Litigation

6 Months Ended

Dec. 25, 2011

Litigation [Abstract]

Litigation

16. Litigation

Litigation from Vishay Proposal.

In August 2008, shortly after the Company's disclosure that Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") had made an unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the Company, a purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v. International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396461, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.  The complaint named as defendants the Company and all of its directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was unfair and that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by the Board.  In October 2008, the case was consolidated with five other substantially similar complaints seeking the same relief.  Later in October 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of investors based on the theory that the Board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay proposal.  In April 2009, the Superior Court sustained the Company’s demurrer to the amended complaint on the ground that the action should have been brought not as a class action but as a shareholder derivative action, and ordered the action to be dismissed with prejudice.  In June 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of dismissal.  On June 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s order sustaining the demurrer, but reversed the portion of the order that dismissed the action with prejudice.  The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions to permit plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint to attempt to plead a shareholder derivative action.   Pursuant to Section 472b of the California Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs’ amended complaint was due to be filed on or about September 26, 2011.  Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by that time. 

On November 14, 2011, plaintiffs indicated that they would not seek leave to file a second amended complaint and, in exchange for payment of plaintiffs’ appellate court costs of a de-minimus amount, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action.  On or about December 9, 2011, following the Company’s such payment to plaintiffs, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of the action.

EPC/Lidow Litigation. 

In September 2008, the Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Efficient Power Conversion Corp. ("EPC"), certain of EPC's employees and other defendants (including Alex Lidow, a former chief executive officer and director of the Company, and now a principal of EPC) alleging improper and  unauthorized use and/or misappropriation of certain Company confidential information, trade secrets and technology related to the Company's Gallium Nitride development program.  In March  2009, the Company refiled the suit in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC409749, and in March 2009, Alex Lidow and EPC filed suit in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC409750, against the Company alleging claims arising

out of Lidow's employment with and separation from the Company, for violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, and alleging the Company unfairly competed and interfered with EPC.  In September 2009, EPC dismissed its claims from the complaint in Case No. BC409750, and refiled its claims as a cross-complaint in case No. BC409749.  In January 2012, The Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Company on the wrongful termination cause of action filed by Lidow. 

Discovery is ongoing for the claims that remain unresolved by the Court’s summary adjudication determination, and the Company intends to vigorously pursue all rights and defenses available to it in these matters.

Angeles. v. Omega.    See Note 15, "Environmental Matters."

In addition to the above, the Company is involved in certain legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company intends to pursue its rights and defend against any claims brought by third parties vigorously. However, because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, should the outcome of these actions be unfavorable, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.