Note 11 - Other Financial Information

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]

Additional Financial Information Disclosure [Text Block]

11. OTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Major Customers: During 2013, sales to Nokia Solutions and Networks (formerly Nokia Siemens Networks) and Alcatel-Lucent were $3.5 million (or 23%) and $3.3 million (or 21%), respectively, of the Company’s consolidated revenues. During 2012, sales to Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia Siemens Networks were $3.8 million (or 27%) and $1.9 million (or 13%), respectively, of the Company’s consolidated revenues. During 2011, sales to Nokia Siemens Networks and Alcatel-Lucent were $6.7 million (or 31%) and $4.6 million (or 21%), respectively, of the Company’s consolidated revenues. No other customers individually accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s consolidated revenues in the periods presented.

Included in accounts receivable at December 31, 2013, was $809,000, $491,000, and $404,000 due from Alcatel-Lucent, E4D Technologies LLC, and Nokia Solutions and Networks (formerly Nokia Siemens Networks), respectively. Included in accounts receivable at December 31, 2012, was $721,000, $401,000, $387,000, and $312,000 due from Nokia Siemens Networks, Networks Engines, Alcatel-Lucent, and Genband, respectively. No other customers individually accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s accounts receivable at the balance sheet dates presented.

Commitments: The Company leases its facilities under non-cancelable operating leases with the longest terms extending to February 2025. The Company leases its phone system under a non-cancelable operating lease extending to October 2014. Certain of the leases contain escalation clauses over their respective terms. Rent expense related to these leases is recorded on a straight-line basis with the difference between rent expense recognized and cash payments made recorded as deferred rent, a component of accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

As of December 31, 2013, operating lease commitments having non-cancelable terms of more than one year are as follows (in thousands): 

Year ending December 31:
2014	$	322
2015	$	380
2016	$	380
2017	$	417
Thereafter	$	3,448

Total rent expense for operating leases was as follows (in thousands): 

Year ending December 31:
2013	$	572
2012	$	580
2011	$	630

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately $230,000 of non-cancelable purchase commitments for inventory as part of the normal course of business.

Contingencies: Twenty-five former employees (“Plaintiffs”) of Interphase SAS, a France domiciled subsidiary of Interphase Corporation, brought suit in France against Interphase SAS alleging various causes of action and rights to damages relating to claims of wrongful dismissal of employment, specific French employment indemnities, general economic losses, and contractual claims relating specifically to their employment relationship and contracts entered into between the individual and Interphase SAS. The lawsuits were filed between November 2010 and April 2011 in the Labor Court of Boulogne-Billancourt, France and the Administrative Court of Cergy-Pontoise, France. The various claims and assertions arose from, and related to, the Plaintiffs’ release from employment as part of the restructuring actions taken during the third quarter of 2010. The updated statement of claim is for an aggregate payment of approximately €2.1 million, which translated to approximately $2.9 million at December 31, 2013. The Company believes that the Plaintiffs’ claims were without merit and has vigorously defended itself in these lawsuits.

On March 22, 2012, a hearing was conducted before the Labor Court of Boulogne-Billancourt, France related to the claims of twenty-three of the twenty-five former employees. On May 31, 2012, the Court reported that the four judges’ votes were split; therefore, another hearing before the Labor Court took place on January 25, 2013. The same four judges heard the case again, along with a professional judge from another court to ensure that a majority decision would be reached.

The decision of the Labor Court regarding the claims of twenty-two former employees was rendered on March 22, 2013. All of those claims were rejected, because the Labor Court ruled that the redundancy procedure was regular and that redundancies were based on valid reasons, except claims from four Plaintiffs based on non-competition indemnity (amounting in total to approximately €265,000, which translated to approximately $340,000 at March 31, 2013). During the three months ended March 31, 2013 and the three months ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a charge of approximately $340,000 and $115,000 (to reflect payroll taxes corresponding to the allowed claims), respectively, classified as other loss on its condensed consolidated statements of operations and as a current liability on its condensed consolidated balance sheets in connection with the non-competition indemnity. Regarding the claims of the four Plaintiffs based on non-competition indemnity, one of these Plaintiffs has filed an appeal of the Labor Court’s decision (the part of the judgment dismissing his claims based on the redundancy procedures; the economic and financial justification for the redundancy); therefore, related to this Plaintiff, the Company is currently evaluating its appeal options. No payment to this Plaintiff is to be made until the appeal process is resolved. The Company is not filing an appeal related to the other three Plaintiffs’ claims based on non-competition indemnity. For these three Plaintiffs, the Company must pay approximately €238,000, which translated to approximately $305,000 at March 31, 2013. Approximately $275,000 was paid during the three months ended December 31, 2013. Fourteen other former employees also filed an appeal. The date of the hearing before the Court of Appeals of Versailles is on October 8, 2014. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these appeals.

On May 22, 2012, a hearing was conducted before the Labor Court of Boulogne-Billancourt, France related to the claims of one of the twenty-five former employees with non-executive status. On July 31, 2012, the Court reported that the four judges’ votes were split; therefore, the Labor Court decided to join this case to the cases of the other twenty-three former employees described above in order to be heard again at the same hearing. Therefore, this case was heard again at the hearing on January 25, 2013 before the Labor Court. On March 22, 2013, the Labor Court rejected this former employee's claims. This former employee is one of the fourteen other former employees that filed an appeal, as described in the preceding paragraph.

Among the twenty-five cases described above, two former employees were made redundant related to a decision of the Labor Inspector to authorize their redundancy. Because of their protected status as employee representatives, their redundancy required the prior authorization of the French administration. Each of those former employees also filed a claim before the Administrative Tribunal in order to challenge the decision of the Labor Inspector which authorized their redundancy. Although each such claim or action is directed against the State, Interphase is also a party to these proceedings. The decision of the Administrative Tribunal regarding these two cases was rendered on February 3, 2014. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed these two former employees’ claims challenging the administrative decision authorizing their redundancy. Each former employee will have two months to file an appeal from the receipt of official notice of the dismissal of his claim.

For one of the twenty-five former employees, who was an employee representative, the Labor Court granted the Company’s motion at the January 25, 2013 hearing; the Labor Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim to hear the case on the merits, regarding the alleged irregularity of the information and consultation procedure, and postponed this case in deference to the pending case before the Administrative Tribunal as described above. This case was heard again on September 27, 2013, and the Labor Court rendered the same decision (to postpone the case to a hearing on September 5, 2014). On September 5, 2014, the case will not be heard on the merits if the Plaintiff files an appeal against the Administrative Tribunal’s judgment before the Administrative Court of Appeal.

On June 12, 2012, a hearing was conducted with the Labor Court of Boulogne-Billancourt, France related to the claims of one of the twenty-five former employees, who was also an employee representative. The Labor Court granted the Company’s motion and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim to hear the case on the merits, regarding the alleged irregularity of the information and consultation procedure, and decided to postpone this case in deference to the pending case before the Administrative Tribunal as described above. This case was heard again on May 28, 2013. The Labor Court rendered the same decision and again postponed the hearing until the Administrative Tribunal makes its decision; therefore, this case will be heard again on June 17, 2014. On June 17, 2014, the case will not be heard on the merits if the Plaintiff files an appeal against the Administrative Tribunal’s judgment before the Administrative Court of Appeal.