Commitments and Contingencies (Text Block)

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]

NOTE 16 –COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating leases–The Company leases offices, manufacturing plants and warehouses under operating lease agreements expiring through December 2020. Rental expense amounted to approximately $9 million, $7 million and $7 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases at December 31, 2013 are:

2014	$	8,247
2015		6,709
2016		5,919
2017		5,482
2018 and thereafter		3,132
	$	29,489

In addition, the Company has two fifty year land right leases: one in Chengdu, China, on which the Company does not pay rent and which expires in 2061; and one in Shanghai, China, onwhich the Company does not pay rent and which expires in 2056.

Purchase commitments – The Company has entered into non-cancelable purchase contracts for capital expenditures, primarily for manufacturing equipment in China, for approximately $9 million at December 31, 2013.

Contingencies - From time to time, the Company may be involved in a variety of legal matters that arise in the normal course of business. Based on information available, the Company evaluates the likelihood of potential outcomes. The Company records the appropriate liability when the amount is deemed probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, the Company does not accrue for estimated legal fees and other directly related costs as they are expensed as incurred.

The Company is currently a party to a purported stockholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, entitled Scherer v. Keh-Shew Lu, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00358-UNA (D. Del. filed Mar. 5, 2013), on behalf of the Company against its directors, in which plaintiff alleges that (a) the Board approved awards of stock options to Dr. Keh-Shew Lu, our President and Chief Executive Officer, in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 that exceeded the limitation on the number of shares of the Company's Common Stock that may be purchased upon the exercise of options granted to any person in any given year under the Company's 2001 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan as amended by the stockholders on May 28, 2009; (b) the Company's disclosures in its 2010, 2011 and 2012 proxy statements regarding the limitation on the number of shares of the Company's Common Stock that may be purchased upon the exercise of options granted to any person in any given year under the Company's 2001 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan as amended by the stockholders on May 28, 2009 were inaccurate; and (c) the Company's disclosures in its 2010, 2011 and 2012 proxy statements that the grants of stock options to Dr. Lu in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 complied with the terms of the Company's 2001 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan as amended by the stockholders on May 28, 2009 were incorrect. The Compensation Committee reviewed the grants of stock options to Dr. Lu in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (each such annual grant, an “Option Grant”), and approved a Confirmation Agreement, dated April 1, 2013, in which the Company and Dr. Lu agreed and confirmed that Dr. Lu will assert no claim that any Option Grant in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012 provided for the purchase of more than 100,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock, and that each Option Grant document be deemed amended to reflect the foregoing 100,000 share limitation. On April 3, 2013, defendants and the Company filed answers to the complaint. On May 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the action on the ground that the claims are moot. On June 24, 2013, the Court approved the parties' stipulation providing for the withdrawal of the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the dismissal of the action as moot upon the filing and adjudication of plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs. On July 29, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On September 20, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to plaintiff's motion. On October 11, 2013, plaintiff filed her reply in further support of her motion. The motion is now fully submitted. No hearing date has been set for this motion.

The Company is also currently a party to a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013), against the Company, Dr. Lu and Richard D. White. In this action, plaintiff purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 9, 2011 and June 9, 2011, alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly misleading public statements during the class period regarding the labor market in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects. On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead plaintiff's counsel and the Ward & Smith Law Firm as lead plaintiff's liaison counsel. On August 1, 2013, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint reiterating the same claims for relief against the same defendants as asserted in the original complaint. On September 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on October 31, 2013. Defendants filed their reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on December 3, 2013. Lead plaintiff filed its sur-reply in further opposition of defendant's motion to dismiss on December 13, 2013. The motion is now fully submitted. No hearing date has been set for this motion. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all discovery and other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to dismiss. The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

On February 20, 2014, a purported “tag-along” stockholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, entitled Persson v. Keh-Shew Lu, Case No. 4:14-cv-00108-RC-ALM (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 20, 2014), on behalf of the Company against its directors, in which plaintiff alleges that the Board breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to make allegedly misleading public statements in 2011 regarding the labor market in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects, by failing to maintain internal controls and by selling shares of Diodes stock while allegedly in possession of material nonpublic information regarding the labor market in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects. The complaint has not yet been served. The complaint does not seek any damages or other relief against the Company. The defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.