COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On May 22, 2008, a jury returned verdicts against the Company in the consolidated actions of Roth Cash Register v. MICROS Systems, Inc., et al. (the “Roth Matter”) and Shenango Systems Solutions v. MICROS Systems, Inc., et al. (the “Shenango Matter”). The cases initially were filed in 2000 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The complaints both related to the non-renewal of dealership agreements in the year 2000 between the Company and the respective plaintiffs. The agreements were non-renewed as part of a restructuring of the dealer channel. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and employees entered into a plan to eliminate the plaintiffs as authorized dealers and improperly interfere with the plaintiffs' relationships with their respective existing and potential future clients and customers without compensation to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, the Company was liable for, among other things, breach of contract and tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relationships. In May 2008, the jury returned verdicts against the Company totaling $7.5 million. Both parties appealed the original verdicts on various grounds. On December 30, 2010, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed and remanded the trial court judgment as to $4.5 million of the award and affirmed the trial court judgment as to the remaining $3.0 million of the award. Following the denial of appeals of the Superior Court decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on April 10, 2012, the Company accrued a charge of $3.0 million in its selling, general and administrative expenses. The matter was subsequently remanded to the Court of Common Pleas (the trial court) for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decisions. On June 7, 2012, the Company paid an aggregate of approximately $3.5 million to the two plaintiffs, reflecting all amounts that were determined to be owed to the plaintiff in the Shenango Matter and all amounts that were no longer in dispute and that were payable to the plaintiff in the Roth Matter, including as to each payment (i) interest that had accrued at the statutory rate of 6% per annum, and (ii) certain reductions and offsets that were approved by the Court of Common Pleas. Upon the conclusion of the post-appeal proceedings in the trial court, the Court of Common Pleas entered an order amending the amount of the remaining portion of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the Roth Matter from $4.5 million to approximately $2.8 million. The Company appealed the amended judgment. On October 4, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the amended judgment. During the three months ended September 30, 2013, the Company accrued a charge of approximately $2.8 million in its selling, general and administrative expenses relating to the judgment. The Company has also recognized interest expense of approximately $0.9 million related to the judgment as the amount payable is subject to interest accruing at the statutory rate of 6% per annum. On October 21, 2013, the Company and the plaintiff in the Roth Matter entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed that, among other things, the Company would pay $3.7 million as a full and final payment, and the case would then be fully and finally dismissed. On October 22, 2013, the Company paid the agreed amount.

The Company is and has been involved in legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business, and the Company is of the opinion, based upon presently available information and the advice of counsel concerning pertinent legal matters, that any resulting liability should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. However, litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of litigation is not predictable with assurance. An adverse outcome in current or future litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.