6.	Legal Proceedings

As previously disclosed, on December 10, 2009, the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (which is the public authority responsible for regulating the Italian securities markets), or CONSOB, sent us a notice claiming, among other things, violation of the provisions of Section 114, paragraph 1 of the Italian Legislative Decree no. 58/98 due to the asserted late disclosure of the contents of the opinion expressed by Stonefield Josephson, Inc., an independent registered public accounting firm, with respect to our 2008 financial statements. However, we understand that, according to applicable Italian law provisions as interpreted by applicable case law, CONSOB’s right to pursue a pecuniary administrative sanction is considered barred due to the passage of time.

The Italian Tax Authority, or the ITA, issued notices of assessment to CTI (Europe) based on the ITA’s audit of CTI (Europe)’s value added tax, or VAT, returns for the years 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007, or, collectively, the VAT Assessments. The ITA audits concluded that CTI (Europe) did not collect and remit VAT on certain invoices issued to non-Italian clients for services performed by CTI (Europe). We believe that the services invoiced were non-VAT taxable consultancy services and that the VAT returns are correct as originally filed. We are defending ourselves against the assessments both on procedural grounds and on the merits of the case, although we can make no assurances regarding the ultimate outcomes of these cases. As of December 31, 2012, we reversed the entire reserve we had previously recorded relating to the VAT Assessments after having received favorable Provincial Tax Court rulings. In January 2013, our then remaining deposit for the VAT Assessments was refunded to us.

The current status of the legal proceedings surrounding each respective VAT year return at issue is as follows:

2003. In June 2013, the Regional Tax Court issued decision no. 119/50/13 in regards to the 2003 VAT assessment, which accepted the appeal of the ITA and reversed the previous decision of the Provincial Tax Court. In January 2014, we were notified that the ITA requested partial payment of the 2003 VAT assessment in the amount of €0.4 million (or $0.6 million), which we paid in March 2014. We believe that the decision of the Regional Tax Court did not carefully take into account our arguments and the documentation we filed, and in January 2014, we appealed such decision to the Italian Supreme Court both on procedural grounds and on the merits of the case.

2005, 2006 and 2007. The ITA has appealed to the Italian Supreme Court the decisions of the respective appellate Regional Tax Court, which ruled in our favor, with respect to each of the 2005, 2006 and 2007 VAT returns.

If the final decisions of the Italian Supreme Court for the VAT Assessments are unfavorable to us, we may incur up to $10.5 million in losses for the VAT amount assessed including penalties, interest and fees upon conversion from euros as of September 30, 2015.

On May 13, 2015, the Company (as nominal defendant) and our directors (as individual defendants) entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the pending lawsuit in King County Superior Court in the State of Washington docketed as Lopez & Gilbert v. Nudelman, et al ., Case No. 14-2-18941-9 SEA, or the Settlement. The provisions of the Settlement include the following terms, which are subject to final court approval:

We will cancel and the non-employee directors will agree to the rescission of all currently outstanding equity awards that we previously granted to non-employee directors that included performance-based vesting metrics and as to which the performance goals remained unsatisfied as of May 13, 2015;

Our current non-employee directors will agree to hold (not transfer or sell or encumber in any way) until September 14, 2015 shares of our stock that they currently own and that we awarded to them during 2011, or at any time after 2011 to the present, and that, at the time of the award by us, was fully-vested and unrestricted;

We will cap the total annual compensation provided by it to its non-employee directors for each of 2015 and 2016. Such annual compensation cap for each non-employee director for each of 2015 and 2016 will be the greater of (i) $375,000, plus, as to our Board Chairman, an additional $100,000, or (ii) the 75th percentile of compensation paid by a group of peer companies to their non-employee directors (and, in the case of our Chairman, the 75th percentile of compensation paid by such peers who have a non-employee director chair of their respective board of directors to such non-employee director chairs). The peer group for these purposes will be selected based on advice from the outside compensation consultant. For purposes of the compensation cap and the peer group comparison, compensation will be determined and measured consistent with the rules under Item 402 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and based on publicly-available information at the applicable time; and

We will implement, if not already implemented, within 90 days following final approval of the Settlement by the court, and maintain until at least the end of calendar year 2017 the following: an annual board discussion of non-employee director compensation philosophy; the use of a compensation consultant to advise the Compensation Committee on material decisions concerning non-employee director compensation issues and compare our non-employee director compensation program to a group of our peers; the use of plain language in our compensation-related public filings; and obtain confirmation from our legal department and outside legal counsel advising on executive compensation matters that any contemplated non-employee director awards do not materially violate the applicable plan or materially fail to comply with applicable law.

On September 24, 2015, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the Settlement. The court has scheduled a final hearing on December 10, 2015 to determine, among other things, whether it should issue an order for final approval of the Settlement.

We currently anticipate that we will be obligated to pay an amount for plaintiffs’ legal fees and expenses, which will ultimately be subject to court approval. However, in light of our existing insurance coverage, we do not anticipate that the payment of the ultimate fee award will have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations. The amount of our reasonable estimate of liability as of September 30, 2015, though immaterial, was accrued for in our financial statements as of September 30, 2015.