COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Jun. 27, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	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 27, 2026 and September 27, 2025, the Company had estimated liabilities of $48 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. These reserves are included in accrued liabilities and other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Additionally, the Company recognized a $183 million contingent cash consideration liability arising from the ZT Systems acquisition which is classified as other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. See Note 13, “Business Combination” of the notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this report for details. There can be no assurance that the Company’s reserves will be sufficient to settle these contingencies. 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. 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 resolved 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. On October 9, 2025, the Company and Dialight agreed to accelerate the payment schedule and reduced the total amount due by $350,000. Dialight made the final payment of $6 million in full on December 16, 2025. In May 2023, the Company 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 supplemented several CIDs relating to the same subject matter served upon SCI and certain current and former SCI and Sanmina employees beginning in August 2020, pursuant to which SCI produced documents and information and certain of the current and former employees provided oral testimony. The Company 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 by a former SCI employee in June 2020, and recently 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. As narrowed by a September 23, 2025 court order granting in part and denying in part the Company and SCI’s motion to dismiss, the Eckert Qui Tam Suit alleges on behalf of the United States 6 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, claims for submitting false cost or pricing data, and overcharging the government through underpayment of certain employees in violation of the Service Contract Act. The suit alleges such claimed violations defrauded the government in an amount approximating $100 million, and seeks, on behalf of the U.S. government, treble damages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and expenses of the suit. The Company and SCI continue to deny liability. However, to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation, in May 2026, the Company and SCI reached an agreement-in-principle with Mr. Eckert to settle the Eckert Qui Tam Suit. The terms of settlement, which remain subject to the consent of the United States and approval by the Court, include no admission of liability and provide for payments to the United States, Mr. Eckert, and his counsel totaling $5.9 million. 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. On February 17, 2026, former employee Jose Buezo filed a PAGA action in the Orange County Superior Court (the “Buezo Case”) alleging violations substantially similar to the Ramirez PAGA action, and additional claims relating to allegedly unpaid vacation and sick pay. The Buezo Case seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other “aggrieved [non-exempt] employees,” along with attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases and the Buezo Case 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.

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 27, 2026 and September 27, 2025, the Company had estimated liabilities of $48 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. These reserves are included in accrued liabilities and other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Additionally, the Company recognized a $183 million contingent cash consideration liability arising from the ZT Systems acquisition which is classified as other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. See Note 13, “Business Combination” of the notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this report for details. There can be no assurance that the Company’s reserves will be sufficient to settle these contingencies.

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 resolved 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. On October 9, 2025, the Company and Dialight agreed to accelerate the payment schedule and reduced the total amount due by $350,000. Dialight made the final payment of $6 million in full on December 16, 2025.

In May 2023, the Company 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 supplemented several CIDs relating to the same subject matter served upon SCI and certain current and former SCI and Sanmina employees beginning in August 2020, pursuant to which SCI produced documents and information and certain of the current and former employees provided oral testimony. The Company 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 by a former SCI employee in June 2020, and recently 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. As narrowed by a September 23, 2025 court order granting in part

and denying in part the Company and SCI’s motion to dismiss, the Eckert Qui Tam Suit alleges on behalf of the United States 6 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, claims for submitting false cost or pricing data, and overcharging the government through underpayment of certain employees in violation of the Service Contract Act. The suit alleges such claimed violations defrauded the government in an amount approximating $100 million, and seeks, on behalf of the U.S. government, treble damages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and expenses of the suit. The Company and SCI continue to deny liability. However, to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation, in May 2026, the Company and SCI reached an agreement-in-principle with Mr. Eckert to settle the Eckert Qui Tam Suit. The terms of settlement, which remain subject to the consent of the United States and approval by the Court, include no admission of liability and provide for payments to the United States, Mr. Eckert, and his counsel totaling $5.9 million.

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. On February 17, 2026, former employee Jose Buezo filed a PAGA action in the Orange County Superior Court (the “Buezo Case”) alleging violations substantially similar to the Ramirez PAGA action, and additional claims relating to allegedly unpaid vacation and sick pay. The Buezo Case seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other “aggrieved [non-exempt] employees,” along with attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases and the Buezo Case to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and intends to defend all such cases vigorously.