Warranty Liability

Legal Proceedings

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited (“VSL”), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the “Deutsch Labor Action”) and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the “Deutsch District Action”). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purported to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during the period from March 2006 through March 2010, during which we did not make periodic filings with the SEC as a result of certain internal and external investigations and reviews of accounting matters discussed in our prior public filings. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch was seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions did not specify an amount of damages. On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI’s former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the “Katriel Labor Action”) and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the “Katriel District Action”). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI’s periodic reporting discussed in CTI’s historical SEC filings. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions did not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in us and its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse Share Distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc. to CTI’s shareholders. As a result of the Comverse Share Distribution, Comverse, Inc. became an independent company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in us. As of February 28, 2017, Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, we merged with CTI. As a result of the merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse, Inc. relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding before the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now Mavenir) or VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits of the case and any calculation of damages would be evaluated under New York law.

On December 15, 2016, CTI filed with the Supreme Court a motion for leave to appeal the District Court’s August 28, 2016 ruling. The plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the District Court’s August 28, 2016 ruling. On February 5, 2017, the District Court approved the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin, for the current or former employees of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises in replacement of Ms. Deutsch.

On August 8, 2017, the Supreme Court partially allowed CTI’s appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause of action exists in this case under New York law, based on CTI’s previously submitted expert opinion and the opinion of any expert the plaintiffs elect to introduce.

On November 28, 2017, the plaintiffs submitted an expert opinion regarding New York law. On January 3, 2018, CTI filed a motion to dismiss the motion to certify the class action on the basis that the New York law opinion submitted by the plaintiffs did not directly address the causes of action in question, or alternatively, to dismiss the portions of the opinion that did not specifically relate to CTI’s expert opinion. On January 22, 2018, the court ruled that the plaintiffs should submit a motion to amend their class certification motion and that CTI’s motion to dismiss would remain pending. Based on input from the court, the parties have agreed to enter into a further round of mediation in an effort to settle the matter.

From time to time we or our subsidiaries may be involved in legal proceedings and/or litigation arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any current claims will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.