XML 69 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 26, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies L EGAL C LAIMS The Company is subject to litigation, claims, investigations and audits arising from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Although legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to those matters currently pending against the Company and intends to defend itself vigorously. The outcome of these matters, individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's cash flows, results of operations, or financial position. On December 7, 2021, counsel for National Technical Systems, Inc. (“NTS”) sent the Company an environmental demand letter pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21E, Section 4A, and CERCLA 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, related to a site that NTS formerly owned at 533 Main Street, Acton, Massachusetts. NTS received a Notice of Responsibility from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”) alleging trichloroethene, Freon and 1,4-dioxane contamination in the groundwater emanating from NTS’s former site. NTS alleges that the operations of a predecessor company to Mercury that was acquired in the Company's acquisition of the Microsemi Carve-Out Business that once owned and operated a facility at 531 Main Street, Acton, Massachusetts (the “Site”) contributed to the groundwater contamination, and NTS is seeking payment from the Company of NTS’s costs for any required environmental remediation. The Company believes the NTS claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. In November 2021, the Company responded to a request for information from MassDEP regarding the detection of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroakyl substances) in the Acton, Massachusetts Water District’s Conant public water supply wells near the Site at a level above the standard that MassDEP published for PFAS in October 2020. The Company has not been contacted by MassDEP regarding PFAS since the response was provided in November 2021. On October 30, 2025, MassDEP sent a Notice of Responsibility to the Company reporting that the Company, as successor to a former owner and operator of the Site, and Laine Realty Trust, the current owner of the Site, are responsible parties related to alleged releases of waste wave solder and Freon at the Site. The Company is engaging a licensed site professional and will respond to the notice from MassDEP. It is too early to determine what responsibility, if any, the Company may have for these environmental matters. On June 19, 2023, the Board of Directors received notice of the Company’s former CEO’s resignation from his positions of President and Chief Executive Officer. The Board accepted his resignation effective June 24, 2023. In his notice, the former CEO claimed he was entitled to certain benefits, including equity vesting, severance, and other benefits, under his change in control severance agreement (the “CIC Agreement”) because the former CEO had resigned with good reason during a potential change in control period. The Company disputes these claims and maintains that the former CEO resigned without good reason. On September 19, 2023, the former CEO filed for binding arbitration under the employment rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). An arbitrator was appointed on November 29, 2023. On March 25, 2024, the arbitrator denied the former CEO’s motion for compensation during the dispute and payment of his legal fees, preserving those matters for the arbitration hearing. An arbitration hearing was conducted from March 31, 2025 through April 9, 2025. Following the arbitration hearing, the parties filed post-hearing briefs on May 16, 2025, response briefs on June 13, 2025 and conducted oral arguments on June 30, 2025. On August 13, 2025, the arbitrator issued an interim award finding that the former CEO did not have good reason for termination under the CIC Agreement, rejecting the former CEO's claims for enhanced severance payments and accelerated stock vesting. However, the arbitrator found that the former CEO is entitled to compensation during the dispute under the agreement. The arbitrator awarded the former CEO cash compensation including base salary, interest, and bonus, but the arbitrator declined to award the former CEO shares of Mercury stock (or the value thereof) because the arbitrator determined it was unclear whether he had jurisdiction to review the effect of Mercury's Human Capital and Compensation Committee decision to rescind and cancel such stock awards. The arbitrator also awarded the former CEO all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in the arbitration per the CIC Agreement, finding no bad faith in his pursuit of the claims, and rejected the Company's counterclaims. The total amount of the Company's obligation to the former CEO is still to be determined, as the calculation of his legal fees and interest remains to be considered by the arbitrator, but the Company expects the total final award to be approximately $3,000. On September 12, 2025, the former CEO filed a complaint in Massachusetts state court seeking to vacate the interim arbitration award in part, as to the shares of Mercury's stock the arbitrator declined to award. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims asserted by the former CEO and intends to contest the claims vigorously. It is reasonably possible that the Company will incur a liability in this matter, and it estimates the potential range of exposure from $3,000 to $12,000, plus costs and attorneys’ fees for our former CEO during the Massachusetts state court dispute and further arbitration. On December 13, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserted Section 10(b) and 20(a) securities fraud claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers and sellers of the Company's stock from December 7, 2020, through June 23, 2023. The complaint alleged that the Company's public disclosures in SEC filings and on earnings calls were false and/or misleading. On February 27, 2024, the Court entered an order appointing Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiff. On April 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint including William Ballhaus and David Farnsworth as additional defendants and amended the class period to February 3, 2021 through February 6, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2024, and after the plaintiffs’ filed their opposition motion and the Company filed its reply to their opposition, a hearing on the motion was conducted by the Court on July 24, 2024. On July 24, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and permitted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed