Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The following is a schedule by year of future minimum lease obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of September 30, 2011 (in millions):



Remainder of 2011	$	7.1
2012	28.1
2013	22.4
2014	19.2
2015	17.2
Thereafter	36.0
Total	$	130.0

Other Contingencies

The Company’s headquarters and manufacturing facility in Phoenix, Arizona is located on property that is a “Superfund” site, a property listed on the National Priorities List and subject to clean-up activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”), and now Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) have been involved in the cleanup of on-site solvent contaminated soil and groundwater and off-site contaminated groundwater pursuant to consent decrees with the State of Arizona. As part of the August 4, 1999 recapitalization, Motorola retained responsibility for this contamination, and Motorola and Freescale have agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to remediation costs and other costs or liabilities related to this matter.

In the Czech Republic the Company has ongoing remediation projects to respond to releases of hazardous substances that occurred during the years that this facility was operated by government-owned entities. In each case, the remediation project consists primarily of monitoring groundwater wells located on-site and off-site with additional action plans developed to respond in the event activity levels are exceeded at each of the respective locations. The government of the Czech Republic has agreed to indemnify the Company and the respective subsidiaries, subject to specified limitations, for remediation costs associated with this historical contamination. Based upon the information available, total future remediation costs to the Company are not expected to be material.

The Company’s design center in East Greenwich, Rhode Island is located on property that has localized soil contamination. In connection with the purchase of the facility, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Covenant Not To Sue with the State of Rhode Island. This agreement requires that remedial actions be undertaken and a quarterly groundwater monitoring program be initiated by the former owners of the property. Based on the information available, any costs to the Company in connection with this matter are not expected to be material.

As a result of the acquisition of AMIS, the Company is a “primary responsible party” to an environmental remediation and cleanup at AMIS’s former corporate headquarters in Santa Clara, California. Costs incurred by AMIS include implementation of the clean-up plan, operations and maintenance of remediation systems, and other project management costs. However, AMIS’s former parent company, a subsidiary of Nippon Mining, contractually agreed to indemnify AMIS and the Company for any obligation relating to environmental remediation and cleanup at this location. The Company has not offset the receivable from Nippon Mining’s subsidiary against the estimated liability on the consolidated balance sheet. Therefore, a receivable from Nippon Mining’s subsidiary is recorded on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2011 related to this matter for approximately $0.1 million. The Company does not believe that the liability and receivable amounts are material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

The Company's manufacturing location in Aizu, Japan is located on property where soil and ground water contamination has been detected. The Company believes that the contamination originally occurred during a time when the facility was operated by a prior owner. The Company is working with local authorities to determine the appropriate remediation actions and expects remediation costs, subject to certain limitations, to be indemnified pursuant to an agreement between the Company and the prior owner or covered by insurance subject to a deductible. Based on information available, any costs to the Company in connection with this matter are not expected to be material.

A bank guarantee issued on behalf of the Company under a non-reusable commitment credit with the bank has an outstanding amount of $3.8 million as of September 30, 2011. The Belgian bank that issued the guarantee has the right to create a mortgage on the real property of one of the Company’s European subsidiaries in the amount of $3.0 million, but had not done so as of September 30, 2011. The Company also has outstanding guarantees and letters of credit outside of its non-reusable commitment credit totaling $9.0 million as of September 30, 2011.

As part of securing financing in the normal course of business, the Company issued guarantees related to its receivables financing, capital lease obligations and real estate mortgages which totaled approximately $127.8 million as of September 30, 2011. The Company is also a guarantor of SCI LLC's unsecured loan with SANYO Electric, which had a balance of $349.2 million as of September 30, 2011. See Note 7: "Long-Term Debt" for further discussion of this loan.

For its operating leases, the Company expects to make cash payments and similarly incur expenses totaling $130.0 million as payments come due. The Company has not recorded any liability in connection with these operating leases, letters of credit and guarantee arrangements.

Based on historical experience and information currently available, the Company believes that in the foreseeable future it will not be required to make payments under the standby letters of credit or guarantee arrangements.

Indemnification Contingencies

The Company is a party to a variety of agreements entered into in the ordinary course of business pursuant to which it may be obligated to indemnify the other parties for certain liabilities that arise out of or relate to the subject matter of the agreements. Some of the agreements entered into by the Company require it to indemnify the other party against losses due to intellectual property infringement, property damage including environmental contamination, personal injury, failure to comply with applicable laws, the Company’s negligence or willful misconduct, or breach of representations and warranties and covenants related to such matters as title to sold assets.

The Company faces risk of exposure to warranty and product liability claims in the event that its products fail to perform as expected or such failure of its products results, or is alleged to result, in bodily injury or property damage (or both). In addition, if any of the Company’s designed products are alleged to be defective, the Company may be required to participate in their recall. Depending on the significance of any particular customer and other relevant factors, the Company may agree to provide more favorable indemnity rights to such customer for valid warranty claims.

