Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Jan. 02, 2022
|Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies
As of January 2, 2022, the Company’s commitments included an estimated amount of approximately $17.4 million relating to the Company’s open purchase orders and contractual obligations that occurred in the ordinary course of business, including commitments with contract manufacturers and suppliers for which the Company has not received the goods or services, commitments for capital expenditures and construction-related activities for which the Company has not received the services. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, the terms generally allow the Company the option to cancel, reschedule, and adjust its requirements based on its business needs prior to the delivery of goods or performance of services. For lease obligations, please refer to Note 6 “Leases” for more details.
Michael Costello v. Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp., et al., 21-CV-01536, Superior Court of California, San Mateo County
On March 22, 2021, Michael Costello filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, against RSVAC and RSVAC’s board of directors. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the RSVAC directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the terms of a proposed transaction, and that the disclosures in RSVAC’s registration statement regarding the proposed transaction were materially deficient. The plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief, including enjoining the Business Combination. The case was voluntarily dismissed on August 24, 2021.
Derek Boxhorn v. Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp., et al., 1:21-cv-02900 (SDNY)
On April 5, 2021, Derek Boxhorn filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against RSVAC and RSVAC’s board of directors. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, in connection with the terms of the Business Combination, and that RSVAC’s registration statement contained materially incomplete and misleading information regarding the Business Combination. The plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief, including enjoining the Business Combination. The case was voluntarily dismissed on October 19, 2021. After the dismissal and on December 3, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, which is pending before the court.
Sopheap Prak et al. v. Enovix Corporation et al., 22CV005846, Superior Court of California, Alameda County
On January 21, 2022, two former machine operator employees filed a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against Enovix and co-defendant Legendary Staffing, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. The case is captioned Sopheak Prak & Ricardo Pimentel v Enovix Corporation and Legendary Staffing, Inc., 22CV005846. The Prak complaint alleges, among other things, on a putative class-wide basis, that the defendants failed to pay all overtime wages and committed meal period, rest period and wage statement violations under the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, statutory penalties and interest, and reasonable costs and attorney fees.
From time to time, the Company may become, involved in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company is not currently a party to any other potentially material legal proceedings, and the Company is not aware of any pending or threatened legal proceeding against the Company that the Company believes could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results or financial condition.
Guarantees and Indemnifications
In the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts and agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnifications. The Company’s exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future but have not yet been made. To date, the Company has not paid any claims or been required to defend any action related to its indemnification obligations. However, the Company may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations.The Company also has indemnification obligations to its officers and directors for specified events or occurrences, subject to some limits, while they are serving at the Company’s request in such capacities. There have been no claims to date and the Company has director and officer insurance that may enable the Company to recover a portion of any amounts paid for future potential claims. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liabilities relating to these obligations for the period presented.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef