Commitments and Contingencies

Our contractual obligations and commitments over the next five years are summarized in the table below:



(in thousands)			For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30,
	Total		2012		2013 to 2014		2015 to 2016		2017 and later
Purchase obligations	$	35,780	$	35,454	$	235	$	91	$	—
Credit facility borrowings	21,000		21,000		—		—		—
Asset retirement obligations	4,902		—		390		33		4,479
Operating lease obligations	4,272		514		907		302		2,549
Total contractual obligations and commitments	$	65,954	$	56,968	$	1,532	$	426	$	7,028

Interest payments are not included in the contractual obligations and commitments table above since they are insignificant to our consolidated results of operations.

Credit Facility

As of March 31, 2012, we had a $21.0 million LIBOR rate loan outstanding under our credit facility, with an interest rate of 4.5%, which was paid off with cash on hand on April 6, 2012. See Footnote 1 - Basis of Presentation for information related to our credit facility borrowing.

Purchase Obligations

Our purchase obligations represent agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable and legally binding, that specify all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transactions.

In November 2011, we entered into an agreement with our contract manufacturer in Thailand whereby our contract manufacturer will purchase equipment to rebuild our affected manufacturing lines which is expected to cost approximately $5.7 million. We agreed to reimburse our contract manufacturer using insurance proceeds that we expect to receive. Additionally, we restructured our outstanding payables owed to our contract manufacturer, which delayed payments to future dates to coincide with expected timing of insurance proceeds.

We entered into a Master Purchase Agreement with SEI pursuant to which we have agreed to sell certain assets and transfer certain obligations associated with our Fiber Optics segment for $17 million, subject to certain customary purchase adjustments. Purchase obligations related to this asset sale approximate $2.9 million as of March 31, 2012. See Footnote 1 - Basis of Presentation for additional disclosures related to this asset sale.

Asset Retirement Obligations

We have known conditional asset retirement conditions, such as certain asset decommissioning and restoration of rented facilities to be performed in the future. The fair value was estimated by discounting projected cash flows over the estimated life of the related assets using credit adjusted risk-free rates which ranged from 3.25% to 5.78%. Our asset retirement obligations include assumptions related to renewal option periods for those facilities where we expect to extend lease terms. In future periods, the asset retirement obligation is accreted for the change in its present value and capitalized costs are depreciated over the useful life of the related assets. If the fair value of the estimated asset retirement obligation changes, an adjustment will be recorded to both the asset retirement obligation and the asset retirement capitalized cost. Revisions in estimated liabilities can result from revisions of estimated inflation rates, escalating retirement costs, and changes in the estimated timing of settling asset retirement obligations. Total liabilities associated with asset retirements that were settled during the six months ended March 31, 2011 was approximately $19,000. Accretion expense of $70,000 and $121,000 was recorded during the three and six months ended March 31, 2012.

Operating Leases

We lease certain land, facilities, and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. Operating lease amounts above exclude renewal option periods, property taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses on leased properties. Our facility leases typically provide for rental adjustments for increases in base rent (up to specific limits), property taxes, insurance and general property maintenance that would be recorded as rent expense. Rent expense was approximately $0.7 million for both the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively and approximately $1.4 million and $1.3 million for the six months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. There are no off-balance sheet arrangements other than our operating leases.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings, claims, and litigation, either asserted or unasserted that arise in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect the resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. Professional legal fees are expensed when incurred. We accrue for contingent losses when such losses are probable and reasonably estimable. In the event that estimates or assumptions prove to differ from actual results, adjustments are made in subsequent periods to reflect more current information. Should we fail to prevail in any legal matter or should several legal matters be resolved against the Company in the same reporting period, then the financial results of that particular reporting period could be materially affected.

a) Intellectual Property Lawsuits

We protect our proprietary technology by applying for patents where appropriate and, in other cases, by preserving the technology, related know-how and information as trade secrets. The success and competitive position of our product lines are impacted by our ability to obtain intellectual property protection for our research and development efforts. We have, from time to time, exchanged correspondence with third parties regarding the assertion of patent or other intellectual property rights in connection with certain of our products and processes.

b) Avago-related Litigation

On December 5, 2008, we were served with a complaint by Avago Technologies filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division alleging infringement of two patents by our VCSEL products. (Avago Technologies Singapore et al., EMCORE Corporation, et al., Case No.: C08-5394 EMC) (the “N.D. CA Patent Case”). This case is ongoing and we intend to vigorously defend against these allegations.

On March 5, 2009, we were notified that, based on a complaint filed by Avago alleging the same patent infringement that formed the basis of the complaint previously filed in the Northern District of California, the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) had determined to begin an investigation titled “In the Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same”, Inv. No. 337-TA-669. This matter was tried before an administrative law judge of the ITC in November 2009.

On July 12, 2010, the ITC issued its final determination, as well as a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order directed to our infringing products which prohibits importation of those products into the United States. Those remedial orders were reviewed by the President of the United States and his decision to approve those orders was issued on September 10, 2010, thereby prohibiting further importation of the infringing products. We appealed the ITC's decision, and on November 14, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ITC's determination.

c) Green and Gold-related litigation

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the “Prissert Class Action”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the Company and certain of its present and former directors and officers (the “Individual Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard, Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.). The Complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy (“GGE”) and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's Photovoltaics business segment. The Complaint in the Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with the maintenance of the action. On or about February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.)) (the “Mueller Class Action”), together with the Prissert Class Action, the “Class Actions”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the same relief.

On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller class actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel. On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff (“IBEW”), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel. On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel. IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011 which we did not oppose. By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointed counsel to act on behalf of the purported class.

On January 23, 2009, Plaintiff James E. Stearns filed a purported stockholder derivative action (the “Stearns Derivative Action”) on behalf of the Company against the Individual Defendants, as well as the Company as nominal defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Chancery Division (James E. Stearns, derivatively on behalf of EMCORE Corporation v. Thomas J. Russell, Robert Bogomolny, Charles Scott, John Gillen, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., Hong Q. Hou, Adam Gushard, David Danzilio and Thomas Werthan, Case No. Atl-C-10-09). This action is based on essentially the same factual contentions as the Prissert Class Action, and alleges that the Individual Defendants engaged in improprieties and violations of law in connection with the reporting of the GGE backlog. The Stearns Derivative Action seeks several forms of relief, allegedly on behalf of the Company, including, among other things, damages, equitable relief, corporate governance reforms, an accounting of, rescission of, restitution of, and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit.

On March 11, 2009, Plaintiff Gary Thomas filed a second purported shareholder derivative action (the “Thomas Derivative Action”; together with the Stearns Derivative Action, the “Derivative Actions”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against the Company and certain of the Individual Defendants (Gary Thomas, derivatively on behalf of EMCORE Corporation v. Thomas J. Russell, Robert Bogomolny, Charles Scott, John Gillen, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., Hong Q. Hou, and EMCORE Corporation, Case No. 1.09-cv-00236, (D.N.M.)). The Thomas Derivative Action makes substantially the same allegations as the Stearns Derivative Action and seeks essentially the same relief.

The Stearns Derivative Action and the Thomas Derivative action have been consolidated before a single judge in Somerset County, New Jersey, and have been stayed pending resolution of the Class Actions.

On November 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, again alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's disclosure regarding its customer GGE and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's Photovoltaics business segment (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with the maintenance of the action. The Amended Complaint again names the Company and the Individual Defendants, with the exception of former officer and director Thomas Werthan. On January 9, 2012, EMCORE filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' have answered this motion to dismiss.

We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations of both the Class Actions and the Derivative Actions.