Commitments And Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 01, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

On June 28, 2016, we renegotiated the August 15, 2012 lease for our Singapore operations and entered into a new lease that will expire in June 2023. As of April 1, 2017, the minimum future lease payments to be made under this arrangement is $3.5 million.

In August 2014, we entered into a thirty-six month lease agreement for equipment valued at $2.5 million. At the end of the lease term, we have an option to purchase the leased equipment for a bargain purchase price. Accordingly, this lease is classified as a capital lease. The amortization of these leased assets is included with depreciation expense. As of April 1, 2017, the total amortization of the leased equipment is $1.3 million.

In July 2015, we entered into a lease amendment for our facilities in San Jose, California. The lease amendment is to extend the building lease for five years which will expire in January 2021. As of April 1, 2017, the minimum future lease payments to be made under the lease amendment is $9.4 million.

The table below summarizes our capital and operating lease commitments as of April 1, 2017:



(In thousands)	Capital Leases		Operating Leases
For the years:
Remainder of 2017	$	364	$	2,651
2018	—		3,163
2019	—		3,085
2020	—		3,155
2021	—		587
Thereafter	—		875
Total minimum lease payments	$	364	$	13,516

Legal claims

On March 17, 2017, an Ultratech shareholder filed a purported class action complaint against Ultratech, its directors at the time the acquisition was announced, Veeco, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares, agreed to unreasonable deal-protection measures, and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already implemented, an order directing the dissemination of a proxy statement that is not false or misleading, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Ultratech believes the lawsuit is without merit.

On March 22, 2017, two other Ultratech shareholders filed a purported class action complaint against Ultratech and its directors at the time the acquisition was announced. The complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with Veeco’s proposed acquisition of Ultratech, the defendants purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate price for the Ultratech shares and potentially engaged in supposed self-dealing. The complaint further alleges that the sale process was flawed and tainted by the self-interest of certain directors. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already implemented, compensatory damages, and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Ultratech believes the lawsuit is without merit.