Note 10 Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Sep. 28, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Note 10 Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
| 10 | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | | | | | | |
|
a. Purchase Commitments |
|
As of September 28, 2014, we have made commitments to purchase approximately $463 of production machinery and equipment. |
|
b. Product Warranties |
|
We estimate future costs associated with expected product failure rates, material usage and service costs in the development of our warranty obligations. Warranty reserves are based on historical experience of warranty claims and generally will be estimated as a percentage of sales over the warranty period. In the event the actual results of these items differ from the estimates, an adjustment to the warranty obligation would be recorded. Changes in our product warranty liability during the first nine months of 2014 and 2013 were as follows: |
|
| | Nine month periods ended |
| | 28-Sep-14 | | 29-Sep-13 |
Accrued warranty obligations – beginning | | $ | 513 | | | $ | 607 | |
Accruals for warranties issued | | | 77 | | | | 174 | |
Settlements made | | | (90 | ) | | | (68 | ) |
Accrued warranty obligations – ending | | $ | 500 | | | $ | 713 | |
|
c. Contingencies and Legal Matters |
|
We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise from time to time in the normal course of business. We believe that the final disposition of such matters, other than the matters described below, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. |
|
Arista Power Litigation |
|
On September 23, 2011, we initiated an action against Arista Power, Inc. (“Arista”) and our former senior sales and engineering employee, David Modeen (“Modeen”) in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Wayne (the “Wayne County Action”). In our initial Complaint, we alleged that Arista recruited all but one of the members of its executive team from us, subsequently changed and redirected its business to compete directly with us by using our confidential information, and during the summer of 2011, recruited Modeen to become an Arista employee. We also allege that, as a result of actions by Arista and Modeen: (i) Modeen has breached the terms of his Employee Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure, Non-Compete, Non-Disparagement and Assignment Agreement with us as well as other obligations he owes us; (ii) Arista’s employment of Modeen will inevitably lead to the disclosure and use of our trade secrets by Arista, in violation of Modeen’s obligations to us; (iii) Arista unlawfully induced Modeen to breach his obligations to us; and (iv) Arista’s recruitment and employment of Modeen has breached a subcontract between Arista and us. In February 2012, we amended our Complaint to allege more broadly that Arista has misappropriated our trade secrets and confidential and strategic information related to products, technical requirements, markets, customers and sales and marketing, including (but not solely) through the recruitment and employment of Modeen. We seek damages as determined at trial and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The defendants answered the allegations set forth in the Complaint and Amended Complaint, without asserting any counterclaims. |
|
On December 5, 2011, Arista served us with a Complaint it filed on November 29, 2011 in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Monroe (the “Monroe County Action”) against us, our officers, several of our directors, and an employee. In its Complaint, Arista alleges that we and the named defendants have violated the terms of a Confidentiality Agreement with Arista and have unfairly competed against Arista by unlawfully appropriating Arista’s trade secrets and that as a result of such activity, Arista has incurred damages in excess of $60,000, and seeks damages, an accounting, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. After various motions, two amendments to its original Complaint and discovery between the parties, Arista withdrew all of its claims against all defendants other than the Company and one employee and the Stipulation and Order dismissing those claims was filed on September 20, 2013. On March 16, 2014, Arista delivered a Stipulation of Discontinuance With Prejudice agreeing to withdraw all remaining claims against us and our employee with prejudice which would preclude Arista from pursuing the claims that had been asserted in the Monroe County Action against us and our employee in a new suit or as counterclaims in the Wayne County Action. |
|
The Company’s Wayne County Action continues and discovery is in process. |
|
d. Other Matters – China Manufacturing Facility Move |
|
During the first quarter of 2014, we received an informal notice from the landlord of our China facility that we may not be able to extend our lease past its expiration in October 2014 due to possible zoning changes in the village where the facility is located. In response to this informal notification, we changed the period over which the China plant’s leasehold improvements are being depreciated to coincide with the expiration of the lease in October 2014. |
|
During the second quarter of 2014, the landlord confirmed to us that the lease for our China facility would not be extended, and we commenced a search for an alternate site to relocate our facility. We also developed plans to increase our manufacturing output in advance of the move so as to minimize the disruption of such a move to both our customers and the Company’s operations. |
|
In July 2014, the Company’s subsidiary in China entered into a lease for a replacement facility, also located in Shenzhen. The lease has a five year term, includes two rent-free months, and requires rent payments of RMB117 (approximately $19 at the current exchange rate) per month for the first three years, increasing to RMB126 (approximately $20) per month for the final two years. |
|
In September 2014, the Company’s subsidiary in China entered into agreements with the local village government in Shenzhen, China and the subsidiary’s landlord for the facility the subsidiary is required to vacate. These agreements require the local government to compensate both the subsidiary and landlord for the building, leasehold improvements and additional expenses to be incurred in moving from this facility. The subsidiary’s share of this compensation was determined to be $740, and this amount was received during the third quarter. |
|
It is the Company’s policy to recognize this compensation as a pro-rata reduction of expenses as the expenses are recognized. The unrecognized balance is deferred and carried as a current liability. |
|
The Company estimates that the total expenses of moving, including forfeited leasehold improvements, moving costs, legal costs, labor retention incentives and business interruption costs will total approximately $900. During the three month period ended September 28, 2014, the Company recognized $356 of the government’s compensation as a reduction of expenses. Total expenses relating to the relocation were $351 and $475 in the three and nine month periods ended September 28, 2014. |