Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Off-Balance Sheet Commitments |
We execute contracts involving indemnifications standard in the relevant industry and indemnifications specific to certain transactions such as the sale of a business. These indemnifications might include claims relating to the following: environmental matters; intellectual property rights; governmental regulations and employment-related matters; customer, supplier, and other commercial contractual relationships; and financial matters. Performance under these indemnifications would generally be triggered by a breach of terms of the contract or by a third-party claim. Historically, we have experienced only minimal and infrequent losses associated with these indemnifications. Consequently, any future liabilities brought about by these indemnifications cannot reasonably be estimated or accrued. |
Indemnifications Provided As Part of Contracts and Agreements |
We are party to the following types of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify a third party with respect to certain matters. |
Sponsors: Upon the closing of the acquisition of the Sensors and Controls businesses of Texas Instruments Incorporated ("TI") on April 27, 2006, we entered into customary indemnification agreements with entities associated with Bain Capital Partners, LLC ("Bain Capital") and co-investors (Bain Capital and co-investors are collectively referred to as the “Sponsors”). Pursuant to these indemnification agreements, we agreed to indemnify the Sponsors, either during or after the term of the agreements, against certain liabilities arising out of performance of a consulting agreement between us and each of the Sponsors and certain other claims and liabilities, including liabilities arising out of financing arrangements and securities offerings. There is no limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under these indemnifications. |
Officers and Directors: In connection with our initial public offering ("IPO"), we entered into indemnification agreements with each of our board members and executive officers pursuant to which we agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless, and also advance expenses as incurred, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, from damages arising from the fact that such person is or was one of our directors or officers or that of any of our subsidiaries. |
Our articles of association provide for indemnification of directors and officers by us to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, as it now exists or may hereinafter be amended (but, in the case of an amendment, only to the extent such amendment permits broader indemnification rights than permitted prior thereto), against any and all liabilities including all expenses (including attorneys’ fees), judgments, fines, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with such action, suit, or proceeding, provided he or she acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in, or not opposed to, our best interests, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful or outside of his or her mandate. The articles do not provide a limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under the indemnification. No indemnification is provided for in respect of any claim, issue, or matter as to which such person has been adjudged to be liable for gross negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of his or her duty on our behalf. |
In addition, we have a liability insurance policy that insures directors and officers against the cost of defense, settlement, or payment of claims and judgments under some circumstances. Certain indemnification payments may not be covered under our directors’ and officers’ insurance coverage. |
Underwriters: Pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements entered into in connection with our IPO and secondary public equity offerings, we are obligated to indemnify the underwriters against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act of 1933, or to contribute to payments the underwriters may be required to make in respect thereof. The underwriting agreements do not provide a limit to the maximum future payments, if any, under these indemnifications. |
Intellectual Property and Product Liability Indemnification: We routinely sell products with a limited intellectual property and product liability indemnification included in the terms of sale. Historically, we have had only minimal and infrequent losses associated with these indemnifications. Consequently, any future liabilities resulting from these indemnifications cannot reasonably be estimated or accrued. |
Product Warranty Liabilities |
Our standard terms of sale provide our customers with a warranty against faulty workmanship and the use of defective materials, which, depending on the product, exists for a period of twelve to eighteen months after the date we ship the product to our customer or for a period of twelve months after the customer resells our product, whichever comes first. We do not offer separately priced extended warranty or product maintenance contracts. Our liability associated with this warranty is, at our option, to repair the product, replace the product, or provide the customer with a credit. |
We also sell products to customers under negotiated agreements or where we have accepted the customer’s terms of purchase. In these instances, we may provide additional warranties for longer durations, consistent with differing end-market practices, and where our liability is not limited. Finally, many sales take place in situations where commercial or civil codes, or other laws, would imply various warranties and restrict limitations on liability. |
In the event a warranty claim based on defective materials exists, we may be able to recover some of the cost of the claim from the vendor from whom the materials were purchased. Our ability to recover some of the costs will depend on the terms and conditions to which we agreed when the materials were purchased. When a warranty claim is made, the only collateral available to us is the return of the inventory from the customer making the warranty claim. Historically, when customers make a warranty claim, we either replace the product or provide the customer with a credit. We generally do not rework the returned product. |
