Legal Proceedings
−Removed: In June 2008, we were named by the Orange County Water District in a suit alleging that our actions contributed to polluted groundwater managed by the plaintiff.
−Removed: The complaint seeks 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 within the plaintiff’s control.
+Added: In June 2008, we were named by the Orange County Water District in a suit alleging that a predecessor company’s actions at a plant we sold in 1998 contributed to polluted groundwater managed by the plaintiff.
+Added: The complaint seeks 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 us were dismissed.
−Removed: The plaintiff appealed this dismissal and the appellate court reversed the judgment in August 2017.
−Removed: In November 2017, the California Supreme Court denied our petition to review this decision and, in December 2017, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
−Removed: The first phase of a multi-phase trial commenced on April 12, 2021 and is expected to last for several more months.
−Removed: Subsequent trial phases, if necessary, likely would occur in the 2022/2023 timeframe.
−Removed: We are contesting the plaintiff’s claims vigorously.
−Removed: In October 2018, a contractor who had been retained by us through a third party temporary staffing agency filed a lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Company contractors and employees in California, alleging violations of California Labor Code provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, wages, wage statements and reimbursement of business expenses.
−Removed: The complaint sought certification of a class of all non-exempt employees.
−Removed: Although we continued to deny any wrongdoing, on November 19, 2020, we reached an agreement to resolve all claims (the “Settlement”), which is also expected to result in the dismissal of a suit alleging substantially similar claims filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in June 2021.
−Removed: The final amount of the judicially approved settlement was approximately $3.8 million, which will be paid during the first quarter of fiscal 2022.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The first phase of a multi-phase trial commenced in April 2021 and the submission of evidence concluded in May 2022.
+Added: On June 28, 2022, the Court issued a tentative ruling finding Sanmina and the other defendants liable for certain past investigation costs incurred by the plaintiff.
+Added: A final statement of decision in this phase of the trial is expected on or about the middle of calendar year 2023.
+Added: Based upon the Court’s tentative ruling, we believe a loss in this matter is probable and have recorded an estimated loss.
+Added: Subsequent trial phases to assess Sanmina’s and certain other defendants’ liability for the plaintiff’s future remediation and other costs, and the allocation of damages among the liable defendants, are anticipated to occur in 2024 and beyond.
+Added: It is probable that we will record additional losses in connection with this matter, and it is reasonably possible that the amount of such additional losses will be material.
+Added: However, at the current time, we are unable to estimate the amount of such additional losses or a range of losses.
+Added: We intend to continue defending the case vigorously and to seek appellate review of any adverse liability rulings or judgment at the appropriate time.
On December 20, 2019, we sued our former customer, Dialight plc (“Dialight”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to collect approximately $10 million in unpaid accounts receivable and net obsolete inventory obligations.
1 unchanged sentence
Dialight’s complaint, which asserts claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract and gross negligence/willful misconduct, alleges that we fraudulently misrepresented our capabilities to induce Dialight to enter into a Manufacturing Services Agreement (“Dialight MSA”), and then breached our obligations under the Dialight MSA relating to quality, on-time delivery and supply chain management.
−Removed: Dialight seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.
−Removed: We continue to vigorously prosecute our claim against Dialight.
−Removed: Further, we strongly disagree with Dialight’s allegations and intend to defend against them vigorously.
+Added: Dialight seeks compensatory and punitive damages that it contends exceed $200 million, but which we believe are vastly overstated and subject to a contractual limitation of liability that limits any Dialight recovery to less than $2 million.
+Added: We continue to vigorously prosecute our claims against Dialight.
+Added: Further, we strongly disagree with Dialight’s allegations and are defending against them vigorously.
+Added: No trial date has been set in this matter.
In addition, from time to time, we 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.
−Removed: We record liabilities for
−Removed: such matters when a loss becomes probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.
+Added: We record 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 our results of operations and financial condition.
4 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.