COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Minimum Future Rental Payments

The Company leases certain equipment and facilities under operating leases expiring in various years through fiscal 2017.  Minimum future rental payments under non-cancelable operating leases having remaining terms in excess of one year as of September 30, 2011 are as follows:

Fiscal Year Ending March 31,	(in thousands)
2012 (remaining 6 months)	$	2,218
2013	3,874
2014	3,370
2015	1,284
2016	564
Thereafter	49
Total minimum future rental payments	$	11,359

Total consolidated rent expense for operating leases for the three and six months ended September 30, 2011 was approximately $1.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively, compared to $1.3 million and $2.7 million, respectively, for the three and six months ended September 30, 2010.

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The Company purchases components from a variety of suppliers and manufacturers. During the normal course of business and to manage manufacturing lead times and ensure adequate component supply, the Company may enter into firm, non-cancelable and unconditional purchase obligations for which the terms exceed one year and for which amounts are not recorded in the Condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of September 30, 2011, such unconditional purchase obligations with remaining terms exceeding one year totaled $13.4 million. As of March 31, 2011, there were no arrangements with remaining terms exceeding one year.

Indemnifications

Under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated October 2, 2009, a First Amendment to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated November 30, 2009, a Side Letter to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated January 8, 2010, and a second Side Letter to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated February 15, 2010 (collectively, the “Purchase Agreement”) to sell Altec Lansing, the Company’s Audio Entertainment Group ("AEG") segment, the Company made representations and warranties to the purchaser about the condition of AEG, including matters relating to intellectual property, employee, tax and environmental laws.  No indemnification costs have been incurred as of September 30, 2011 or March 31, 2011.

Other Guarantees and Obligations

The Company sells substantially all of its products to end users through distributors, retailers, OEMs, and telephony service providers (collectively "customers"). As is customary in the Company’s industry, as provided for in local law in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, Plantronics’ standard contracts provide remedies to its customers, such as defense, settlement, or payment of judgment for intellectual property claims related to the use of its products.  From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various trigger events relating to the sale and use of its products and services.  In addition, Plantronics also provides protection to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability, or environmental obligations.  In the Company’s experience, claims made under these indemnifications are rare and the associated estimated fair value of the liability is not material.

Claims and Litigation

The Company is presently engaged in various legal actions arising in the normal course of business.  The Company believes that it is unlikely that any of these actions will have a material adverse impact on its operating results; however, because of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of any of these actions could be unfavorable and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.  

In the six (6) lawsuits that were consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (District Court) and renamed In Re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) on August 19, 2011, issued a decision vacating and remanding the case to the District Court. On remand, the District Court is instructed to properly exercise its discretion in accordance with the principles set forth in the decision by the Ninth Circuit. In re-examining this case, the District Court may re-affirm its prior approval of the settlement, disapprove the settlement or approve a modified settlement. The District Court must properly analyze the conduct of the parties in accordance with the instructions of the Ninth Circuit. The District Court will set a schedule to accomplish this analysis and to re-issue its decision and judgment. The Company will continue to defend its interests throughout this process and the remainder of the case. Other than this item, there were no material developments in litigation since the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.