XML 27 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 29, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, the Company is a party to litigation, claims and other contingencies, including environmental, regulatory and employee matters and examinations and investigations by governmental agencies, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a contingent liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, or other applicable accounting standards. As of March 29, 2025 and September 28, 2024, the Company had estimated liabilities of $32 million and $39 million, respectively, for environmental matters, warranty, litigation and other contingencies (excluding reserves for uncertain tax positions), which the Company believes are adequate. However, there can be no assurance that the Company’s reserves will be sufficient to settle these contingencies. Such reserves are included in accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Legal Proceedings Environmental Matters The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations and administrative orders concerning environmental protection, including those addressing the discharge of pollutants into the environment, the management and disposal of hazardous substances, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the materials used in products, and the recycling, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. In June 2008, the Company was named by the Orange County Water District in a suit alleging that a predecessor company’s actions at a plant the Company sold in 1998 contributed to polluted groundwater managed by the plaintiff. The complaint sought recovery of compensatory and other damages, as well as declaratory relief, for the payment of costs necessary to investigate, monitor, remediate, abate and contain contamination of groundwater. In April 2013, all claims against the Company were dismissed. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in August 2017, remanding the case back to the Superior Court of California for trial. The trial against the Company and several other defendants commenced in April 2021 and the submission of evidence concluded in May 2022. On April 3, 2023, the court published a statement of decision finding the Company and other remaining defendants liable for certain past investigation costs incurred by the plaintiff. Subsequent proceedings to assess the Company’s and other defendants’ liability for the plaintiff’s future remediation and other costs, including attorneys’ fees, were expected. However, without admitting any liability, in August 2024, the Company and plaintiff agreed to settle this matter and all pending litigation in exchange for the Company’s payment to the plaintiff of $3 million, which amount was paid during the fiscal quarter ended December 28, 2024. Item 103 of the SEC's Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and the proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions unless the Company reasonably believes the monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, will not equal or exceed a threshold which the Company determines is reasonably designed to result in disclosure of any such proceeding that is material to its business or financial condition. Item 103 states that the disclosure threshold is $300,000, or at our election, a threshold that does not exceed the lesser of $1 million or one percent of our consolidated current assets. The disclosure below is made in reference to the lower threshold contained in Item 103. Going forward, as permitted by Item 103, the Company has elected to adopt a quantitative threshold for environmental proceedings of $1 million. Given the size of its operations, the Company believes that environmental matters under this threshold are not material to its business or financial condition. On May 4, 2023, the Company received a summon to respond to a misdemeanor criminal complaint stemming from certain alleged violations of the California Health & Safety Code at the Company’s O’Toole Street plant in San Jose, California. The charging document (as amended), filed in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, alleged: (a) improper releases of chlorine gas on four occasions, (b) improper and incomplete reporting of such releases, (c) improper treatment and storage of hazardous waste, and (d) improper assessment and record keeping regarding hazardous waste treatment system tanks. In December 2024, after fully addressing the issues raised in the action, the Company pled nolo contendre to three of the alleged counts (the government dismissed all other counts) and agreed to pay fines and penalty assessments totaling $0.6 million, which payment was made in March 2025. Other Matters In December 2019, the Company sued a former customer, Dialight plc (“Dialight”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) to collect unpaid accounts receivable and net obsolete inventory obligations (which, by the time of the September 2024 trial referenced below, totaled $9 million, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees). On the same day the Company filed its suit, Dialight commenced its own action in the same court. Dialight alleged that the Company fraudulently misrepresented its capabilities to induce Dialight to enter into a Manufacturing Services Agreement (“MSA”) and then allegedly committed multiple, willful breaches of contract when performing under the MSA. After a trial in September 2024, a jury awarded the Company the full $9 million on its claims, rejected Dialight’s claims for fraudulent inducement and willful breach of contract, and awarded Dialight $1 million for breach of contract (collectively, the “Verdict”). The parties filed post-trial motions in October 2024, including a motion by the Company for prejudgment interest and its costs and expenses of the suit, and a motion by Dialight for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, its costs and expenses of the suit and for a new trial. Effective March 27, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgement and Conditional Covenant Not to Execute (the “Stipulation”), which resolves conclusively all pending claims and disputed issues through (i) a series of payments by Dialight to the Company over the next two years totaling $12 million, and (ii) Dialight’s assignment to Sanmina of the $2 million (including prejudgment interest) otherwise due Dialight from Sanmina’s insurer in respect of the Verdict. On April 4, 2025, the Court entered a final judgment consistent with the Stipulation, marking the end of this litigation. In May 2023, Sanmina Corporation and its SCI Technology, Inc. subsidiary (“SCI”) received Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) pursuant to the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”). The stated purpose of the CIDs—a form of subpoena requiring responses to written interrogatories and the production of documents relating to certain contracts, projects, proposals and business activities of SCI going back to 2010—is to determine whether there is or has been a violation of the FCA with respect to the provision of products and services to the government. These CIDs supplement several CIDs relating to the same subject matter served upon SCI and certain current and former SCI and Sanmina Corporation employees beginning in August 2020, pursuant to which SCI produced documents and information and certain of the current and former employees provided oral testimony. Sanmina and SCI cooperated with the DOJ investigation. On May 13, 2024, the Company learned that United States of America ex rel. Carl R. Eckert v. SCI Technology, Inc. et al. (the “Eckert Qui Tam Suit”) had been filed under seal in June 2020, and is now unsealed. On May 13, 2024, the Company also learned that the DOJ had filed a notice in the Eckert Qui Tam Suit stating that, while its investigation would continue, it was declining to intervene at the current time. The Eckert Qui Tam Suit, filed by a former SCI employee, alleges 16 FCA counts that relate substantially to the same contracts and issues that the DOJ previously had investigated, including making false certifications under the Truth in Negotiations Act and Cost Accounting Standards, submitting false cost and pricing data, fraudulently inducing the government to award contracts and violations of the Service Contract Act. The Eckert Qui Tam Suit alleges such claimed violations defrauded the government in an amount approximating $100 million, and seeks, on behalf of the government, treble damages, civil penalties and interest payable thereon. Sanmina and SCI intend to continue to defend vigorously against the claims made in the Eckert Qui Tam Suit, and filed a motion to dismiss on April 25, 2025. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this suit, although a loss is currently not considered to be probable or estimable. On November 14, 2023, employee Gerardo Ramirez filed two lawsuits against the Company in the Alameda County Superior Court (together, the “Ramirez Cases”). The first, a putative class action, alleges violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The second action, a complaint under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), alleges substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other “aggrieved employees,” along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 16, 2024 and June 14, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed class and PAGA actions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (the “Lobatos Cases”) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases, and, in the case of the Lobatos PAGA action, additional violations related to sick leave, suitable rest facilities, seating, failure to retain and provide employment and payroll records, reporting time pay, day of rest rules, payroll deductions, paid time off, and various unlawful employment practices. The Lobatos class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between May 16, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On August 12, 2024, former employee Mando Gomez filed a class and PAGA action in the Alameda County Superior Court (the “Gomez Case”) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Gomez Case seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between August 12, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On September 20, 2024 and November 26, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed class and PAGA actions in the Alameda County Superior Court (the “Guerrero Cases”) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Guerrero class action seeks certification of several classes comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between September 20, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, and the Guerrero Cases to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously. For each of the pending matters noted above, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. In addition, from time to time, the Company may become involved in routine legal proceedings, demands, claims, threatened litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations that arise in the normal course of our business. The Company records liabilities for such matters when a loss becomes probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration