COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Mar. 28, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Future Minimum Lease Payments

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of March 28, 2020 were as follows:



(in thousands)	Operating Leases ⁽¹⁾
2021	$	24,845
2022	21,468
2023	9,256
2024	4,020
2025	2,356
Thereafter	1,651
Total lease payments	$	63,596
Less: Imputed interest⁽²⁾	(5,935		)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	57,661

⁽¹⁾ The weighted average remaining lease term was 3.0 years as of March 28, 2020.

⁽²⁾ The weighted average discount rate was 4.7% as of March 28, 2020.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases as of March 30, 2019 were as follows⁽¹⁾:



(in thousands)	Gross Minimum Lease Payments	Sublease Receipts		Net Minimum Lease Payments
2020	18,882	(5,238	)	13,644
2021	17,883	(5,481	)	12,402
2022	15,239	(5,645	)	9,594
2023	5,800	(1,160	)	4,640
2024	1,281	—		1,281
Thereafter	601	—		601
Total minimum future rental payments	59,686	(17,524	)	42,162

⁽¹⁾ Amounts are based on ASC 840, Leases, and were superseded upon the adoption of ASC 842, Leases, on March 31, 2019 (See Note 3).

Unconditional Purchase Obligations

The Company purchases materials and services from a variety of suppliers and manufacturers. During the normal course of business and to manage manufacturing operations and general and administrative activities, the Company may enter into firm, non-cancelable, and unconditional purchase obligations for which amounts are not recorded on the consolidated balance sheets. As of March 28, 2020, the Company had outstanding off-balance sheet third-party manufacturing, component purchase, and other general and administrative commitments of $344.5 million.

Other Guarantees and Obligations

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, purchasers of assets or subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company's breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by the Company, services to be provided by the Company, intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties or, with respect to the sale of assets of a subsidiary, matters related to the Company's conduct of business and tax matters prior to the sale. From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various triggering events relating to the sale and use of its products and services.

In addition, the Company also provides indemnification to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability, or environmental obligations. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors, officers and certain other personnel that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers of the Company or certain of its affiliated entities. The Company maintains director and officer liability insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from its obligation to indemnify its directors, officers and certain other personnel in certain circumstances. It is not possible to determine the aggregate

maximum potential loss under these agreements due to the limited history of prior claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular claim. Such indemnification obligations might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, the Company has not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in the consolidated financial statements.

Claims and Litigation

On October 12, 2012, GN Netcom, Inc. (“GN”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Court”), alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, and tortious interference with business relations in connection with the Company’s distribution of corded and wireless headsets. GN sought injunctive relief, total damages in an unspecified amount. GN generally alleged that the Company’s alleged exclusive dealing arrangements with certain distributors stifled competition in the relevant market. In July 2016, the Court issued a sanctions order against Plantronics in the amount of approximately $4.9 million for allegations of spoliation of evidence. Plantronics paid that award shortly thereafter. The case was tried to a jury in October 2017, resulting in a verdict in favor of the Company. GN filed a motion for new trial in November 2017, and that motion was denied by the Court in January 2018. GN filed a notice of intent to appeal both the denial of the new trial motion and the Court’s July 2016 spoliation order. In July 2019, the appellate court denied GN’s request for default judgment but granted a new trial to include certain excluded testimony of one witness. The retrial is scheduled for September 2020. The claims are the same as those tried in the original trial of this matter in October 2017.

In September 2018, Mr. Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California alleging violations of various federal and state consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and fraud claims in connection with the Company’s BackBeat FIT headphones. In January 2020, the Court approved settlement of the matter.

In January 2018, FullView, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California against Polycom, Inc. alleging infringement of two patents and thereafter filed a similar complaint in connection with the same patents in Canada. In April 2019, the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) opinion denying inter partes reexamination filed by Polycom. In July, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of the IPR of the second patent. FullView filed its First Amended Complaint in November 2019. The Company Answered and filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff’s Fraudulent Concealment and Tolling. In March 2020, FullView filed its Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and the Company an opposition.

In June 2018, directPacket Research Inc. filed a complaint alleging patent infringement by Polycom in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division. In July 2019, the Court granted Polycom’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Northern District of California. Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the asserted patents were filed by Polycom in June 2019. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of proceedings on all three patents in January 2020. That same month, the District Court stayed the case pending resolution of the IPRs.

In November 2019, Felice Bassuk, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Plantronics, its CEO Joseph Burton, its CFO Charles Boynton and its former CFO Pamela Strayer alleging various securities law violations. The Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel and renamed the action “In re Plantronics, Inc. Securities Litigation” in February 2020. Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on June 5, 2020.

In December 2019, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint for Trade Secret Misappropriation against Plantronics, Inc. and certain individuals which amends a previously filed complaint against certain other individuals. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss which was granted with leave to amend for defendants He and Chung, granted as to defendant Williams and granted in part and denied in part as to defendants Puorro and Plantronics.

In January 2020, Castlemorton Wireless, LLC filed a Complaint alleging patent infringement by Plantronics and Polycom in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The Company filed its Answer and a Motion to Dismiss in March 2020 which Castlemorton opposed. The hearing is pending.

In addition to the specific matters discussed above, the Company is involved in various legal proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of conducting business. Where applicable, in relation to the matters described above, the Company has accrued an amount that reflects the aggregate liability deemed probable and estimable, but this amount is not material to the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company is not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible loss, including in excess of any amount accrued, because of the preliminary nature of many of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts relating to many of these proceedings, the variable treatment of claims made in many of these proceedings, and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of many of these proceedings. However, based upon the Company's historical experience, the resolution of these proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company's

financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company may incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against these legal proceedings.