| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Operating Leases Our operating leases comprise offices, equipment, data centers and distribution centers, with various expiration dates through June 2029. Certain lease agreements include options to renew or terminate the lease, which are not reasonably certain to be exercised and therefore are not factored into our determination of lease payments. The terms of certain leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. Gross lease expense was $1.5 million and $1.8 million for the three months ended April 2, 2023 and April 3, 2022, respectively. We recorded sublease income as reduction of lease expense, in the amount of $0.5 million for each of the three months ended April 2, 2023 and April 3, 2022. Supplemental cash flow information related to operating leases was as follows: Three Months Ended April 2, April 3, (in thousands) Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities Operating cash flows from operating leases $ 1,889 $ 2,036 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for lease liabilities Operating leases $ — $ 18 Weighted average remaining lease term and weighted average discount rate related to operating leases were as follows: As of April 2, December 31, Weighted average remaining lease term 4.9 years 5.1 years Weighted average discount rate 5.78 % 5.69 % The future minimum undiscounted lease payments under operating leases and future non-cancelable rent payments from our subtenants for each of the next five years and thereafter as of April 2, 2023 were as follows: Operating Lease Payments Sublease Payments Net (In thousands) 2023 (Remaining nine months) $ 3,657 $ (1,551) $ 2,106 2024 5,251 (1,947) 3,304 2025 3,897 (2,006) 1,891 2026 4,011 (2,066) 1,945 2027 3,986 (2,322) 1,664 Thereafter 5,130 (3,620) 1,510 Total future lease payments 25,932 $ (13,512) $ 12,420 Less: interest (3,884) Present value of future minimum lease payments $ 22,048 Accrued liabilities $ 3,880 Non-current operating lease liabilities 18,168 Total lease liabilities $ 22,048 Letters of Credit In connection with the lease agreement for our office space located in San Jose, California, we executed a letter of credit with the landlord as the beneficiary. As of April 2, 2023, we had approximately $3.6 million of unused letters of credit outstanding, of which $3.1 million pertains to the lease arrangement in San Jose, California. Purchase Obligations We have entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. As of April 2, 2023, we had approximately $36.6 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. As of April 2, 2023, an additional $24.2 million of purchase orders beyond contractual termination periods have been issued to supply chain partners in anticipation of demand requirements. Consequently, we may incur expenses for the materials and components, such as chipsets already purchased by the supplier to fulfill our orders if the purchase order is cancelled. Expenses incurred have historically not been significant relative to the original order value. As of April 2, 2023, the loss liability from committed purchases was not material. Warranty Obligations Changes in warranty obligations, which are included in accrued liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, were as follows: Three Months Ended April 2, April 3, (In thousands) Balance at the beginning of the period $ 1,174 $ 1,330 Provision for warranty obligations 15 79 Settlements (70) (79) Balance at the end of the period $ 1,119 $ 1,330 Litigation and Other Legal Matters We are involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In all cases, at each reporting period, we evaluate whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, we accrue for the amount or, if a range, we accrue the low end of the range, only if there is not a better estimate than any other amount within the range, as a component of legal expense within general and administrative expenses. We monitor developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate we had previously accrued. In relation to such matters, we currently believe that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position within the next 12 months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against us may cause us to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require us to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from our estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses. Securities Class Action Lawsuits and Derivative Suit On December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo filed six putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (the “State Action”), and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Federal Action”) against us and certain of our executives and directors. The plaintiffs in the State Action allege that we failed to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends ahead of our initial public offering (the “IPO”), violating the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Company common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO. In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named Matis Nayman as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about our sales trends and products. In the amended complaint, lead plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock (i) during the period between August 3, 2018 through December 3, 2018 and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Lead plaintiff sought class certification, an award of unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On August 6, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The federal court granted that motion, and lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June 12, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement for $1.25 million, which was also the amount that we had accrued for loss contingency. In October 2020, we made a $1.25 million payment to an escrow account administered by the court and plaintiff’s counsel (the “Settlement Fund”). The Settlement Fund was deemed to be in the custody of the court and remained subject to the jurisdiction of the court until such time as the Settlement Fund was distributed pursuant to the settlement agreement and/or further order of the court. On February 5, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. In advance of the final approval hearing, three of the named plaintiffs in the State Action requested exclusion from the settlement. The court held a final approval hearing on March 11, 2021, and, on March 25, 2021, entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement and, among other things, dismissed with prejudice all claims of lead plaintiff and the Settlement Class (as defined in the settlement agreement). The Federal Action is now closed. In the State Action, on May 5, 2021, the court held a status conference and instructed plaintiffs Perros, Patel, and Pham (“Plaintiffs”), who were the only Arlo stockholders to opt out of the federal settlement, to file an amended complaint by June 4, 2021. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, asserting their individual Securities Act claims, but also purporting to represent a new class of Arlo stockholders who purchased Arlo shares between December 3, 2018 and February 22, 2019. On June 21, 2021, the Arlo defendants filed a motion to dismiss the State Action (for forum non conveniens) based on the federal forum provision in Arlo’s certificate of incorporation. Plaintiffs opposed on July 28, 2021, and the Arlo defendants replied on August 13, 2021. On September 9, 2021, the court issued an order granting the Arlo defendants’ forum non conveniens motion, and on September 17, 2021, the court issued a final judgment dismissing the State Action in its entirety. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal occurred before the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief on May 20, 2022. Defendants-Respondents filed their responding brief on August 18, 2022, and Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief on September 7, 2022. On April 13, 2023, the court heard oral argument on the appeal and the case was submitted. On May 5, 2023, the Court of Appeal affirmed by written order the trial court’s dismissal of the State Action based on the federal forum provision in Arlo’s certificate of incorporation and awarded costs to Arlo. Leonard R. Pinto v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al. In addition to the State Action and the Federal Action, a purported stockholder named Leonard Pinto filed a tagalong derivative action on June 13, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Pinto v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al. , No. 19-CV-03354 (the “Derivative Action”). The Derivative Action is brought on behalf of Arlo against the majority of our current directors. The complaint is based on the same alleged misconduct as the securities class actions but asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On August 20, 2019, the court stayed the Derivative Action in deference to the Federal Action. On April 8, 2021, because it had granted final approval of the settlement in the Federal Action, the court lifted the stay in the Derivative Action and asked the parties to file a joint status report by April 22, 2021. In their status report, the parties stipulated to a schedule for plaintiff to file an amended complaint and for the parties to brief a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on May 24, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 9, 2021. On August 23, 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 17, 2021. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 31, 2022, and defendants filed their reply on March 2, 2022. On July 28, 2022, the Court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the Court informed the parties that it was inclined to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court’s corresponding written order dismissing the case followed on August 8, 2022. The Derivative Action is now closed. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to customers, distributors, resellers, vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising from breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with members of our board of directors and certain of our executive officers that require us, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may |
