Company: MRCY
Filing Date: 2025-11-04
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001049521-25-000062
Chunk: 84

Company: MERCURY SYSTEMS INC
Filing Date: 2025-11-04
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 84
---
 Freon at the Site. The Company is engaging a licensed site professional and will respond to the notice from MassDEP. It is too early to determine what responsibility, if any, the Company may have for these environmental matters. On June 19, 2023, the Board of Directors received notice of the Company’s former CEO’s resignation from his positions of President and Chief Executive Officer. The Board accepted his resignation effective June 24, 2023. In his notice, the former CEO claimed he was entitled to certain benefits, including equity vesting, severance, and other benefits, under his change in control severance agreement (the “CIC Agreement”) because the former CEO had resigned with good reason during a potential change in control period. The Company disputes these claims and maintains that the former CEO resigned without good reason. On September 19, 2023, the former CEO filed for binding arbitration under the employment rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). An arbitrator was appointed on November 29, 2023. On March 25, 2024, the arbitrator denied the former CEO’s motion for compensation during the dispute and payment of his legal fees, preserving those matters for the arbitration hearing. An arbitration hearing was conducted from March 31, 2025 through April 9, 2025. Following the arbitration hearing, the parties filed post-hearing briefs on May 16, 2025, response briefs on June 13, 2025 and conducted oral arguments on June 30, 2025. On August 13, 2025, the arbitrator issued an interim award finding that the former CEO did not have good reason for termination under the CIC Agreement, rejecting the former CEO's claims for enhanced severance payments and accelerated stock vesting. However, the arbitrator found that the former CEO is entitled to compensation during the dispute under the agreement. The arbitrator awarded the former CEO cash compensation including base salary, interest, and bonus, but the arbitrator declined to award the former CEO shares of Mercury stock (or the value thereof) because the arbitrator determined it was  unclear whether he had jurisdiction to review the effect of Mercury's Human Capital and Compensation Committee decision to rescind and cancel such stock awards. The arbitrator also awarded the former CEO all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in the arbitration per the CIC Agreement, finding no bad faith in his pursuit of the claims, and rejected the Company's counterclaims. The total amount of the Company's