Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company is a party to a number of pending legal proceedings and claims, including those involving general and product liability and other matters. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is probable that future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Accruals are based on developments to date; management’s estimates of the outcomes of these matters; the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters; and any related insurance coverage. While the Company believes that a material adverse impact is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a future development in these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company. The Company is unable to estimate any additional loss or range of loss that may result from the ultimate resolution of these matters, other than those described below.

On December 28, 2017, Vertiv acquired Energy Labs, Inc. (“Energy Labs”). The purchase agreement contained a provision for contingent consideration in the form of an earn-out payment based on the achievement of 2018 operating results. The range of outcomes was zero to $34.5. On June 4, 2019, Vertiv notified the selling shareholders of Energy Labs of Vertiv’s determination that the applicable 2018 operating results had not been achieved and that no contingent consideration was due to the selling shareholders. On September 6, 2019, the selling shareholders of Energy Labs notified Vertiv of their dispute regarding the contingent consideration due to them. The selling shareholders assert that the applicable 2018 operating results were exceeded and that Vertiv owes $34.5 in earn-out, the highest amount of earn-out possible under the agreement. On December 21, 2021, the parties agreed to a settlement term sheet, which includes, among other terms, the following: the Company agrees to pay $21.5 to the selling shareholders of Energy Labs; a full and complete waiver, release and discharge of all claims and liabilities; and a dismissal of the pending lawsuit. The parties executed a Settlement Agreement on December 30, 2021 consistent with the aforementioned terms. On January 12, 2022, the Company paid the agreed upon settlement of $21.5.

On August 3, 2021, an American Arbitration Association arbitration hearing commenced with respect to a 2018 claim filed by Vertiv against SVO Building One, LLC (“SVO”) alleging damages of approximately $12.0 with respect to (i) unremitted payment for work and materials in connection with, the design, engineering, procurement, installation, construction, and commissioning of a data center located in Sacramento, California and (ii) damages and injunctive relief relating to SVO’s unauthorized use of Vertiv’s intellectual property and work product. SVO filed a counterclaim in 2018 alleging damages of approximately $18.0 relating to (i) allegations that Vertiv was not a duly licensed contractor at all times during the project in violation of California’s contractor license regulations, (ii) breach of warranty, and (iii) gross negligence. On September 3, 2021, the arbitrator issued an interim phase one ruling finding (1) that Vertiv was in violation of California contractor license regulations and was barred from recovery of approximately $9.0 for work performed and equipment delivered in connection with the project, as well as requiring disgorgement plus interest of $10.0, (2) SVO was not in violation of California’s contractor license regulations, and (3) Vertiv and SVO agreed to a traditional baseball arbitration provision under the terms and conditions for the project, wherein each party is required to submit a proposed final award to the arbitrator for consideration, and the arbitrator is required to select one of the proposed awards submitted by the parties as the final award in the arbitration and is prohibited from issuing an alternative award. On December 31, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on ordinary and customary terms, settling all of the disputes between them.

On March 24, 2022, a putative securities class action, Kirk Vinings v. Vertiv Holdings Co, 22-cv-02416, was filed against Vertiv, Rob Johnson, and David Fallon, in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Vertiv securities between April 28, 2021 and February 23, 2022. The complaint alleges that Vertiv failed to disclose in certain of its filings made with the SEC during 2021 that it was not able to sufficiently anticipate and respond to supply chain issues and inflation. While Vertiv believes it has meritorious defenses against the plaintiff’s claims, Vertiv is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this dispute or the amount of any cost associated with its resolution.

At March 31, 2022, there were no known contingent liabilities (including guarantees, taxes and other claims) that management believes will be material in relation to the Company’s consolidated financial statements, nor were there any material commitments outside the normal course of business other than those described above.