Our policy is to accrue for warranty claims when a loss is both probable and estimable. This is accomplished by accruing for estimated returns and estimated costs to replace the product at the time the related revenue is recognized. Liabilities for warranty claims have historically not been material. In some instances, customers may make claims for costs they incurred or other damages related to a claim. Any potentially material liabilities associated with these claims are discussed in this Note under the heading Legal Proceedings and Claims. |
Environmental Remediation Liabilities |
Our operations and facilities are subject to U.S. and non-U.S. laws and regulations governing the protection of the environment and our employees, including those governing air emissions, water discharges, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, and the cleanup of contaminated sites. We could incur substantial costs, including cleanup costs, fines, civil or criminal sanctions, or third-party property damage or personal injury claims, in the event of violations or liabilities under these laws and regulations, or non-compliance with the environmental permits required at our facilities. Potentially significant expenditures could be required in order to comply with environmental laws that may be adopted or imposed in the future. We are, however, not aware of any threatened or pending material environmental investigations, lawsuits, or claims involving us or our operations. |
In 2001, TI Brazil was notified by the State of São Paolo, Brazil regarding its potential cleanup liability as a generator of wastes sent to the Aterro Mantovani disposal site, which operated near Campinas from 1972 to 1987. The site is a landfill contaminated with a variety of chemical materials, including petroleum products, allegedly disposed at the site. TI Brazil is one of over 50 companies notified of potential cleanup liability. There have been several lawsuits filed by third parties alleging personal injuries caused by exposure to drinking water contaminated by the disposal site. Our subsidiary, Sensata Technologies Brazil ("ST Brazil"), is the successor in interest to TI Brazil. However, in accordance with the terms of the acquisition agreement entered into in connection with the acquisition of the Sensors & Controls business of TI (the “Acquisition Agreement”), TI retained these liabilities (subject to the limitations set forth in that agreement) and has agreed to indemnify us with regard to these excluded liabilities. Additionally, in 2008, five lawsuits were filed against ST Brazil alleging personal injuries suffered by individuals who were exposed to drinking water allegedly contaminated by the Aterro Mantovani disposal site. These matters are managed and controlled by TI. TI is defending these five lawsuits in the 1st Civil Court of Jaquariuna, San Paolo. Although ST Brazil cooperates with TI in this process, we do not anticipate incurring any non-reimbursable expenses related to the matters described above. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for these matters as of March 31, 2014 or December 31, 2013. |
Control Devices, Inc. (“CDI”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of our U.S. operating subsidiaries, Sensata Technologies, Inc., acquired through our acquisition of First Technology Automotive, is party to a post-closure license, along with GTE Operations Support, Inc. (“GTE”), from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection with respect to a closed hazardous waste surface impoundment located on real property owned by CDI in Standish, Maine. The post-closure license obligates GTE to operate a pump and treatment process to reduce the levels of chlorinated solvents in the groundwater under the property. The post-closure license obligates CDI to maintain the property and provide access to GTE. We do not expect the costs to comply with the post-closure license to be material. As a related but separate matter, pursuant to the terms of an environmental agreement dated July 6, 1994, GTE retained liability and agreed to indemnify CDI for certain liabilities related to the soil and groundwater contamination from the surface impoundment and an out-of-service leach field at the Standish, Maine facility, and CDI and GTE have certain obligations related to the property and each other. The site is contaminated primarily with chlorinated solvents. In 2013, CDI subdivided and sold a portion of the property subject to the post-closure license, including a manufacturing building, but retained the portion of the property that contains the closed hazardous waste surface impoundment, for which it and GTE continue to be subject to the obligations of the post closure license. The buyer of the facility is also now subject to certain restrictions of the post-closure license. CDI has agreed to complete an ecological risk assessment on sediments in an unnamed stream crossing the sold and retained land and to indemnify the buyer for any remediation costs in excess of $30 associated with sediments in the unnamed stream. We do not expect the remaining cost associated with addressing the soil and groundwater contamination, or our obligations relating to the indemnification of the buyer of the facility, to be material. |
Legal Proceedings and Claims |
We account for litigation and claims losses in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies (“ASC 450”). Under ASC 450, loss contingency provisions are recorded for probable and estimable losses at our best estimate of a loss or, when a best estimate cannot be made, at our estimate of the minimum loss. These estimates are often developed prior to knowing the amount of the ultimate loss, require the application of considerable judgment, and are refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. Accordingly, we are often initially unable to develop a best estimate of loss and therefore the minimum amount, which could be zero, is recorded. As information becomes known, either the minimum loss amount is increased, or a best estimate can be made, generally resulting in additional loss provisions. Occasionally, a best estimate amount is changed to a lower amount when events result in an expectation of a more favorable outcome than previously expected. |
