XML 16 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company has agreements for the purchase of property, plant and equipment and other goods and services including outstanding purchase commitments with the Company's wafer foundries. Commitments for construction or purchases of property, plant and equipment totaled $20.4 million as of March 31, 2020, all of which will be due within the next year. Other purchase obligations and commitments totaled approximately $135.2 million, which includes outstanding purchase commitments with the Company's wafer foundries and other suppliers, for delivery in fiscal 2021. Indemnification Contingencies The Company's technology license agreements generally include an indemnification clause that indemnifies the licensee against liability and damages (including legal defense costs) arising from any claims of patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret infringement by the Company's proprietary technology. The terms of these indemnification provisions approximate the terms of the outgoing technology license agreements, which are typically perpetual unless terminated by either party for breach. The possible amount of future payments the Company could be required to make based on agreements that specify indemnification limits, if such indemnifications were required on all of these agreements, is approximately $168.1 million. There are some licensing agreements in place that do not specify indemnification limits. As of March 31, 2020, the Company had not recorded any liabilities related to these indemnification obligations and the Company believes that any amounts that it may be required to pay under these agreements in the future will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Legal Matters In the ordinary course of the Company's business, it is exposed to various liabilities as a result of contracts, product liability, customer claims, governmental investigations and other matters. Additionally, the Company is involved in a limited number of legal actions, both as plaintiff and defendant. Consequently, the Company could incur uninsured liability in any of those actions. The Company also periodically receives notifications from various third parties alleging infringement of patents or other intellectual property rights, or from customers requesting reimbursement for various costs. With respect to pending legal actions to which the Company is a party and other claims, although the outcomes are generally not determinable, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Litigation, governmental investigations and disputes relating to the semiconductor industry are not uncommon, and the Company is, from time to time, subject to such litigation, governmental investigations and disputes. As a result, no assurances can be given with respect to the extent or outcome of any such litigation, governmental investigations or disputes in the future. In connection with its acquisition of Microsemi, which closed on May 29, 2018, the Company became involved with the following legal matters: Federal Shareholder Class Action Litigation. Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers were named in two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT. On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily dismissed. The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018 and August 9, 2018. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects during the putative class period. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 1, 2019, which motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 11, 2020. Defendants filed their answer on April 24, 2020. Federal Derivative Litigation. On December 17, 2018, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Kistenmacher v. Sanghi, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04720. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally alleged that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, making or causing the Company to make false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Microsemi acquisition, the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, and a purported failure to maintain internal controls. The complaint further alleged that certain defendants engaged in insider trading. The complaint asserted causes of action for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment and sought unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on July 23, 2019. On September 13, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulation of voluntary dismissal dismissing the case without prejudice. State Derivative Litigation. On January 22, 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County, captioned Reid v. Sanghi, et al., Case No. CV2019-002389. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, purportedly failing to conduct adequate due diligence regarding Microsemi prior to its acquisition, misrepresenting the Company’s business prospects and health, and engaging in improper practices, and further alleges that certain defendants engaged in insider trading. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment and seeks unspecified monetary damages, corporate governance reforms, equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This case was stayed on May 23, 2019 to allow the Federal Derivative Litigation to address certain overlapping issues. Following the dismissal of the Federal Derivative Litigation, on October 1, 2019, the court granted the parties' joint request for a temporary stay. On January 30, 2020, the court lifted the temporary stay. An amended complaint was filed on February 28, 2020. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint on April 24, 2020. Peterson, et al. v. Sanghi, et al. On October 9, 2018, four former officers of Microsemi Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Orange County against the Company, Steve Sanghi, Eric Bjornholt, Ganesh Moorthy and Mitch Little asserting claims for slander per se, libel per se, trade libel, and violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 ("UCL"). Among other things, the plaintiffs in this matter allege that statements the Microchip executives made about excess shipments of products by Microsemi into the distribution channel were defamatory and that Microchip executives, including Mr. Sanghi, made false statements about Microsemi's shipments of products into the distribution channel, about certain Microsemi business practices and about the relative strength of the financial results of Microchip and Microsemi for the June 2018 quarter. On November 8, 2018, defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 18-cv-02000-JLS. Defendants moved to dismiss, and, following the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that dropped the trade libel and UCL claims. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in excess of $100 million, punitive damages in excess of $300 million, as well as injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In March 2020, the parties settled this matter, and the matter was later dismissed with prejudice. Governmental Investigations. The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating matters relating to the Company's acquisition of Microsemi. The Company believes that the investigations relate to distribution channel issues and business practices at Microsemi and the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Peterson v. Sanghi lawsuit described above. As a result of its acquisition of Atmel, which closed April 4, 2016, the Company became involved with the following legal matters: Continental Claim ICC Arbitration. On December 29, 2016, Continental Automotive GmbH ("Continental") filed a Request for Arbitration with the ICC, naming as respondents the Company's subsidiaries Atmel Corporation, Atmel SARL, Atmel Global Sales Ltd., and Atmel Automotive GmbH (collectively, "Atmel"). The Request alleges that a quality issue affecting Continental airbag control units in certain recalled vehicles stems from allegedly defective Atmel application specific integrated circuits ("ASICs"). Continental seeks to recover from Atmel all related costs and damages incurred as a result of the vehicle manufacturers’ airbag control unit-related recalls, currently alleged to be $203 million. The Company's Atmel subsidiaries intend to defend this action vigorously. Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees. On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against the Company's Atmel subsidiary, French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than three years later. The District Court dismissed the case on August 21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief from the dismissal judgment. On May 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the June 27, 2016 order dismissing the case. Individual Labor Actions by former LFR Employees. In June 2010, Atmel Rousset sold its wafer manufacturing business in Rousset, France to LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), the German parent of LFoundry Rousset ("LFR"). LFR then leased the Atmel Rousset facility to conduct the manufacture of wafers. More than three years later, LFR became insolvent and later liquidated. In the wake of LFR's insolvency and liquidation, over 500 former employees of LFR filed individual labor actions against Atmel Rousset in a French labor court, and in 2019 a French labor court dismissed all of the employees’ claims against Atmel Rousset. Plaintiffs have filed appeals requesting reconsideration of the earlier dismissals. Furthermore, these same claims have been filed by this same group of employees in a regional court in France against Microchip Technology Incorporated and Atmel Corporation. The Company, and the other defendant entities, believe that each of these actions is entirely devoid of merit, and, further, that any assertion by any of the Claimants of a co-employment relationship with any of these entities is based substantially on the same specious arguments that the Paris Commercial Court summarily rejected in 2014 in related proceedings. The defendant entities therefore intend to defend vigorously against each of these claims. Additionally, complaints have been filed in a regional court in France on behalf of the same group of employees against Microchip Technology Rousset, Atmel Switzerland Sarl, Atmel Corporation and Microchip Technology Incorporated alleging that the sale of the Atmel Rousset production unit to LF was fraudulent and should be voided. These claims are specious and the defendant entities therefore intend to defend vigorously against these claims. The Company accrues for claims and contingencies when losses become probable and reasonably estimable. As of the end of each applicable reporting period, the Company reviews each of its matters and, where it is probable that a liability has been or will be incurred, the Company accrues for all probable and reasonably estimable losses. Where the Company can reasonably estimate a range of losses it may incur regarding such a matter, the Company records an accrual for the amount within the range that constitutes its best estimate. If the Company can reasonably estimate a range but no amount within the range appears to be a better estimate than any other, the Company uses the amount that is the low end of such range. As of March 31, 2020, the Company's estimate of the aggregate potential liability that is possible but not probable is approximately $100 million in excess of amounts accrued. As reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, the Company learned of an ongoing compromise of its computer networks by what is believed to be sophisticated hackers. The Company engaged experienced legal counsel and a leading forensic investigatory firm with experience in such matters. The Company took steps to identify malicious activity on its network including a compromise of its network and, in May 2019, the Company began implementing a containment plan. The Company routinely evaluates the effectiveness of the containment mechanisms that were implemented and continues to implement additional measures from time to time. The Company has analyzed the amount and content of the information that was compromised. The Company does not believe that this IT system compromise has had a material adverse effect on its business or resulted in any material damage to it.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration