Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Although the Company expects to incur significant legal fees in connection with the below legal proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of such legal fees and therefore, such fees will be expensed in the period the legal services are performed. FCPA Matter As a result of being publicly traded in the U.S., the Company is subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which prohibits companies from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Beginning in 2009, the Company conducted an internal review into payments made to its former independent sales agent in China with respect to sales of its high voltage capacitor products produced by its Swiss subsidiary. In January 2011, the Company reached settlements with the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with respect to charges asserted by the SEC and DOJ relating to the anti-bribery, books and records, internal controls, and disclosure provisions of the FCPA and other securities laws violations. The Company settled civil charges with the SEC, agreeing to an injunction against further violations of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, the Company agreed to pay a total of approximately $6.4 million in profit disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The Company settled civil and criminal charges with the DOJ by entering into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) and agreeing to pay a total of $8.0 million in penalties. Further, under the terms of each agreement, the Company has submitted periodic reports to the SEC and DOJ on its internal compliance program concerning anti-bribery. As of January 25, 2013, all monetary penalties have been paid in full for each settlement described above and, in early February 2014, the DPA expired on its own terms. A judgment of dismissal was issued by the District Judge for the matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 28, 2014. On October 15, 2013, the Company received an informal notice from the DOJ that an indictment against the former Senior Vice President and General Manager of its Swiss subsidiary had been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The indictment is against the individual, a former officer, and not against the Company and the Company does not foresee that further penalties or fines could be assessed against it as a corporate entity for this matter. However, the Company may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendant and to incur other financial obligations. While the Company maintains directors’ and officers’ insurance policies which are intended to cover legal expenses related to its indemnification obligations in situations such as these, the Company cannot determine if and to what extent the insurance policy will cover the legal fees for this matter. Accordingly, the legal fees that may be incurred by the Company in defending this former officer could have a material impact on its financial condition and results of operation. Swiss Bribery Matter In August 2013, the Company's Swiss subsidiary was served with a search warrant from the Swiss federal prosecutor’s office. At the end of the search, the Swiss federal prosecutor presented the Company with a listing of the materials gathered by the representatives and then removed the materials from its premises for keeping at the prosecutor’s office. By reviewing the items to be seized on the search warrant presented by the Swiss prosecutor’s office, the Company believes this action to be related to the same or similar facts and circumstances as the FCPA action previously settled with the SEC and the DOJ. During initial discussions, the Swiss prosecutor has acknowledged both the existence of the Company's DPA with the DOJ and its cooperation efforts thereunder, both of which should have a positive impact on discussions going forward. Additionally, other than the activities previously reviewed in conjunction with the SEC and DOJ matters under the FCPA, the Company has no reason to believe that additional facts or circumstances are under review by the Swiss authorities. At such an early stage in the investigation, the Company is currently unable to determine the extent to which it will be subject to fines in accordance with Swiss bribery laws and what additional expenses will be incurred in order to defend this matter. As such, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred nor can it estimate the range of any such potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation. Securities Matter In early 2013, the Company voluntarily provided information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to its announcement that it intended to file restated financial statements for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The Company is currently cooperating with the US authorities in connection with these investigations. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation. Securities Class Action Matter From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. These actions were entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013, and removed a former officer as a defendant. In response, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 5, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, and the Company then filed another motion to dismiss on July 10, 2014. The lead plaintiffs and the Company are each expected to file additional responses on the issues raised in the motion to dismiss before the court rules on the matter at a hearing scheduled for October 14, 2014. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation. Federal Shareholder Derivative Matter On April 23, 2013 and May 7, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Kienzle v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 13-cv-0966 (S.D. Cal. filed April 23, 2013) and Agrawal v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 13-cv-1084 (S.D. Cal. filed May 7, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to issue false and misleading statements about its financial condition, operations, management, and internal controls and falsely represented that it maintained adequate controls. The complaints assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On June 10, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the two actions. On September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay this case until the resolution of the similar derivative action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The Company opposed this motion to stay. On October 30, 2013, the court issued two orders consolidating the two cases under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, which had been mutually agreed upon by all parties, and denying the plaintiffs’ motion to stay their own federal derivative case. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated and amended complaint on January 30, 2014. In response, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 28, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2014, to which the Company expects to respond by filing another motion to dismiss the action. The lead plaintiffs and the Company are each expected to file additional responses on the issues raised in the motion to dismiss before the court rules on the matter at a hearing which is not yet formally scheduled with the court. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from the Company. However, the Company may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation. State Shareholder Derivative Matter On April 11, 2013 and April 18, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, entitled Warsh v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00043884 (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 11, 2013) and Neville v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00044911-CU-BT-CTL (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 18, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as well as its former auditor McGladrey LLP. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants made or caused the Company to make false and/or misleading statements regarding its financial condition, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects. The complaints assert causes of action for breaches of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to properly oversee and manage the Company, as well as for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, professional negligence and accounting malpractice, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On May 7, 2013, the Court consolidated the two actions. The Company filed a motion to stay the consolidated action on July 2, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay and continued the hearing on this motion until the resolution of the motion to stay pending in the federal derivative action referenced above. Given the outcome of the above detailed federal derivative lawsuit, the Company informed the state court of the federal court order denying the federal plaintiffs’ motion to stay. Consequently, on November 1, 2013, the state court stayed the state derivative action pending before it until the resolution of the federal derivative case. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from the Company. However, the Company may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation. Shareholder Demand Letter Matter On April 9, 2013, Stephen Neville, a purported shareholder of the Company, sent a demand letter to the Company to inspect its books and records pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 1601. The demand sought inspection of documents related to the Company's March 7, 2013 announcement that it would be restating its previously-issued financial statements for 2011 and 2012, board minutes and committee materials, and other documents related to its board or management discussions regarding revenue recognition from January 1, 2011 to the present. The Company responded by letter dated April 19, 2013, explaining why it believed that the demand did not appear to be proper. Following receipt of a second letter from Mr. Neville dated April 23, 2013, the Company explained by letter dated April 29, 2013 why it continues to believe that the inspection demand appears improper. The Company has not received a further response from Mr. Neville regarding the inspection demand. In conjunction with the state court derivative action referenced above, Mr. Neville filed two motions to compel production of the documents and materials originally sought in the demand letter. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions to compel and, in line with the continuance on the motion to stay in the state shareholder derivative matter referenced above, likewise continued the hearing on the motions to compel, pending resolution of the motions to stay in both the federal and state derivative actions referenced above. On November 15, 2013, the purported shareholder, Mr. Neville, filed a petition for writ of mandate requesting that the state court order the Company to comply with the inspection demand. The Company responded to this writ on January 15, 2014, claiming that the inspection demand is improper on numerous grounds and simultaneously filing a demurrer for the shareholder inspection demand action in its entirety. On July 18, 2014, the court ruled against the Company’s motion to dismiss but left open issues pertaining to the documents to be provided, if any, under the purported shareholder inspection demand. Accordingly, the Company is expected to address the nature and scope of the inspection demand through procedural filings with the court. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

