ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORPON
ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORP Commitments Disclosure
Note 13: Commitments and Contingencies
Purchase Obligations
The Company has agreements with suppliers, external manufacturers and other vendors for capital expenditures, inventory purchases, manufacturing services, information technology and other goods and services. The following is a schedule by year of future minimum purchase obligations under non-cancelable arrangements entered into during the ordinary course of business as of December 31, 2025 (in millions):
| 2026 | $ | 354.3 | |||
| 2027 | 128.5 | ||||
| 2028 | 53.2 | ||||
| 2029 | 34.0 | ||||
| 2030 | 28.3 | ||||
| Thereafter | 7.4 | ||||
Total | $ | 605.7 | |||
Environmental Contingencies
The Company currently leases its headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona on Salt River Maricopa Indian Community property.
Though the Company has encountered and dealt with a number of environmental issues over time relating to the various locations that comprise its operations, any costs to the Company in connection with such matters have not been, and, based on the information available, are not expected to be material.
The following presents a summary of such environmental contingencies:
•East Greenwich, Rhode Island. 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.
•Santa Clara, California. As a result of the acquisition of AMIS in 2008, the Company is a "primary responsible party" to an environmental remediation and clean-up plan 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 obligations relating to environmental remediation and clean-up activities at this location. This facility was divested to Lincoln Property Company Commercial, Inc. in 2022.
•South Portland, Maine. Through its acquisition of Fairchild, the Company acquired a facility in South Portland, Maine. This facility was divested to Diodes, Inc. in 2022. This facility has ongoing environmental remediation projects to respond to certain releases of hazardous substances that occurred prior to the leveraged recapitalization of Fairchild from its former parent company, National Semiconductor Corporation, which is now owned by TI. To the extent the Company could still incur liabilities with respect to these remediation projects, pursuant to a 1997 asset purchase agreement entered into in connection with the Fairchild recapitalization, National Semiconductor Corporation agreed to indemnify Fairchild, without limitation and for an indefinite period of time, for all future costs related to these projects.
•Bucheon, South Korea. Under a 1999 asset purchase agreement pursuant to which Fairchild purchased the power device business of Samsung, Samsung agreed to indemnify Fairchild in an amount up to $150.0 million for remediation costs and other liabilities related to historical contamination at Samsung’s Bucheon, South Korea operations.
•Mountain Top, Pennsylvania. Under a 2001 asset purchase agreement pursuant to which Fairchild purchased a manufacturing facility in Mountain Top, Pennsylvania, Intersil Corp. (subsequently acquired by Renesas Electronics Corporation) agreed to indemnify Fairchild for remediation costs and other liabilities related to historical contamination at the facility.
•Hartford, Illinois. The Company was notified by the EPA that it has been identified as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in the Chemetco Superfund matter. Chemetco, a defunct reclamation services supplier that operated in Hartford, Illinois at what is now a Superfund site, has performed reclamation services for the Company in the past. The EPA is pursuing Chemetco customers for contribution to the site clean-up activities. The Company has joined a PRP group, which is cooperating with the EPA in the evaluation and funding of the clean-up activities.
Financing Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business, the Company provides standby letters of credit or other guarantee instruments to certain parties initiated by either the Company or its subsidiaries, as required for transactions, including, but not limited to, material purchase commitments, agreements to mitigate collection risk, leases, utilities or customs guarantees. As of December 31, 2025, the Company's Revolving Credit Facility included $25.0 million available for the issuance of letters of credit. There were $1.6 million letters of credit outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility as of December 31, 2025, which reduced the Company's borrowing capacity. The Company also had outstanding guarantees and letters of credit outside of its Revolving Credit Facility totaling $7.2 million as of December 31, 2025.
As part of obtaining financing in the ordinary course of business, the Company issued guarantees related to certain of its subsidiaries, which totaled $0.9 million as of December 31, 2025. Based on historical experience and information currently available, the Company believes that it will not be required to make payments under the standby letters of credit or guarantee arrangements for the foreseeable future.
Indemnification Contingencies
The Company is a party to a variety of agreements entered into in the ordinary course of business, including acquisition agreements, 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 IP 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. In the case of certain acquisition agreements, these agreements may require us to maintain such indemnification provisions for the acquiree’s directors, officers and other employees and agents, in certain cases for a number of years following the acquisition.
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 economic damage, bodily injury or property damage. 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 rights to such customer for valid defective product claims.
The Company and its subsidiaries provide for indemnification of directors, officers and other persons in accordance with limited liability company operating agreements, certificates of incorporation, by-laws, articles of association or similar organizational documents, as the case may be. Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") authorizes a court to award, or a corporation’s board of directors to grant, indemnity to directors and officers under certain circumstances and subject to certain limitations. The terms of Section 145 of the DGCL are sufficiently broad to permit indemnification under certain circumstances for liabilities, including reimbursement of expenses incurred, arising under the Exchange Act. As permitted by the DGCL, the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (as amended, the "Certificate of Incorporation") contains provisions relating to the limitation of liability and indemnification of directors and officers. The Certificate of Incorporation eliminates the personal liability of each of the Company’s directors to the fullest extent permitted by Section 102(b)(7) of the DGCL, as it may be amended or supplemented, and provides that the Company will indemnify its directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Section 145 of the DGCL, as amended from time to time.