We are regularly involved in a number of claims and litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. Most of our litigation matters are third-party claims for property damage allegedly caused by our products, but some involve allegations of personal injury or wrongful death. We believe that the ultimate resolution of the current litigation matters pending against us, except potentially those matters described below, will not have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. |
Insurance Claims |
The accounting for insurance claims depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the claim, the evaluation of coverage, the amount of proceeds (or anticipated proceeds), the ability of an insurer to satisfy the claim, and the timing of the loss and corresponding recovery. In accordance with ASC 450, receipts from insurance up to the amount of loss recognized are considered recoveries. Recoveries are recognized in the financial statements when they are probable of receipt. Insurance proceeds in excess of the amount of loss recognized are considered gains. Gains are recognized in the financial statements in the period in which contingencies related to the claim (or a specific portion of the claim) have been resolved. We classify insurance proceeds in our condensed consolidated statements of operations in a manner consistent with the related losses. |
Pending Litigation and Claims |
Ford Speed Control Deactivation Switch Litigation: We are involved in a number of litigation matters relating to a pressure switch that TI sold to Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) for several years until 2002. Ford incorporated the switch into a cruise control deactivation switch system that it installed in certain vehicles. Due to concerns that, in some circumstances, this system and switch may cause fires, Ford and related companies issued numerous separate recalls of vehicles between 1999 and 2009, which covered approximately fourteen million vehicles in the aggregate. |
We are a defendant in one case related to this system and switch that involves wrongful death allegations. This case, Romans vs. Ford et al, Case No. CVH 20100126, Court of Common Pleas, Madison County, Ohio, involves claims for property damage, personal injury, and three fatalities resulting from an April 5, 2008 residential fire alleged to involve a Ford vehicle. On April 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed suit against TI and Sensata and this case was subsequently consolidated with an earlier lawsuit, former Case No. CVC 20090074, filed against Ford. On March 18, 2013, the court granted our motion for dismissal, with the case continuing against Ford. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal of the decision dismissing Sensata. On April 22, 2013, the court issued a stay of the proceedings until the appeal was completed. On November 18, 2013, the Court of Appeals, 12th Appellate District of Ohio, Madison County (Case No. CA2013-04-012), issued an opinion affirming the summary judgment dismissal granted in our favor. On December 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio. On March 28, 2014, we were informed that the Ohio Supreme Court has rejected the plaintiff’s request, leaving the appellate court decision in place. We expect to be dismissed from the litigation in accordance with the trial court's previous ruling. |
As of March 31, 2014, we are a defendant in seven lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged property damage and various personal injuries caused by vehicle fires related to the system and switch. For the most part, these cases seek an unspecified amount of compensatory and exemplary damages, however one plaintiff has submitted a demand in the amount of $0.2 million. Ford and TI are co-defendants in each of these lawsuits. In accordance with the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, we are managing and defending these lawsuits on behalf of both parties. |
Pursuant to the terms of the Acquisition Agreement, and subject to the limitations set forth in that agreement, TI has agreed to indemnify us for certain claims and litigation, including the Ford matter. The Acquisition Agreement provides that when the aggregate amount of costs and/or damages from such claims exceeds $30.0 million, TI will reimburse us for amounts incurred in excess of that threshold up to a cap of $300.0 million. We entered into an agreement with TI, called the Contribution and Cooperation Agreement, dated October 24, 2011, whereby TI acknowledged that amounts we paid through September 30, 2011, plus an additional cash payment, would be deemed to satisfy the $30.0 million threshold. Accordingly, TI will not contest the claims or the amounts claimed through September 30, 2011. Costs that we have incurred since September 30, 2011, or may incur in the future, will be reimbursed by TI up to a cap of $300.0 million less amounts incurred by TI. TI has reimbursed us for expenses incurred through March 31, 2014. We do not believe that aggregate TI and Sensata costs will exceed $300.0 million. |
SGL Italia: Our subsidiaries, STBV and ST Italia, are defendants in a lawsuit, Luigi Lavazza s.p.a. and SGL Italia s.r.l. v. Sensata Technologies Italia s.r.l., Sensata Technologies, B.V., and Komponent s.r.l., Court of Milan, bench 7, brought in the court in Milan, Italy. The lawsuit alleges defects in one of our electromechanical control products. The plaintiffs are alleging €4.2 million in damages. We have denied liability in this matter. We filed our most recent answer to the lawsuit in November 2012 and the most recent hearing occurred on November 19, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Milan court issued an order calling for a hearing on February 14, 2014 for purposes of appointing an independent technical expert. At that hearing, the court appointed the independent technical expert and set a calendar for the process, to include a meeting of the expert with both parties on March 3, 2014 and a series of milestones leading up to a court hearing on July 10, 2014. We are actively defending the case, but we believe that a loss is probable. We estimate the range of loss to be between $0.3 million and the full amount of the claim. As of March 31, 2014, we have recorded an accrual of $0.3 million, the low end of the range, as we believe that no amount within the range represents a better estimate of loss than any other amount. |
