SANMINA CORP

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company is a party to litigation, claims and other contingencies, including environmental, regulatory and employee matters and examinations and investigations by governmental agencies, which arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a contingent liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies, or other applicable accounting standards. As of June 28, 2025 and September 28, 2024, the Company had estimated liabilities of $36 million and $39 million, respectively, for environmental matters, warranty, litigation and other contingencies (excluding reserves for uncertain tax positions), which the Company believes are adequate. However, there can be no assurance that the Company’s reserves will be sufficient to settle these contingencies. Such reserves are included in accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Legal Proceedings

Environmental Matters

The Company is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations and administrative orders concerning environmental protection, including those addressing the discharge of pollutants into the environment, the management and disposal of hazardous substances, the cleanup of contaminated sites, the materials used in products, and the recycling, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.

In June 2008, the Company was named by the Orange County Water District in a suit alleging that a predecessor company’s actions at a plant the Company sold in 1998 contributed to polluted groundwater managed by the plaintiff. The complaint sought recovery of compensatory and other damages, as well as declaratory relief, for the payment of costs necessary to investigate, monitor, remediate, abate and contain contamination of groundwater. In April 2013, all claims against the Company were dismissed. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in August 2017, remanding the case back to the Superior Court of California for trial. The trial against the Company and several other defendants commenced in April 2021 and the submission of evidence concluded in May 2022. On April 3, 2023, the court published a statement of decision finding the Company and other remaining defendants liable for certain past investigation costs incurred by the plaintiff. Subsequent proceedings to assess the Company’s and other defendants’ liability for the plaintiff’s future remediation and other costs, including attorneys’ fees, were expected. However, without admitting any liability, in August 2024, the Company and plaintiff agreed to settle this matter and all pending litigation in exchange for the Company’s payment to the plaintiff of $3 million, which amount was paid during the fiscal quarter ended December 28, 2024.

Item 103 of the SEC's Regulation S-K requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and the proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions unless the Company reasonably believes the monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, will not equal or exceed a threshold which the Company determines is reasonably designed to result in disclosure of any such proceeding that is material to its business or financial condition. Item 103 states that the disclosure threshold is $300,000, or at our election, a threshold that does not exceed the lesser of $1 million or one percent of our consolidated current assets. The disclosure below is made in reference to the lower threshold contained in Item 103. Going forward, as permitted by Item 103, the Company has elected to adopt a quantitative threshold for environmental proceedings of $1 million. Given the size of its operations, the Company believes that environmental matters under this threshold are not material to its business or financial condition.

On May 4, 2023, the Company received a summon to respond to a misdemeanor criminal complaint stemming from certain alleged violations of the California Health & Safety Code at the Company’s O’Toole Street plant in San Jose, California. The charging document (as amended), filed in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, alleged: (a) improper releases of chlorine gas on four occasions, (b) improper and incomplete reporting of such releases, (c) improper treatment and storage of hazardous waste, and (d) improper assessment and record keeping regarding hazardous waste treatment system tanks. In December 2024, after fully addressing the issues raised in the action, the Company pled nolo contendre to three of the alleged counts (the government dismissed all other counts) and agreed to pay fines and penalty assessments totaling $0.6 million, which payment was made in March 2025.

Other Matters

In December 2019, the Company sued a former customer, Dialight plc (“Dialight”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) to collect unpaid accounts receivable and net obsolete inventory obligations (which, by the time of the September 2024 trial referenced below, totaled $9 million, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees). On the same day the Company filed its suit, Dialight commenced its own action in the same court. Dialight alleged that the Company fraudulently misrepresented its capabilities to induce Dialight to enter into a Manufacturing Services Agreement (“MSA”) and then allegedly committed multiple, willful breaches of contract when performing under the MSA. After a trial in September 2024, a jury awarded the Company the full $9 million on its claims, rejected Dialight’s claims for fraudulent inducement and willful breach of contract, and awarded Dialight $1 million for breach of contract (collectively, the “Verdict”). The parties filed post-trial motions in October 2024, including a motion by the Company for prejudgment interest and its costs and expenses of the suit, and a motion by Dialight for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, its costs and expenses of the suit and for a new trial. Effective March 27, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Conditional Covenant Not to Execute (the “Stipulation”), which resolves conclusively all pending claims and disputed issues through (i) a series of payments by Dialight to the Company over the next two years totaling $12 million, and (ii) Dialight’s assignment to Sanmina of the $2 million (including prejudgment interest) otherwise due Dialight from Sanmina’s insurer in respect of the Verdict. On April 4, 2025, the Court entered a final judgment consistent with the Stipulation, marking the end of this litigation.