The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors and executive officers. The form of agreement (the "Indemnification Agreement") provides, subject to certain exceptions and conditions specified in the Indemnification Agreement, that the Company will indemnify each indemnitee to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law against all expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection with a proceeding or claim in which such person is involved because of his or her status as one of the Company’s directors or executive officers. In addition, the Indemnification Agreement provides that the Company will, to the extent not prohibited by law and subject to certain exceptions and repayment conditions, advance specified indemnifiable expenses incurred by the indemnitee in connection with such proceeding or claim.
The Company also maintains directors’ and officers’ insurance policies that indemnify its directors and officers against various liabilities, including certain liabilities under the Exchange Act, which might be incurred by any director or officer in his or her capacity as such.
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.
Government Assistance
2025 Government Incentives
The Company receives government incentives from U.S. federal and state governments and non-U.S. governments in the form of cash grants and tax abatements, which in most cases attach conditions for a specific duration period, generally related to hiring, training and/or retaining employees, the construction or acquisition of assets and placing them in service or the development of specific technologies. If conditions are not satisfied or the duration period for the agreement is infringed, the incentives are subject to reduction, termination, or recapture.
As of December 31, 2025, relating to government incentives, $91.8 million and $2.5 million were included in and , respectively, substantially all of which represents the benefit of investment tax credits in excess of taxes payable. As December 31, 2025, $151.9 million was recorded as a net decrease to . Additionally, $15.5 million and $3.9 million were recorded as a reduction to and , respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2025.
The duration of the agreements for the incentives received by the Company in 2025 ranges from to twenty years, with a recapture period that can extend up to ten years.
2024 Government Incentives
As of December 31, 2024, relating to government incentives, $86.3 million and $2.4 million were included in and , respectively, substantially all of which represents the benefit of investment tax credits in excess of taxes payable. As December 31, 2024, $104.4 million was recorded as a net decrease to . Additionally, $10.8 million and $5.3 million were recorded as a reduction to and , respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2024.
2023 Government Incentives
As of December 31, 2023, relating to government incentives, $12.9 million and $5.2 million were included in and , respectively, representing the amounts receivable, $80.4 million was recorded as a net decrease to , and $83.6 million was recorded as a reduction to taxes payable included in . Additionally, $5.1 million and $4.9 million were recorded as a reduction to and , respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2023.
Legal Matters
From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including indemnification claims, claims of alleged infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights and other IP rights, claims of alleged non-compliance with contract provisions and claims related to alleged violations of laws and regulations. The Company evaluates the status of the legal proceedings in which it is involved to assess whether a loss is reasonably estimable and either remote, reasonably possible or probable of occurring. The Company further evaluates each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of possible loss can be made for disclosure purposes. Although litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company believes that it has adequate provisions for any probable and reasonably estimable losses. However, the Company’s estimates may not represent its maximum possible exposure in any particular legal proceeding. Legal expenses related to defense, negotiations, settlements, rulings and advice of outside legal counsel are expensed as incurred.
The Company is currently involved in a variety of legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. Based on information currently available, except as disclosed below, the Company is not involved in any pending or threatened legal proceedings that it believes could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and the Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of any litigation matter will be favorable to the Company.
Securities Class Action and Derivative Litigation Concerning the Company's SiC Business
On December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers. This action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in March of 2024. The initial complaint asserted claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The initial complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company's SiC business. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024. The amended complaint again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. Upon reviewing the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, plaintiff deemed it necessary to further amend their complaint. On September 6, 2024, the plaintiff filed their second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on October 10, 2024. Full briefing for this motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was completed on December 20, 2024. Oral arguments for this motion to dismiss were heard by the court on June 27, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. On August 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed their third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this third amended complaint on September 25, 2025. Full briefing on this motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was completed on December 10, 2025. The Company believes that it has strong legal defenses to the claims asserted and will vigorously defend itself.
On January 3, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Silva v. El-Khoury, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00007 (D. Del.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On February 12, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Smalley et al. v. El-Khoury et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-00183 (D. Del.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Both aforementioned derivative actions, Silva and Smalley, were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on April 15, 2024. On February 28, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Mumme et al. v. El-Khoury et al. Case No. CV2024-003974 (D. AZ.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa. On March 15, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Chan et al. v. Abe et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-00552 (D. AZ.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 16, 2025, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Balsam-Respler et al. v. El-Khoury et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-001672 (D. AZ.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On September 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the Balsam-Respler and Chan derivative complaints into a consolidated action entitled In re ON Semiconductor Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. CV-24-00552 (D.AZ.). The allegations in these derivative complaints are substantially similar to the allegations in the securities class action complaint discussed above. The derivative suits purport to assert claims (1) on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers for contribution under the federal securities laws and (2) against all of the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste. The plaintiffs seek an award of damages, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs and expenses
related to the litigation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims on the Company’s behalf. These pending derivative actions were stayed by agreement, pending the resolution of Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp.
Intellectual Property Matters
The Company faces risk of exposure from claims of infringement of the IP rights of others. In the ordinary course of business, the Company receives letters asserting that the Company’s products or components breach another party’s rights. Such letters may request royalty payments from the Company, that the Company cease and desist using certain IP and/or other remedies.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 9, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 10, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 5, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 6, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 14, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 16, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 19, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 20, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 21, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Feb 28, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Feb 24, 2016 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.