XML 33 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.21.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
The Company is a party to a number of pending legal proceedings and claims, including those involving general and product liability and other matters. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are based on developments to date; management’s estimates of the outcomes of these matters; the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters; and any related insurance coverage. While the Company believes that a material adverse impact is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a future development in these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company. The Company is unable to estimate any additional loss or range of loss that may result from the ultimate resolution of these matters, other than those described below.
On May 10, 2018, the jury in the case of Bladeroom Group Limited, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Network Power Solutions, Inc. (now known as Vertiv Solutions, Inc.) and Liebert Corporation returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $30.0. The jury found the defendants breached a confidentiality agreement with Bladeroom, were unjustly enriched by such breach, improperly disclosed or used certain of the plaintiff’s trade secrets and the misappropriation of such trade secrets was willful and malicious. On March 11, 2019, the court entered orders in the case affirming the original award of $30.0 and imposing an additional award for punitive damages of $30.0 as well as attorney fees and interest. Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Emerson, the Company is indemnified for damages arising out of or relating to this case, including the above amounts. On August 12, 2019, judgment was entered, confirming the award entered on March 11, 2019. Emerson submitted an appeal, and in connection with the appeal submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $120.1. As of December 31, 2020, the Company had accrued $96.2 in accrued expenses, the full amount of the judgment, and recorded an offsetting indemnification receivable of $96.2 in other current assets related to this matter.
On August 30, 2021, the appellate court entered a judgment that the district court erred in its prior rulings and vacated the district court's judgment and post-verdict orders on appeal and remanded the case back to the district court for a new trial; and further vacated orders related to attorneys' and expert witness' fees. As a result of the appellate court’s ruling, the Company reversed the prior accrual of $96.2 in accrued expenses for the full amount of the judgment, and reversed the associated indemnification receivable as of September 30, 2021. On September 27, 2021 Bladeroom filed a petition requesting a rehearing en banc with the 9th Circuit.
On December 28, 2017, Vertiv acquired Energy Labs, Inc. (“Energy Labs”). The purchase agreement contained a provision for contingent consideration in the form of an earn-out payment based on the achievement of 2018 operating results. The range of outcomes was zero to $34.5. On June 4, 2019, Vertiv notified the selling shareholders of Energy Labs of Vertiv’s determination that the applicable 2018 operating results had not been achieved and that no contingent consideration was due to the selling shareholders. On September 6, 2019, the selling shareholders of Energy Labs notified Vertiv of their dispute regarding the contingent consideration due to them. The selling shareholders assert that the applicable 2018 operating results were exceeded and that Vertiv owes $34.5 in earn-out, the highest amount of earn-out possible under the agreement. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Company had accrued $2.8 in accrued expenses. Discovery is underway and a trial has been scheduled for February 2022. While Vertiv believes it has meritorious defenses against the assertions of the selling shareholders of Energy Labs, Vertiv is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this dispute. If Vertiv is unsuccessful, the ultimate resolution of this dispute could result in a loss of up to $31.7 in excess of the $2.8 accrued as well as costs and legal fees.
On August 3, 2021, an American Arbitration Association arbitration hearing commenced with respect to a 2018 claim filed by Vertiv against SVO Building One, LLC (“SVO”) alleging damages of approximately $12.0 with respect to (i) unremitted payment for work and materials in connection with, the design, engineering, procurement, installation, construction, and commissioning of a data center located in Sacramento, California and (ii) damages and injunctive relief relating to SVO’s unauthorized use of Vertiv’s intellectual property and work product. SVO filed a counterclaim in 2018 alleging damages of approximately $18.0 relating to (i) allegations that Vertiv was not a duly licensed contractor at all times during the project in violation of California’s contractor license regulations, (ii) breach of warranty, and (iii) gross negligence. On September 3, 2021, the arbitrator issued an interim phase one ruling finding (1) that Vertiv was in violation of California contractor license regulations and was barred from recovery of approximately $9.0 for work performed and equipment delivered in connection with the project, as well as requiring disgorgement plus interest of $10.0, (2) SVO was not in violation of California’s contractor license regulations, and (3) Vertiv and SVO agreed to a traditional baseball arbitration provision under the terms and conditions for the project, wherein each party is required to submit a proposed final award to the arbitrator for consideration, and the arbitrator is required to select one of the proposed awards submitted by the parties as the final award in the arbitration and is prohibited from issuing an alternative award. The second phase of the arbitration is expected to commence in the fourth quarter of 2021. As of September 30, 2021, SVO has amended its damages claim to approximately $75.0. While Vertiv believes its claims are meritorious and defenses against certain assertions of SVO, Vertiv is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this dispute. Vertiv also has both a right to appeal the ultimate arbitration ruling and claims for indemnification against third parties and insurers for part or all of any judgment that may ultimately be entered against it.
At September 30, 2021, there were no known contingent liabilities (including guarantees, taxes and other claims) that management believes will be material in relation to the Company’s consolidated financial statements, nor were there any material commitments outside the normal course of business other than those described above.