CONTINGENCIES

In March 2013 and May 2013, two purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its former executive officers seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July 2013, the two cases were consolidated and the original plaintiffs agreed to act as co-plaintiffs in the consolidated case. In September 2013, the co-plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s common stock between October 23, 2008 and March 20, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint, which named the Company, certain of its current and former executive officers and its former independent accounting firm as defendants, purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In October 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of some of the claims, and the dismissal of Mr. Hernandez and one of the two plaintiffs from the case. The matter is scheduled for trial in March 2015. At this time, the Company believes that a loss related to the consolidated complaint is neither probable nor remote, and based on the information currently available regarding the claims in the consolidated complaint, the Company is unable to determine an estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses.

In June 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative complaint against the Company as nominal defendant and certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers. The complaints alleged various violations of state law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The derivative complaint sought, inter alia, unspecified monetary judgment, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and a variety of purported corporate governance reforms. On October 30, 2013, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. On November 26, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors received a letter from the plaintiff in the dismissed derivative suit, demanding that the Company’s Board of Directors investigate, address and commence proceedings against certain of the Company’s directors, officers, employees and agents based on conduct identified in the dismissed complaint. In December 2013, the Company’s Board created a committee to conduct an investigation into the allegations in the demand letter. At this time, the Company believes that a loss related to the demand letter is neither probable nor remote, and based on the information currently available regarding the claims in the demand letter, the Company is unable to determine an estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses.

In April and May 2013, the Company received a document preservation request and inquiry from the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and a federal grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice requesting certain documents, including in particular documents related to the Company’s disclosures regarding its accounting review and financial transactions. The Company has produced documents responsive to such requests and has provided regular updates to the authorities on its accounting evaluation. The Company intends to continue to cooperate fully with the authorities. At this time, the Company believes that a loss related to the inquiries is neither probable nor remote, and based on the information currently available regarding these inquiries, the Company is unable to determine an estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses.

At June 30, 2013, the Company was subject to various litigations claiming patent infringement by the Company. Some of these legal proceedings may include speculative claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts of damages. If any infringement is determined to exist, the Company may seek licenses or settlements. In addition, as a normal incidence of the nature of the Company’s business, various claims, charges and litigation have been asserted or commenced from time to time against the Company arising from or related to contractual, employee relations, intellectual property rights, product or service performance, or other matters.

The Company considers all claims on a quarterly basis and based on known facts assesses whether potential losses are considered reasonably possible, probable and estimable. Based upon this assessment, the Company then evaluates disclosure requirements and whether to accrue for such claims in its consolidated financial statements.

The Company records a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case.

At June 30, 2013 and as of the date of filing of these consolidated financial statements, the Company believes that, other than as set forth in this note, no provision for liability nor disclosure is required related to any claims because: (a) there is no reasonable possibility that a loss exceeding amounts already recognized (if any) may be incurred with respect to such claim; (b) a reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated; or (c) such estimate is immaterial.

Additionally, the Company provides indemnification to certain customers for losses incurred in connection with intellectual property infringement claims brought by third parties with respect to the Company’s products. These indemnification provisions generally offer perpetual coverage for infringement claims based upon the products covered by the agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is theoretically unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred material costs related to these indemnification provisions; accordingly, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification provisions is immaterial. Further, certain of the Company’s arrangements with customers include clauses whereby the Company may be subject to penalties for failure to meet certain performance obligations; however, the Company has not recorded any related material penalties to date.

During 2010, the Company’s Canadian subsidiary, Avid Technology Canada Corporation, was assessed and paid to the Ministry of Revenue Quebec (“MRQ”) approximately CAN $1.7 million for social tax assessments on Canadian employee stock-based compensation related to the Company’s stock plans. The payment amounts were recorded in “other current assets” in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. During 2013, the Quebec Court of Appeals rendered a judgment against the MRQ in a similar case, and a subsequent appeal by the MRQ was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, the MRQ filed a Declaration of Settlement related to the Avid case in November 2013, and this matter is considered closed. In December 2013, the MRQ refunded to the Company CAN $1.9 million for tax assessments for 2001 through 2006 and related interest. The tax assessments for 2007 through 2011 are not material and are expected to be refunded with interest during 2014.

The Company has letters of credit at a bank that are used as security deposits in connection with the Company’s Burlington, Massachusetts office space. In the event of default on the underlying leases, the landlords would, at June 30, 2013, be eligible to draw against the letters of credit to a maximum of $2.6 million in the aggregate. The letters of credit are subject to aggregate reductions provided the Company is not in default under the underlying leases and meets certain financial performance conditions. In no case will the letters of credit amounts be reduced to below $1.2 million in the aggregate throughout the lease periods, all of which extend to May 2020.

The Company also has a standby letter of credit at a bank that is used as a security deposit in connection with the Company’s Daly City, California office space lease. In the event of default on this lease, the landlord would, at June 30, 2013, be eligible to draw against this letter of credit to a maximum of $0.8 million. The letter of credit will remain in effect at this amount throughout the remaining lease period, which extends to September 2014. The Company is not renewing this lease at the end of the term and expects the letter of credit to be released at that time.

The Company has letters of credit totaling approximately $1.8 million that support its ongoing operations. These letters of credit have various terms and expire during 2013 and 2014. Some of the letters of credit may automatically renew based on the terms of the underlying agreements.

The Company provides warranties on externally sourced and internally developed hardware. For internally developed hardware and in cases where the warranty granted to customers for externally sourced hardware is greater than that provided by the manufacturer, the Company records an accrual for the related liability based on historical trends and actual material and labor costs. The following table sets forth the activity in the product warranty accrual account for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 (in thousands):



	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2013			2012
				(Restated)
Accrual balance at beginning of year	$	4,476		$	4,743
Accruals for product warranties	1,531			4,980
Costs of warranty claims	(2,317		)	(3,577		)
Allocation to divestitures	—			(507		)
Accrual balance at end of period	$	3,690		$	5,639

The total warranty accrual of $3.7 million is included in the caption “accrued expenses and other current liabilities” in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2013.