COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

(13) 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 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. As of December 31, 2022 the settlement was recorded in “Accrued expenses and other liabilities” on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. The settlement was paid in the third quarter of 2023.

On May 3, 2022, a putative securities class action, In re Vertiv Holdings Co Securities Litigation, 22-cv-3572, was filed against Vertiv, certain of the Company’s officers and directors, and other defendants in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2022. The amended complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s public statements were materially false and/or misleading with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These claims are asserted on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities that (i) purchased Vertiv securities between February 24, 2021 and February 22, 2022; and/or (ii) purchased Vertiv securities in or traceable to the November 4, 2021 secondary public offering by a selling stockholder pursuant to a resale registration statement.

On June 9, 2023, two Vertiv shareholders, Matthew Sullivan and Jose Karlo Ocampo Avenido, brought a derivative lawsuit, Sullivan v. Johnson, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0608, against Vertiv (as nominal defendant only) and certain of the Company’s directors and officers in Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges that certain of the named directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading public statements with respect to inflationary and supply chain pressures and pricing issues, and that the Company suffered damages as a result.

Defendants believe they have meritorious defenses against the plaintiffs' claims in these lawsuits, which are at the preliminary stages, but the Company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of these disputes or the amount of any cost associated with their resolution.

At September 30, 2023, other than as described above, there were no known contingent liabilities (including guarantees, taxes and other claims) that management believes were or will be material in relation to the Company’s Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, nor were there any material commitments outside the normal course of business.