Legal Proceedings

Although the Company expects to incur significant legal fees in connection with the below legal proceedings, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of such legal fees and therefore, such fees will be expensed in the period the legal services are performed.

FCPA Matter

As a result of being publicly traded in the U.S., the Company is subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which prohibits companies from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Beginning in 2009, the Company conducted an internal review into payments made to its former independent sales agent in China with respect to sales of its high voltage capacitor products produced by its Swiss subsidiary. In January 2011, the Company reached settlements with the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with respect to charges asserted by the SEC and DOJ relating to the anti-bribery, books and records, internal controls, and disclosure provisions of the FCPA and other securities laws violations. The Company settled civil charges with the SEC, agreeing to an injunction against further violations of the FCPA. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, the Company agreed to pay a total of approximately $6.4 million in profit disgorgement and prejudgment interest. The Company settled civil and criminal charges with the DOJ by entering into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) and agreeing to pay a total of $8.0 million in penalties. Further, under the terms of each agreement, the Company has submitted periodic reports to the SEC and DOJ on its internal compliance program concerning anti-bribery. As of January 25, 2013, all monetary penalties have been paid in full for each settlement described above and, in early February 2014, the DPA expired on its own terms. A judgment of dismissal was issued by the District Judge for the matter in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 28, 2014.

On October 15, 2013, the Company received an informal notice from the DOJ that an indictment against the former Senior Vice President and General Manager of its Swiss subsidiary had been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The indictment is against the individual, a former officer, and not against the Company and the Company does not foresee that further penalties or fines could be assessed against it as a corporate entity for this matter. However, the Company may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendant and to incur other financial obligations. While the Company maintains directors’ and officers’ insurance policies which are intended to cover legal expenses related to its indemnification obligations in situations such as these, the Company cannot determine if and to what extent the insurance policy will cover the legal fees for this matter. Accordingly, the legal fees that may be incurred by the Company in defending this former officer could have a material impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

Swiss Bribery Matter

In August 2013, the Company's Swiss subsidiary was served with a search warrant from the Swiss federal prosecutor’s office. At the end of the search, the Swiss federal prosecutor presented the Company with a listing of the materials gathered by the representatives and then removed the materials from its premises for keeping at the prosecutor’s office. By reviewing the items to be seized on the search warrant presented by the Swiss prosecutor’s office, the Company believes this action to be related to the same or similar facts and circumstances as the FCPA action previously settled with the SEC and the DOJ. During initial discussions, the Swiss prosecutor has acknowledged both the existence of the Company's DPA with the DOJ and its cooperation efforts thereunder, both of which should have a positive impact on discussions going forward. Additionally, other than the activities previously reviewed in conjunction with the SEC and DOJ matters under the FCPA, the Company has no reason to believe that additional facts or circumstances are under review by the Swiss authorities. At such an early stage in the investigation, the Company is currently unable to determine the extent to which it will be subject to fines in accordance with Swiss bribery laws and what additional expenses will be incurred in order to defend this matter. As such, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred nor can it estimate the range of any such potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