Venmar: We have been involved in a related series of claims and lawsuits involving products we sold to one of our customers, Venmar, that sold ventilation and air exchanger equipment containing an electromechanical control product. Venmar conducted recalls in conjunction with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on similar equipment in 2007, 2008, and 2011. In April 2013, two of the pending claims were filed as lawsuits. These are Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Sensata Technologies, Inc., Case No. 13105170NP, 52nd Cir. Ct., Huron Co., MI and Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Venmar Ventilation, Case No. 13917CZ, 37th Cir. Ct., Calhoun Co., MI. These lawsuits involve claims for damages in the amount of $0.9 million and $6.2 million, respectively. In light of a related lawsuit settlement in 2012, we believe losses resulting from these matters are reasonably possible, however, we cannot estimate a range of loss at this time. As of March 31, 2014, we have not recorded an accrual for these matters. |
Aircraft: In 2012, certain of our subsidiaries, along with more than twenty other defendants, were named in lawsuits involving a plane crash on May 25, 2011 that resulted in four deaths. The first lawsuit was filed on May 24, 2012 in Pike Circuit Court, Kentucky. This lawsuit is styled Campbell vs. Aero Resources Corporation et al, Civil Action 12-C1-652, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Pike Circuit Court, Div. No. I (the "Campbell case"). A second lawsuit was filed on July 5, 2012 in Jessamine Circuit Court, Kentucky. This lawsuit is styled Shuey v. Hawker Beechcraft, Inc. et al, Civil Action 12-C1-650, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jessamine Circuit Court, Civil Division (the "Shuey case"). The plaintiffs alleged that one of our circuit breakers was a component in the aircraft and brought claims of negligence and strict liability. Damages were unspecified. On December 5, 2013, the plaintiff in the Shuey case filed a stipulation dismissing us without prejudice. On March 24, 2014, we were informed that the Campbell plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss us without prejudice. With the dismissals of the lawsuits, we do not expect further proceedings in these matters. Accordingly, as of March 31, 2014, we have not recorded an accrual for these matters. |
Automotive Customers: In the fourth quarter of 2013, one of our automotive customers alleged defects in certain of our sensor products installed in the customer's vehicles during 2013. In the first quarter of 2014, another customer alleged similar defects. Due to the recent nature of this second allegation, we are in the early stages of identifying a root cause of this issue. The alleged defects are not safety related. We consider a loss related to these matters to be probable. As of March 31, 2014, we have recorded an accrual of $2.8 million, representing our best estimate of the potential loss. |
Korean Supplier: In the first quarter of 2014, one of our Korean suppliers notified us that they were terminating our existing agreement with them and stopped shipping product to us. We brought legal proceedings against this supplier in Seoul Central District Court, seeking an injunction to protect Sensata-owned manufacturing equipment physically at this supplier’s facility. This supplier has countered that we are in breach of contract and has alleged damages of approximately $7.6 million. We are litigating these proceedings, with the most recent hearing held on April 25, 2014. This supplier has also filed a complaint against us with a Korean government agency for unfair trade practices. There are no actual damages specified in this claim, but the government agency can impose awards, including punitive damages of up to three times actual damages. We are responding to this claim. Both matters are in their preliminary stages. We do not believe that a loss is probable, and as of March 31, 2014, we have not recorded an accrual for these matters. |
FCPA Voluntary Disclosure |
In 2010, an internal investigation was conducted under the direction of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors to determine whether any laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), may have been violated in connection with a certain business relationship entered into by one of our operating subsidiaries involving business in China. We believe the amount of payments and the business involved was immaterial. We discontinued the specific business relationship, and our investigation has not identified any other suspect transactions. We contacted the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") and the SEC to make a voluntary disclosure of the possible violations, the investigation, and the initial findings. We have been fully cooperating with their review. During 2012, the DOJ informed us that it has closed its inquiry into the matter but indicated that it could reopen its inquiry in the future in the event it were to receive additional information or evidence. We have not received an update from the SEC concerning the status of its inquiry. The FCPA (and related statutes and regulations) provides for potential monetary penalties, criminal and civil sanctions, and other remedies. We are unable to estimate the potential penalties and/or sanctions, if any, that might be assessed and, accordingly, no provision has been made in the condensed consolidated financial statements. |