## NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — (Continued) 

value of the merger consideration to AATI’s stockholders, (b) taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, and (c) failing to protect against conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in connection with the merger that are not available to all stockholders, and (2) that AATI, the members of AATI’s board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger or, if the merger is completed, to recover damages caused by the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also seeks recovery of attorney’s fees and costs of the lawsuit. 

On June 7, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County (Case No. 111CV202501) (the “Venette action”) naming AATI, the members of AATI’s board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub as defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2011 (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (1) that the members of AATI’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by (a) agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration on unfair terms, (b) failing to protect against conflicts of interest resulting from change-of-control and transaction-related benefits received by AATI directors in connection with the merger that are not available to all stockholders, (c) selling the company in response to alleged pressure from Dialectic Capital Partners, LP (“Dialectic”), (d) taking steps to avoid competitive bidding (including the entry by certain AATI officers and directors into agreements with the Company relating to voting commitments and inclusion in the merger agreement of nonsolicitation provisions and a termination fee), and (e) by causing the issuance of a materially misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement which, inter alia, purportedly fails to disclose material facts surrounding (i) Dialectic’s impact on the proposed merger process, (ii) the AATI board of directors’ evaluation of the Company and its offer for AATI, and (iii) supporting figures and analysis regarding the fairness opinion that the AATI Board obtained from its financial advisor, Needham & Company, LLC, in connection with the transaction and (2) that AATI, the members of AATI’s board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaint seeks to enjoin consummation of the merger, and to have the court direct the defendants to implement procedures and processes to maximize shareholder value. The Amended Complaint also seeks recovery of attorney’s fees and costs of the lawsuit. 

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the Bushansky action and Venette action into a single, consolidated action captioned In re Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 111CV202403, and designating the Amended Complaint as the operative complaint in the litigation. The Company believes that the claims in the consolidated action are without merit and intends to defend against such claims vigorously. 

The Company believes there are no other litigation pending that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business. 

## 15. GUARANTEES AND INDEMNITIES 

The Company has made no contractual guarantees for the benefit of third parties. However, the Company generally indemnifies its customers from third-party intellectual property infringement litigation claims related to its products, and, on occasion, also provides other indemnities related to product sales. In connection with certain facility leases, the Company has indemnified its lessors for certain claims arising from the facility or the lease. 

The Company indemnifies its directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the state of Delaware. The duration of the indemnities varies, and in many cases is indefinite. The indemnities to customers in connection with product sales generally are subject to limits based upon the amount of the related product sales and in many cases are subject to geographic and other restrictions. In certain instances, the Company’s indemnities do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential future payments the 

