| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Collaborative Arrangements On March 4, 2016, we entered into a strategic partnership agreement (the "SPA") with Quanergy Systems, Inc. ("Quanergy") to jointly develop, manufacture, and sell solid state Light Detection and Ranging ("LiDAR") sensors. Under the terms of the SPA, we will be exclusive partners with Quanergy for component level solid state LiDAR sensors in the transportation market. We are accounting for the SPA under the provisions of ASC Topic 808, Collaborative Arrangements , under which the accounting for certain transactions is determined using principal versus agent considerations. Using the guidance in ASC Subtopic 605-45, Principal Agent Considerations , we have determined that we are the principal with respect to the SPA. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, there were no amounts recorded to earnings related to the SPA. Off-Balance Sheet Commitments From time to time, we execute contracts that require us to indemnify the other parties to the contracts. These indemnification obligations generally arise in two contexts. First, in connection with certain transactions, such as the sale of a business or the issuance of debt or equity securities, the agreement typically contains standard provisions requiring us to indemnify the purchaser against breaches by us of representations and warranties contained in the agreement. These indemnities are generally subject to time and liability limitations. Second, we enter into agreements in the ordinary course of business, such as customer contracts, which might contain indemnification provisions relating to product quality, intellectual property infringement, governmental regulations and employment related matters, and other typical indemnities. In certain cases, indemnification obligations arise by law. Performance under any of these indemnification obligations would generally be triggered by a breach of the terms of the contract or by a third-party claim. Historically, we have experienced only immaterial and irregular 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 carve-out and acquisition of the Sensors & Controls business from Texas Instruments (the "2006 Acquisition"), we entered into customary indemnification agreements with entities associated with Bain Capital Partners, LLC and co-investors (collectively referred to as the “Sponsors”), pursuant to which we agreed to indemnify them, 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. Initial Purchasers of Senior Notes : Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreements entered into in connection with our private placement senior note offerings, we are obligated to indemnify the initial purchasers of our senior notes against certain liabilities caused by any untrue statement or alleged untrue statement of a material fact in various documents relied upon by such initial purchasers, or to contribute to payments the initial purchasers may be required to make in respect thereof. The purchase 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 immaterial and irregular 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, generally 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 date 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. In addition, 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, a subsidiary of Texas Instruments ("TI") in Brazil ("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 Sensores e Controles do Brasil Ltda. ("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 2006 Acquisition, 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, São 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 June 30, 2016 . 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 ("DEP") 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. In 2013, the Maine DEP required CDI to commence an ecological risk assessment on sediments in an unnamed stream crossing the sold and retained land. In the first quarter of 2016, after reviewing the completed study, the Maine DEP agreed that no further action is required with regard to the stream sediments. 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 an immaterial amount, 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. A best estimate amount may be 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 be material to our financial statements. Pending Litigation and Claims Korean Supplier : In the first quarter of 2014, one of our Korean suppliers, Yukwang Co. Ltd. ("Yukwang"), notified us that it was terminating its existing agreement with us and stopped shipping product to us. We brought legal proceedings against Yukwang in Seoul Central District Court, seeking an injunction to protect Sensata-owned manufacturing equipment physically located at Yukwang’s facility. Yukwang countered that we were in breach of contract and alleged damages of approximately $7.6 million . The Seoul Central District Court granted our request for an injunction ordering Yukwang not to destroy any of our assets physically located at Yukwang’s facility, but on August 25, 2014 did not grant injunctive relief requiring Yukwang to return equipment and inventory to us. In the first quarter of 2014, Yukwang filed a complaint against us with the Small and Medium Business Administration (the "SMBA"), a Korean government agency charged with protecting the interests of small and medium sized businesses. The SMBA attempted to mediate the dispute between us and Yukwang, but its efforts failed. We believe that the SMBA has abandoned its efforts to mediate the dispute. On May 27, 