Vertiv Holdings CoVRT
Vertiv Holdings Co Commitments Disclosure
(16) 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 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 January 31, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing the claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act remains pending.
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 (the "Sullivan Action"), 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. Further, on November 19, 2024, another Vertiv shareholder, Laura Hanna, brought a derivative lawsuit, Hanna v. Johnson, et al. (the "Hanna Action"), against Vertiv (as nominal defendant only) and certain of Company’s directors and officers in Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints allege 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. The Sullivan Action has been stayed since August 10, 2023 pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On February 13, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order that (i) consolidated the Sullivan Action and Hanna Action into a single consolidated derivative lawsuit, In re Vertiv Holdings Co Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-0608-NAC (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), (ii) designated the complaint in the Hanna Action as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Derivative Action, and (iii) stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action on terms identical to those of the existing stay of the Sullivan Action.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against the allegations made in the aforementioned lawsuits, which are at the preliminary stages. However, the Company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of these matters or the amount of any cost associated with their resolution.
In November 2023, following the filing of the putative securities class action and the Sullivan Action described above, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and a parallel request for documents from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which relate to the allegations made in those actions. The Company responded to these requests. Since 2024, the Company has not received any further requests from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York relating to this matter. On December 30, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement informed the Company that it had concluded its investigation as to the Company and did not intend to recommend any enforcement action against the Company at this time.
In January 2024, the Mexican tax administration service, the Servicio de Administracion Tributaria (the "SAT"), initiated a process to suspend the importer registration of one of the Company's wholly owned Mexico subsidiaries, Tecnología del Pacífico S.A. de C.V. (“TDP”), in connection with a contested customs tax audit for the period April 2016 to February 2018. After further investigation and discussion with SAT, TDP agreed to make payments and fees totaling approximately payments and fees totaling approximately $10.1 were recorded in “Accrued expenses and other liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2023 and subsequently paid in the first quarter of 2024. The Company intends to seek reimbursement of this amount as an undue payment from SAT, for which the outcome is currently unknown and no receivable has been established.
The Company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of these matters, including whether any proceedings may be instituted in connection with the government inquiries, or the amount of any cost associated with their resolution.
Bank Guarantees and Bonds
In the ordinary course of business, we are required to commit to bank guarantees and bonds that require payments to our customers for any non-performance. The outstanding face value of these instruments fluctuates with the value of our projects in progress. As of December 31, 2025 the outstanding value of bank guarantees and bonds totaled $184.0.
As of December 31, 2025, 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 Consolidated Financial Statements, nor were there any material commitments outside the normal course of business.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 13, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 18, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 23, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 27, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Mar 1, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Mar 1, 2021 | |
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.