Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are subject to a variety of claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. While management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable.

In connection with our acquisition of Oclaro, seven lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging the proposed merger (the “Merger”). Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018) (the “Neinast Lawsuit”); and Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed June 9, 2018) (the “Franchi Lawsuit). Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the “Wordehoff Lawsuit”), Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the “Ryan Lawsuit”), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the “Walker Lawsuit”), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the “Garcia Lawsuit”), and SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (the “Karri Lawsuit” and, together with the other six lawsuits, the “Lawsuits”), were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively. These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff, Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus. The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro’s directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the Merger, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and any class if the Merger is consummated, and litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees. The defendants intend to defend the Karri Lawsuit vigorously.