Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company has certain non-cancellable operating leases primarily for its premises. These leases generally contain renewal options for periods ranging from 3 to 20 years and require the Company to pay all executory costs, such as maintenance and insurance. Certain lease arrangements have rent free periods or escalating payment provisions, and the Company recognizes rent expense of such arrangements on a straight-line basis. Future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases and future minimum finance lease payments as of December 31, 2024 are as follows: Operating Leases Finance (In thousands) Year ending December 31: 2025 $ 14,038 $ 241 2026 14,012 190 2027 13,951 76 2028 13,340 36 2029 12,959 10 Thereafter 52,327 — Total payments 120,627 553 Less: present value discount/imputed interest 47,629 80 Present value of lease liabilities $ 72,998 $ 473 Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company applies accounting for contingencies to determine when and how much to accrue for and disclose related to legal and other contingencies. Accordingly, the Company discloses contingencies deemed to be reasonably possible and accrues loss contingencies when, in consultation with legal advisors, it is concluded that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters is subject to many uncertainties and is therefore not predictable with assurance, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these matters, individually and in the aggregate, beyond that provided at December 31, 2024, would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims could differ materially from those projected. The Boeing Company and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation v. the Company On March 21, 2024, The Boeing Company and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, a Boeing Company (collectively, “Boeing”), filed suit against the Company in the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned The Boeing Company and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, a Boeing Company v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In its complaint, Boeing alleges that the Company breached the parties’ Master Agreement. Boeing further alleges trade secret misappropriation under the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“DUTSA”), 6 Del C. § 2001, et. seq., and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et. seq., and filed a motion for preliminary injunction to destroy certain disputed documents. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $25 million, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. On April 12, 2024, the Company filed an answer to Boeing’s complaint and a counterclaim seeking damages relating to Boeing’s breach of the Master Agreement, as well as an opposition to Boeing’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On April 4, 2024, the Company filed suit against Boeing in the Central District of California. In its complaint, the Company sought: (1) declaratory judgment of no misappropriation of trade secrets under either DUTSA or DTSA by the Company, (2) declaratory judgment of no breach of contract by the Company, and (3) damages related to Boeing’s breach of contract for failure to adequately perform, including incomplete work on design phases of the project. On April 12, 2024, Boeing filed a motion for an anti-suit injunction in connection with the Company’s California suit. On June 6, 2024, the Company voluntarily dismissed the California action without prejudice, electing to pursue its affirmative claims against Boeing by way of the counterclaim filed in the Virginia action, and on that same day the Company and Boeing jointly informed the Virginia court that the Company’s voluntary dismissal of the California action without prejudice rendered moot Boeing’s motion for an anti-suit injunction. A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction took place on May 24, 2024. On June 20, 2024, the Court denied the preliminary injunction sought by Boeing, and ordered that the Company could use the disputed documents internally, and with third parties under a non-disclosure agreement, for the purpose of developing a new mothership. On October 2, 2024, Boeing and the Company executed a “Material Terms of Settlement Agreement,” endorsed by Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, by which they agreed to resolve all disputes between them relating to the lawsuits. The parties entered into a final Settlement Agreement effective October 31, 2024, and the litigation was dismissed in its entirety on November 4, 2024. The Company has reflected a benefit associated with this settlement in research and development expense in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2024. Lavin v. the Company On May 28, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In September 2021, the Court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021. The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the safety of the Company's ships and success of its commercial flight program. Co-lead plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and, on November 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 12, 2022. The second amended complaint contains many of the same allegations as in the first amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and, on August 8, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion and did not give plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal order and, on December 19, 2023, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion. On March 27, 2024, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining Section 10(b) insider trading claim alleged against Branson. On April 2, 2024, the court stayed briefing on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pending resolution of plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for leave to add a new representative plaintiff, which plaintiffs’ subsequently filed on May 1, 2024. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion on July 2, 2024. On July 8, 2024, defendants withdrew their motion for judgment on the pleadings. On August 21, 2024, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in which Xinqiang Cui, Justin Carlough, Jennifer Ortiz, Richard O’Keefe-Jones, Vipul Gupta, Maria Josephine Rosales, and Hesham Ibrahim (previously named plaintiffs), were designated by plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs (in addition to Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier), and an additional named plaintiff, Montgomery Brantley, was added. The third amended complaint contains substantively the same allegations as in the second amended complaint. On September 11, 2024, defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. On October 12, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify their proposed class. The defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion on December 20, 2024, and plaintiffs filed their reply on January 24, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this matter. Spiteri, Grenier, Laidlaw, and St. Jean derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors On February 21, 2022, March 1, 2022, September 21, 2022, and December 13, 2022, four alleged shareholders filed separate derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned Spiteri v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00933 (“Spiteri Action”), Grenier v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01100 (“Grenier Action”), Laidlaw v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05634 (“Laidlaw Action”), and St. Jean v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-7551 (“St. Jean Action”), respectively. On May 4, 2022, the Spiteri and Grenier Actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00933 (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). On September 30, 2023, the Laidlaw Action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action. Collectively, the complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934 and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above. The complaints seek an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. The cases are at a preliminary stage. Abughazaleh derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors On February 13, 2023, alleged shareholder Yousef Abughazaleh filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the District of Delaware captioned Abughazaleh v. Branson et al., Case No. 23-156-MN. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above. The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. Molnar and Tubbs derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors On April 9, 2024, alleged shareholders Crystal Molnar and Cleveland Tubbs filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the Central District of California captioned Molnar v. Branson et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-775. The complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above. The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. Gera derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors On July 11, 2024, alleged shareholder Samhita Gera filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned Gera v. Branson et al., Case No. 24-cv-04795. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above. The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. Espinosa derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors On September 3, 2024, alleged shareholder Kimberly Espinosa filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Espinosa v. Branson et al., Case No. 2024-0895-JTL. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above. The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. The case is at a preliminary stage. |