for leave to amend their complaint on August 23, 2024, the Company filed its opposition motion on September 6th, the plaintiffs filed their response brief on September 17, 2024, and the Company filed its reply on September 30, 2024. On February 20, 2025, the Court issued an order that dismissed claims relating to 14 of 17 challenged statements and that allowed the remaining three challenged statements to proceed. The Court also dismissed Messrs. Ruppert and Farnsworth from the lawsuit. Subject to the terms of the Company's by-laws and applicable Massachusetts law, Mr. Aslett and Mr. Ballhaus are indemnified by the Company for the federal securities class action. While in discovery, the parties participated in a mediation on September 11, 2025. After the mediation, all parties to the securities class action lawsuit agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the litigation for $32,500, which settlement in principle is subject to a final settlement agreement and review and approval by the court. As of September 26, 2025, a $32,500 receivable and payable were included within prepaid expenses and other current assets and accrued expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet, respectively. The increase and decrease in the receivable and payable were reflected within the changes in operating assets and liabilities within the Company's Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the first quarter ended September 26, 2025. On October 11, 2024, the Company received a shareholder derivative demand on behalf of Robert Sawyer alleging substantially the same claims as those covered in the federal securities class action. On November 14, 2024, the Company entered into a tolling agreement on this derivative demand. On February 28, 2025, the Company received a derivative demand on behalf of James Jones alleging substantially the same claims as those covered in the federal securities class action and the Robert Sawyer derivative demand. On May 20, 2025, the Board of Directors formed a Special Investigation Committee of independent directors to investigate the subject matters of the demand letters. On June 6, 2025, James Jones, on behalf of nominal defendant Mercury Systems, Inc., filed a derivative complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court in Essex County against Mark Aslett, Michael Ruppert, William Ballhaus, David Farnsworth, Orlando Carvalho, Lisa Disbrow, Barry Nearhos, Howard Lance, Debora Plunkett, Gerard DeMuro, Scott Ostfeld, Roger Krone, William O’Brien, Vincent Vitto, James Bass, Michael Daniels, and Mary Louise Krakauer, all current or former Mercury officers or directors. This derivative action has been stayed while the Special Investigation Committee conducts its investigation. On July 17, 2025, the Company received a derivative demand on behalf of Pauline McKinnon alleging substantially the same claims as those covered in the federal securities class action and the James Jones and Robert Sawyer derivative demands. The Company believes the claims in the derivative demands and derivative action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. It is too early to determine what responsibility, if any, the Company will have for this matter. On January 31, 2024, a former employee at the Company's Torrance, California location, filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit in California state court in Los Angeles County, along with a companion Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) lawsuit, to act in a representative capacity for other Mercury Mission Systems, LLC employees in California, alleging a range of violations of California wage and hour regulations. On October 1, 2024, a second former employee at our Torrance location filed a PAGA notice to act in a representative capacity on allegations of a range of violations of California wage and hour regulations. On December 21, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle these wage and hour class action claims for $450, which settlement in principle is subject to a final settlement agreement and review and approval by the court. In September 2025, an internal investigation was initiated, with the assistance of outside counsel, in connection with what the Company preliminarily believes may be inaccurately reported test results and certifications of conformance with certain product performance specifications under subcontracts involving approximately $15,000 in total revenue over approximately 20 years in support of a government program. The Company has no evidence that the product has not been effective in its intended use or function, nor has it encountered reported safety issues. The Company has reported the matter to the customer and, in an abundance of caution, to the government. The Company cannot currently estimate the amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this matter. Any determination that the Company’s operations were not in compliance with laws or regulations such as the False Claims Act could result in the imposition of civil or criminal fines, penalties, disgorgement, restitution, equitable relief, or other losses or conduct restrictions, and could be material to the Company’s financial results or business operations. I NDEMNIFICATION O BLIGATIONS The Company’s standard product sales and license agreements entered into in the ordinary course of business typically contain an indemnification provision pursuant to which the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with any patent, copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. Such provisions generally survive termination or expiration of the agreements. The potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is, in some instances, unlimited. P URCHASE C OMMITMENTS As of September 26, 2025, the Company has entered into non-cancelable purchase commitments for certain inventory components and services used in its normal operations. The purchase commitments covered by these agreements aggregate to $209,466. O THER As part of the Company's strategy for growth, the Company continues to explore acquisitions or strategic alliances. The associated acquisition costs incurred in the form of professional fees and services may be material to the future periods in which they occur, regardless of whether the acquisition is ultimately completed. The Company may elect from time to time to purchase and subsequently retire shares of common stock in order to settle employees’ tax liabilities associated with vesting of a restricted stock award or exercise of stock options. These transactions would be treated as a use of cash in financing activities in the Company's Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

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