In May 2023, Sanmina Corporation and its SCI Technology, Inc. subsidiary (“SCI”) received Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) from the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) pursuant to the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”). The stated purpose of the CIDs—a form of subpoena requiring responses to written interrogatories and the production of documents relating to certain contracts, projects, proposals and business activities of SCI going back to 2010—is to determine whether there is or has been a violation of the FCA with respect to the provision of products and services to the government. These CIDs supplement several CIDs relating to the same subject matter served upon SCI and certain current and former SCI and Sanmina Corporation employees beginning in August 2020, pursuant to which SCI produced documents and information and certain of the current and former employees provided oral testimony. Sanmina and SCI cooperated with the DOJ investigation. On May 13, 2024, the Company learned that United States of America ex rel. Carl R. Eckert v. SCI Technology, Inc. et al.(the “Eckert Qui Tam Suit”) had been filed under seal in June 2020, and is now unsealed. On May 13, 2024, the Company also learned that the DOJ had filed a notice in the Eckert Qui Tam Suit stating that, while its investigation would continue, it was declining to intervene at the current time. The Eckert Qui Tam Suit, filed by a former SCI employee, alleges 16 FCA counts that relate substantially to the same contracts and issues that the DOJ previously had investigated, including making false certifications under the Truth in Negotiations Act and Cost Accounting Standards, submitting false cost and pricing data, fraudulently inducing the government to award contracts and violations of the Service Contract Act. The Eckert Qui Tam Suit alleges such claimed violations defrauded the government in an amount approximating $100 million, and seeks, on behalf of the government, treble damages, civil penalties and interest payable thereon. Sanmina and SCI intend to continue to defend vigorously against the claims made in the Eckert Qui Tam Suit, and filed a motion to dismiss on April 25, 2025. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this suit, although a loss is currently not considered to be probable or estimable.

On November 14, 2023, former employee Gerardo Ramirez filed two lawsuits against the Company in the Alameda County Superior Court (together, the “Ramirez Cases”). The first, a putative class action, alleges violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The second action, a complaint under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), alleges substantially similar violations and a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other “aggrieved employees,” along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 16, 2024 and June 14, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed class and PAGA actions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (the “Lobatos Cases”) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases, and, in the case of the Lobatos PAGA action, additional violations related to sick leave, suitable rest facilities, seating, failure to retain and provide employment and payroll records, reporting time pay, day of rest rules, payroll deductions, paid time off, and various unlawful employment practices. The Lobatos class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between May 16, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On August 12, 2024, former employee Mando Gomez filed a class and PAGA action in the Alameda County Superior Court (the “Gomez Case”) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Gomez Case seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between August 12, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On September 20, 2024 and November 26, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed class and PAGA actions in the Alameda County Superior Court (the “Guerrero Cases”) alleging violations substantially similar to the violations in the Ramirez Cases. The Guerrero class action seeks certification of several classes comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company (directly or via a staffing agency) within the State of California at any time between September 20, 2020 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, and the Guerrero Cases to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously.

For each of the pending matters noted above, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

In addition, from time to time, the Company may become involved in routine legal proceedings, demands, claims, threatened litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations that arise in the normal course of our business. The Company records liabilities for such matters when a loss becomes probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

Note 8. Income Tax

The Company estimates its annual effective income tax rate at the end of each quarterly period. The estimate takes into account the geographic mix of expected pre-tax income (loss), expected total annual pre-tax income (loss), enacted changes in tax laws, implementation of tax planning strategies and possible outcomes of audits and other uncertain tax positions. To the extent there are fluctuations in any of these variables during a period, the provision for income taxes may vary.

The Company’s provision for income taxes for the three months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024 was $19 million (20% of income before taxes) and $20 million (27% of income before taxes), respectively. The effective tax rate was lower for the three months ended June 28, 2025 primarily due to change in the jurisdictional mix of earnings and favorable discrete tax events, including a $2 million benefit from the release of certain foreign tax reserves due to expiration of statute of limitations.

The Company’s provision for income taxes for the nine months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024 was $52 million (19% of income before taxes) and $60 million (26% of income before taxes), respectively. The effective tax rate was lower for the nine months ended June 28, 2025 primarily due to a change in the jurisdictional mix of earnings and favorable discrete tax events, including a $3 million benefit from a change in tax law, a $3 million benefit from the release of certain foreign tax reserves due to expiration of statute of limitations and a $4 million benefit from stock-based compensation.

As a result of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for fiscal 2008 through 2010, the Company received a Revenue Agent’s Report (“RAR”) on November 17, 2023 asserting an underpayment of tax of approximately $8 million for fiscal 2009. The asserted underpayment results from the IRS’s proposed disallowance of a $503 million worthless stock deduction in fiscal 2009. Such disallowance, if upheld, would reduce the Company’s available net operating loss carryforwards and result in additional tax and interest attributable to fiscal 2021 and later years, which could be material. The Company disagrees with the IRS’s position as asserted in the RAR and is vigorously contesting this matter through the applicable IRS administrative and judicial procedures, as appropriate. The Company does not expect resolution of this matter within twelve months and cannot predict with any certainty the timing of such resolution. Although the final resolution of this matter remains uncertain, the Company continues to believe that it is more likely than not the Company’s tax position will be sustained. However, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”), an international association of 38 countries, including the United States, has proposed changes to numerous long-standing tax principles, namely, its Pillar Two framework, which imposes a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. Various countries have enacted or have announced plans to enact new tax laws to implement the global minimum tax and where enacted, the rules began to be effective for the Company in fiscal 2025. The Pillar Two rules are considered an alternative minimum tax and therefore deferred taxes would not be recognized or adjusted for the estimated effects of the future minimum tax. The adoption and effective dates of these rules may vary by country and could increase tax complexity and uncertainty and may adversely affect the Company’s provision for income taxes. These tax law changes did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements for the three months ended June 28, 2025 and are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements for the remainder of fiscal 2025.

On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("OBBBA") was enacted in the U.S. The OBBBA includes significant provisions, such as the permanent extension of certain expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, modifications to the international tax frame work, and the restoration of favorable tax treatment for certain business provisions. The legislation has multiple effective dates, with certain provisions effective in 2025 and others implemented through 2027. The Company is currently assessing its impact on its financial statements.

Note 9. Stockholders’ Equity

During the second quarter of 2025, the Company’s stockholders approved an amendment of the Company’s 2019 Equity Incentive Plan and the reservation of an additional 1 million shares of common stock for future issuance under the Company’s amended 2019 Equity Incentive Plan.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income

Accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax as applicable, consisted of the following:

Stock Repurchase Programs

During the nine months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024, the Company repurchased 1.4 million and 3.0 million shares of its common stock for $114 million and $162 million, respectively, under stock repurchase programs authorized by the Company’s Board of Directors. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $300 million of the Company’s common stock in the open market or in negotiated private transactions. These programs have no expiration dates and the timing of repurchases will depend upon capital needs to support the growth of the Company’s business, market conditions and other factors. Although stock repurchases are intended to increase stockholder value, they also reduce the Company’s liquidity. As of June 28, 2025, an aggregate of $239 million remained available under these programs.

In addition to the repurchases discussed above, the Company withheld 0.5 million shares of its common stock during each of the nine months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024 in settlement of employee tax withholding obligations due upon the vesting of restricted stock units. The Company paid $39 million and $26 million for the nine months ended June 28, 2025 and June 29, 2024, respectively, to applicable tax authorities in connection with these repurchases.

