-assessment, we determined that we inadvertently did not obtain export licenses for the spares, or had evidence of the return or destruction of the defective or damaged components necessary to authorize our use of the export license exception for the replacements. Since discovering this issue, we have implemented additional controls and procedures and have increased awareness of these specific export requirements throughout the Company to help avoid similar occurrences in the future. Administrative penalties under the EAR can range from a warning letter to a denial of export privileges. Given the lapsed legal status of the Export Administration Act ("EAA") itself, administrative penalties under the EAR are currently determined pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), which can reach the greater of twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation or approximately $300,000 per violation. We have not recorded an accrual related to a possible administrative penalty and continue to work cooperatively with the OEE.

In the ordinary course of business, we include indemnification provisions in certain of our customer contracts to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse such customers for certain losses, including but not limited to losses related to third-party claims of intellectual property infringement arising from the customer’s use of our products or services. From time to time, customers seek indemnification under these contractual arrangements and we evaluate such claims as and when they arise. We do not always agree with customers that they are entitled to indemnification and in such cases reject their indemnification claims. However, pending or future claims asserted against us by a party that we agree to indemnify could result in legal costs and damages that could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.