2014, Yukwang filed a patent infringement action against us and our equipment supplier with the Suwon district court seeking a preliminary injunction for infringement of Korean patent number 847,738. Yukwang also filed a patent scope action on the same patent with the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal ("KIPT") and sought police investigation into the alleged infringement. Yukwang is seeking unspecified damages as well as an injunction barring us from using parts covered by the patent in the future. On October 8, 2014, the Suwon district court entered an order dismissing the patent infringement action on invalidity grounds. On October 14, 2014, Yukwang filed an appeal of that decision to the Seoul High Court (an intermediate appellate court). The Seoul High Court decided in our favor on February 29, 2016, and Yukwang did not attempt to appeal this decision to the Korean Supreme Court, so this decision is now final. On April 24, 2015, the KIPT issued a decision in our favor, finding the patent to be invalid. On January 22, 2016, the Korean Patent Court affirmed the invalidity decision. On February 12, 2016, Yukwang filed an appeal to the Korean Supreme Court. On June 9, 2016, the Korean Supreme Court decided not to hear further appeals. This concludes the intellectual property matters. In August 2014, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (the "KFTC") opened investigations into allegations made by Yukwang that our indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary, Sensata Technologies Korea Limited, engaged in unfair trade practices and violated a Korean law relating to subcontractors (the "Subcontracting Act"). We have responded to information requests from the KFTC. A hearing was held by the KFTC on October 2, 2015, and we held several meetings and responded to a subpoena for documents in early 2016. On March 15, 2016, the KFTC issued a decision that found us "not guilty" of several allegations involving alleged violations of the Fair Trade Act but found us "guilty" of imposing unfair trade terms and conditions. The agency has issued a "strict warning" to compel future compliance but will not issue a fine. On April 7, 2016, the KFTC issued a decision that found us “not guilty” of alleged violations of the Subcontracting Act. We believe that all of the above matters have now been resolved, with no amount due by us, and as a result, as of June 30, 2016 , we have no t recorded an accrual related to these matters. Brazil Local Tax : Schrader International Brasil Ltda. is involved in litigation with the tax department of the State of São Paulo, Brazil (the "São Paulo Tax Department"), which is claiming underpayment of state taxes. The total amount claimed is approximately $26.0 million , which includes penalties and interest. It is our understanding that the courts have denied the São Paulo Tax Department’s claim, a decision which has been appealed. Although we do not believe that a loss is probable in this matter, Schrader International Brasil Ltda. has been requested to pledge certain of its assets as collateral for the disputed amount while the case is heard. Certain of our subsidiaries have been indemnified by Tomkins Limited (a previous owner of Schrader) for any potential loss relating to this issue, and Tomkins Limited is responsible for and is currently managing the defense of this matter. As of June 30, 2016 , we have no t recorded an accrual related to this matter. Hassett Class Action Lawsuit: On March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number 2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan) . The lawsuit alleged that faulty valve stems were used in Schrader tire pressure monitoring sensors installed on Chrysler vehicles in model years 2007 through 2014. It alleged breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and was seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the size of the class and the damages sought were unspecified. The plaintiffs, joined by an additional individual, filed an amended complaint dated June 2, 2015. On July 23, 2015, along with Chrysler, we filed motions to dismiss. The court held a hearing on these motions on December 2, 2015. On December 7, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds. The plaintiffs did not re-file their claim, and as a result, this matter is concluded. 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. The alleged defects are not safety related. In the third quarter of 2014, we made a contribution to this customer in the amount of $0.7 million , which resolved a portion of the claim. In the first quarter of 2016, this customer requested an additional reimbursement, which we are currently evaluating, related to these alleged defects. We continue to work towards a final resolution of this matter and consider a loss to be probable. As of June 30, 2016 , we have recorded an accrual of $2.2 million , representing our estimate of the minimum loss related to this matter. We are still in negotiations with the customer, and cannot estimate an upper end of the potential range of loss as we do not know the number of parts or vehicles that will ultimately be involved in the claim. In the first quarter of 2014, a second customer alleged similar non-safety related defects. In the second quarter of 2015, we settled with this customer for an immaterial amount. In the fourth quarter of 2015, an additional customer raised similar complaints involving other vehicles from the same approximate production period. On April 15, 2016, we settled this matter with this customer for $0.4 million . |