Noncontrolling Interest

During the first quarter of 2023, the Company entered into a joint venture transaction pursuant to which Reliance Strategic Business Ventures Limited acquired 50.1% of the outstanding shares of Sanmina SCI India Private Limited (“SIPL”), the Company’s existing Indian manufacturing entity. The remaining 49.9% of the outstanding shares of SIPL is held by the Company. The Company has, by contract, the unilateral ability to control the significant decisions made in the ordinary course of SIPL’s business. SIPL’s cash and cash equivalents balance of $212 million as of June 28, 2025 is not available for general corporate purposes and must be retained in SIPL to fund its operations.

Note 10. Business Segment

The Company’s operations are managed as two businesses: IMS and CPS. The Company’s CPS business consists of multiple operating segments which do not individually meet the quantitative thresholds for being presented as reportable segments. Therefore, financial information for these operating segments is presented in a single category entitled “CPS” and the Company has onlyone reportable segment - IMS.

The Company’s chief operating decision maker is the Chief Executive Officer who allocates resources and assesses performance of operating segments based on a measure of revenue and gross profit that excludes items not directly related to the Company’s ongoing business operations. These items are typically either non-recurring or non-cash in nature. Intersegment revenue consists primarily of sales of components from CPS to IMS.

The following table presents revenue and a measure of segment gross profit used by management to allocate resources and assess performance of operating segments:

(1)For purposes of evaluating segment performance, management excludes certain items from its measures of gross profit. These items consist of stock-based compensation expense, litigation settlements and charges resulting from distressed customers.

Note 11. Earnings Per Share

Basic and diluted per share amounts are calculated by dividing net income attributable to common shareholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period, as follows:

Weighted-average dilutive securities that were excluded from the above calculation because their inclusion would have had an anti-dilutive effect under ASC Topic 260, Earnings per Share, due to application of the treasury stock method were not material for any period presented.

Note 12. Business Combination

On May 18, 2025, the Company entered into the Equity Purchase Agreement to acquire ZT Systems from AMD Design, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., pursuant to which the Company will purchase all of the outstanding equity interests of ZT Systems, a provider of AI and general purpose computer infrastructure for hyperscale computing companies. Under the Equity Purchase Agreement, the Company will acquire ZT Systems’ data center infrastructure manufacturing business, excluding certain research and development functions, for an aggregate consideration (including contingent consideration) consisting of $2.4 billion in cash, $150 million in the Company’s stock and contingent consideration of up to $450 million in cash payable by the Company if certain conditions are met. The consideration is subject to certain adjustments based on ZT System’s closing cash, closing net working capital relative to a target amount, closing indebtedness and closing expenses. The Equity Purchase Agreement contains customary termination rights for the Company and ZT Systems, including if the acquisition is not completed by May 18, 2026 (subject to extension, including two automatic extensions until November 18, 2026, to the extent certain specified required regulatory approvals remain outstanding) (the “Outside Date”). Under the Equity Purchase Agreement, the Company will be required to pay a termination fee to ZT Systems of $153 million subject to certain conditions if the Equity Purchase Agreement is terminated by ZT Systems in certain circumstances related to the failure to obtain certain regulatory approvals prior to the Outside Date (or $76.5 million if such failure is related to a particular regulatory approval). The acquisition is expected to close near the end of the 2025 calendar year, subject to regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.

In connection with the execution of the Equity Purchase Agreement, the Company entered into a commitment letter with certain financial institutions that have agreed to provide the Company with, subject to satisfaction of customary conditions and covenants, a senior secured 364-day bridge loan facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $2.5 billion to fund a portion of the consideration payable in the acquisition of ZT Systems and to pay related fees and expenses. The commitment is intended to be drawn only to the extent that permanent financing is not obtained prior to closing the acquisition. As alternative financing is secured, the commitment letter will be reduced.

During the three and nine months ended June 28, 2025, the Company incurred $7 million of acquisition and integration charges. These costs primarily consisted of advisory, legal, accounting, and other professional and consulting fees, and were expensed as incurred.