Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE H – Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase commitments – As of March 31, 2014, the Company had approximately $11 million in non-cancelable purchase contracts related to capital expenditures, primarily for manufacturing equipment in China.

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. 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), (the “Class Action”) 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 thereunderby 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's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on October 31, 2013. 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 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 directors 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 does not seek any damages or other relief from the Company. On March 3, 2014, defendants accepted service of the complaint in this action. On April 2, 2014, this action was transferred to the judge presiding over the Class Action. On April 3, 2014, the Court granted defendants' unopposed motion to extend their time to respond to the complaint to May 28, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the Court granted the parties' unopposed motion to stay this action until such time that the Court rules on defendants' motion to dismiss in the Class Action. The defendants intend to defend the action vigorously.