Securities Matter

In early 2013, the Company voluntarily provided information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to its announcement that it intended to file restated financial statements for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The Company is currently cooperating with the US authorities in connection with these investigations. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

Securities Class Action Matter

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. These actions were entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013, and removed a former officer as a defendant. In response, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 5, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, and the Company then filed another motion to dismiss on July 10, 2014. The lead plaintiffs and the Company are each expected to file additional responses on the issues raised in the motion to dismiss before the court rules on the matter at a hearing scheduled for October 14, 2014. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss will be incurred nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

Federal Shareholder Derivative Matter

On April 23, 2013 and May 7, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Kienzle v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 13-cv-0966 (S.D. Cal. filed April 23, 2013) and Agrawal v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 13-cv-1084 (S.D. Cal. filed May 7, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to issue false and misleading statements about its financial condition, operations, management, and internal controls and falsely represented that it maintained adequate controls. The complaints assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On June 10, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the two actions. On September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay this case until the resolution of the similar derivative action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The Company opposed this motion to stay. On October 30, 2013, the court issued two orders consolidating the two cases under the heading In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, which had been mutually agreed upon by all parties, and denying the plaintiffs’ motion to stay their own federal derivative case. The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated and amended complaint on January 30, 2014. In response, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May 28, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2014, to which the Company expects to respond by filing another motion to dismiss the action. The lead plaintiffs and the Company are each expected to file additional responses on the issues raised in the motion to dismiss before the court rules on the matter at a hearing which is not yet formally scheduled with the court. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from the Company. However, the Company may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

State Shareholder Derivative Matter

On April 11, 2013 and April 18, 2013, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, entitled Warsh v. Schramm, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00043884 (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 11, 2013) and Neville v. Cortes, et al., Case No. 37-2013-00044911-CU-BT-CTL (San Diego Sup. Ct. filed April 18, 2013). The complaints name as defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as well as its former auditor McGladrey LLP. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The complaints allege that the individual defendants made or caused the Company to make false and/or misleading statements regarding its financial condition, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects. The complaints assert causes of action for breaches of fiduciary duty for disseminating false and misleading information, failing to maintain internal controls, and failing to properly oversee and manage the Company, as well as for unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, professional negligence and accounting malpractice, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution and disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation, attorneys' and experts' fees, and costs and expenses. On May 7, 2013, the Court consolidated the two actions. The Company filed a motion to stay the consolidated action on July 2, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay and continued the hearing on this motion until the resolution of the motion to stay pending in the federal derivative action referenced above. Given the outcome of the above detailed federal derivative lawsuit, the Company informed the state court of the federal court order denying the federal plaintiffs’ motion to stay. Consequently, on November 1, 2013, the state court stayed the state derivative action pending before it until the resolution of the federal derivative case. Because this action is derivative in nature, it does not seek monetary damages from the Company. However, the Company may be required throughout the term of the action to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the individual defendants and to incur other financial obligations. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.

Shareholder Demand Letter Matter

On April 9, 2013, Stephen Neville, a purported shareholder of the Company, sent a demand letter to the Company to inspect its books and records pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 1601. The demand sought inspection of documents related to the Company's March 7, 2013 announcement that it would be restating its previously-issued financial statements for 2011 and 2012, board minutes and committee materials, and other documents related to its board or management discussions regarding revenue recognition from January 1, 2011 to the present. The Company responded by letter dated April 19, 2013, explaining why it believed that the demand did not appear to be proper. Following receipt of a second letter from Mr. Neville dated April 23, 2013, the Company explained by letter dated April 29, 2013 why it continues to believe that the inspection demand appears improper. The Company has not received a further response from Mr. Neville regarding the inspection demand. In conjunction with the state court derivative action referenced above, Mr. Neville filed two motions to compel production of the documents and materials originally sought in the demand letter. On September 27, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions to compel and, in line with the continuance on the motion to stay in the state shareholder derivative matter referenced above, likewise continued the hearing on the motions to compel, pending resolution of the motions to stay in both the federal and state derivative actions referenced above. On November 15, 2013, the purported shareholder, Mr. Neville, filed a petition for writ of mandate requesting that the state court order the Company to comply with the inspection demand. The Company responded to this writ on January 15, 2014, claiming that the inspection demand is improper on numerous grounds and simultaneously filing a demurrer for the shareholder inspection demand action in its entirety. On July 18, 2014, the court ruled against the Company’s motion to dismiss but left open issues pertaining to the documents to be provided, if any, under the purported shareholder inspection demand. Accordingly, the Company is expected to address the nature and scope of the inspection demand through procedural filings with the court. At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this action, nor can it estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued an amount for any potential costs associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operation.