The Company has, from time to time, been active in merger and acquisition activity. In connection with these mergers or acquisitions, the Company has agreed to indemnify the other party or parties to the merger or acquisition agreement for certain claims or occurrences, limited in most instances by time and/or monetary amounts.

The Company and its subsidiaries provide for indemnification of directors, officers and other persons in accordance with limited liability agreements, certificates of incorporation, by-laws, articles of association or similar organizational documents, as the case may be. The Company maintains directors’ and officers’ insurance, which should enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid.

In addition to the above, from time to time the Company provides standard representations and warranties to counterparties in contracts in connection with sales of its securities and the engagement of financial advisers and also provides indemnities that protect the counterparties to these contracts in the event they suffer damages as a result of a breach of such representations and warranties or in certain other circumstances relating to the sale of securities or their engagement by the Company.

While the Company’s future obligations under certain agreements may contain limitations on liability for indemnification, other agreements do not contain such limitations and under such agreements it is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under any of these indemnities have not had a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, the Company does not believe that any amounts that it may be required to pay under these indemnities in the future will be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Matters

The Company is currently involved in a variety of legal matters that arise in the normal course of business. Based on information currently available, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, including the matters described or referred to in the next paragraphs will have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, should the outcome of these actions be unfavorable, the Company's business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

Securities Class Action Litigation

During the period of July 5, 2001 through July 27, 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in three shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed in federal court in New York City against it and certain of the Company's former officers, current and former directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws and have been docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("District Court") as: Abrams v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No 01-CV-6114; Breuer v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6287; and Cohen v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6942. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint that supersedes the individual complaints originally filed. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in its initial public offering. The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's initial public offering prospectus and registration statement. The amended complaint alleges violations of both the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies and their public offering underwriters in New York City, which have all been transferred, along with the case against the Company, to a single federal district court judge for purposes of coordinated case management. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and has defended, and intends to continue to defend, the litigation vigorously. The litigation process is inherently uncertain, however, and the Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of these claims will be favorable for the Company.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated, amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Company's individual former officers and current and former directors who were named as defendants in the Company's litigation, and they are no longer parties to the litigation. On February 19, 2003, the District Court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants. In that ruling, the District Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. As to the claims brought against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the District Court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims. As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The District Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. Had it been approved by the District Court, this proposed settlement would have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. This proposed issuer settlement was conditioned on, among other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims against the Company and against the other issuers who had agreed to the settlement would be certified for class action treatment for purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be excluded from the settlement in a timely and appropriate fashion.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Court of Appeals") issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted against the Company could not be certified as class actions due, in part, to the Court of Appeals' determination that individual issues of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to the proposed classes. On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling. On April 6, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 ruling. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court to certify classes different from the ones originally proposed which might meet the standards for class certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its December 5, 2006 decision. In light of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District Court entered an order on June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including the Company.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases. The issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in the amended complaints in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an order in which it denied in substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness of the settlement, five of which have been dismissed with prejudice. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four of the remaining appeals and remanded the final appeal to the District Court to determine whether the appellant has standing to object to the settlement. On August 25, 2011, the District Court ruled that the last remaining objector lacks standing to object to the settlement. That objector has appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeals. The settlement calls for a total payment of $586.0 million from all defendants, including underwriters, of which $100.0 million is allocated to the approximately 300 issuer defendants. Under the settlement, the Company's insurers are to pay the full amount of the settlement share allocated to it, and the Company would bear no financial liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants (current and former) who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, are to receive complete dismissals from the case. While the Company can make no assurances or guarantees as to the outcome of these proceedings, based upon the Company's current knowledge, the Company believes that the final result of this action will have no material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Litigation Matter

On December 15, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Robert A. Lorber v. Francis P. Barton, George H. Cave, Donald A. Colvin, Curtis J. Crawford, Ph.D., Emmanuel T. Hernandez, Phillip D. Hester, Keith D. Jackson, J. Daniel McCranie, Robert Mahoney, W. John Nelson, Daryl Ostrander, Robert H. Smith, and ON Semiconductor Corporation, C.A. No. 1:10-CV-01101-GMS. The lawsuit was brought by a stockholder of ON Semiconductor Corporation and alleges generally that (1) ON Semiconductor Corporation's 2010 proxy statement contained materially false and misleading information regarding our Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan ("Plan") in violation of the federal securities laws; (2) the Plan was defective and, thus, any awards made pursuant to the Plan would not be tax-deductible pursuant to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and applicable regulations; and (3) the individual defendants (who are ON Semiconductor Corporation officers and directors) violated their state law fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in connection with the adoption of the Plan. The Company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The Company denies the substantive allegations made in the lawsuit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. While the Company makes no assurances or guarantees as to the outcome of this proceeding, based upon our current knowledge, the Company believes that the final result of this action will have no material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

See Part I, Item 1 "Business-Government Regulation" of the 2010 Form 10-K for information on certain environmental matters.