Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to various claims, charges and litigation. The outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and some lawsuits, claims or proceedings may be disposed of unfavorably to us, which could materially affect our financial condition or results of operations. For the following litigation matters, a liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar Firefighters’ Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned Miramar Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:19-cv-09837. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A similar case captioned Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:19-cv-12483 was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On January 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the Miramar and Campbell cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's Counsel. On April 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of competition and Section 301 tariffs on the Company’s financial performance. On December 20, 2019, purported Company shareholders David Katz and Thomas Wightman, derivatively on behalf of iRobot Corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned David Katz and Thomas Wightman, on behalf of iRobot Corporation v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:19-cv-11692. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on Demand Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company's subsequent financial performance. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. This case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On January 9, 2020, purported Company shareholder Robert Truman, derivatively on behalf of iRobot Corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned Robert Truman, on behalf of iRobot Corporation v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:20-cv-10034. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on Demand Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company's subsequent financial performance. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On January 22, 2020, purported Company shareholder Alexa Ruhfass, derivatively on behalf of iRobot Corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned Alexa Ruhfass, on behalf of iRobot Corporation v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:20-cv-10133. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on Demand Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company's subsequent financial performance. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On February 10, 2020, purported Company shareholder William Tasco, derivatively on behalf of iRobot Corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned William Tasco, derivatively on behalf of iRobot Corporation v. iRobot Corporation, et al., No. 1:20- cv-10253. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on Demand Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company's subsequent financial performance. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. Outstanding Purchase Orders At March 28, 2020 , the Company had outstanding purchase orders aggregating approximately $154.0 million . The purchase orders, the majority of which are with the Company's contract manufacturers for the purchase of inventory in the normal course of business, are for manufacturing and non-manufacturing related goods and services, and are generally cancelable without penalty. In circumstances where the Company has determined that it has financial exposure associated with any of these commitments, the Company records a liability in the period in which that exposure is identified. Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations The Company enters into standard indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses incurred by the indemnified party, generally the Company’s customers, in connection with any patent, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary right infringement claim by any third party. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual any time after execution of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has never incurred costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of March 28, 2020 and December 28, 2019 , respectively. Warranty The Company provides warranties on most products and has established a reserve for warranty obligations based on estimated warranty costs. The reserve is included as part of accrued expenses (Note 7) in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Activity related to the warranty accrual was as follows (in thousands): Three Months Ended March 28, 2020 March 30, 2019 Balance at beginning of period $ 13,856 $ 11,964 Provision 4,475 2,652 Warranty usage (4,333 ) (2,988 ) Balance at end of period $ 13,998 $ 11,628 |