COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to legal and regulatory actions that arise from time to time. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and as to whether such loss or a range of such loss is estimable, often involves significant judgment about future events, and the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. The Company expenses professional legal fees as incurred, which are included in selling, general, and administrative expense on the consolidated financial statements. Other than as described below, there is no material pending or threatened litigation against the Company that remains outstanding as of September 30, 2022. Regulatory and Governmental Investigations and Related Internal Review In September 2020, a short seller reported on certain aspects of the Company’s business and operations. The Company and its board of directors retained Kirkland & Ellis LLP to conduct an internal review in connection with the short-seller article (the “Internal Review”), and Kirkland & Ellis LLP promptly contacted the Division of Enforcement of the SEC to make it aware of the commencement of the Internal Review. The Company subsequently learned that the Staff of the Division of Enforcement and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) had opened investigations. By order dated December 21, 2021, the Company and the SEC reached a settlement arising out of the SEC’s investigation of the Company. Under the terms of the settlement, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the Company agreed to cease and desist from future violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 13a-15(a) thereunder and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"); to certain voluntary undertakings; and to pay a $125 million civil penalty, to be paid in five installments over two years. The first $25 million installment was paid at the end of 2021 and the remaining installments are to be paid semiannually through 2023. The Company previously reserved the full amount of the settlement in the quarter ended September 30, 2021, as disclosed in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for such quarter, filed with the SEC on November 4, 2021. The SEC’s cease and desist order is available on the SEC’s website. In July 2022, the Company and SEC agreed to an alternative payment plan with the first two payments of $5 million to be paid in July 2022 and December 2022. The July 2022 payment has been made by the Company. The remainder of the payment plan is subject to determination. As of September 30, 2022, the Company has reflected the remaining liability of $70 million in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and $25 million in other-long term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. On July 29, 2021, the U.S. Attorney for the SDNY announced the unsealing of a criminal indictment charging the Company’s former executive chairman, Trevor Milton, with securities fraud and wire fraud. That same day, the SEC announced charges against Mr. Milton for alleged violations of federal securities laws. On October 14, 2022, a Federal District Court jury for the Southern District of New York found Mr. Milton guilty on one count of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud. The Company is committed to cooperating fully with the SDNY’s investigation. The legal and other professional costs the Company incurred during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022 in connection with the Internal Review and disclosed elsewhere in this Report include approximately $6.0 million and $25.5 million, respectively, expensed for Mr. Milton’s attorneys’ fees under his indemnification agreement with the Company. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021 the Company expensed $6.4 million and $12.6 million, respectively for Mr. Milton's attorneys' fees under his indemnification agreement with the Company. As of September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company accrued approximately $24.0 million and $22.7 million, respectively, in legal and other professional costs for Mr. Milton's attorneys' fees under his indemnification agreement. The Company expects to incur additional costs associated with its continued cooperation with the SDNY in fiscal year 2022, which will be expensed as incurred and which could be significant in the periods in which they are recorded. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the SDNY investigation, nor can it predict whether any other governmental authorities will initiate separate investigations or litigation. The outcome of the SDNY investigation and any related legal and administrative proceedings could include a wide variety of outcomes, including the institution of administrative, civil injunctive or criminal proceedings involving the Company and/or current or former employees, officers and/or directors in addition to Mr. Milton, the imposition of fines and other penalties, remedies and/or sanctions, modifications to business practices and compliance programs and/or referral to other governmental agencies for other appropriate actions. It is not possible to accurately predict at this time when matters relating to the SDNY investigation will be completed, the final outcome of the SDNY investigation, what additional actions, if any, may be taken by the SDNY or by other governmental agencies, or the effect that such actions may have on the Company's business, prospects, operating results and financial condition, which could be material. The SDNY investigation, including any matters identified in the Internal Review, could also result in (1) third-party claims against the Company, which may include the assertion of claims for monetary damages, including but not limited to interest, fees, and expenses, (2) damage to the Company's business or reputation, (3) loss of, or adverse effect on, cash flow, assets, goodwill, results of operations, business, prospects, profits or business value, including the possibility of certain of the Company's existing contracts being cancelled, (4) adverse consequences on the Company's ability to obtain or continue financing for current or future projects and/or (5) claims by directors, officers, employees, affiliates, advisors, attorneys, agents, debt holders or other interest holders or constituents of the Company or its subsidiaries, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. Further, to the extent that these investigations and any resulting third-party claims yield adverse results over time, such results could jeopardize the Company's operations and exhaust its cash reserves, and could cause stockholders to lose their entire investment. The Company is currently seeking reimbursement from Mr. Milton for costs and damages arising from the actions that are the subject of the government and regulatory investigations. Shareholder Securities Litigation Beginning on September 15, 2020, six putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and, in one case, violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California law (the “Shareholder Securities Litigation”). The complaints generally allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding the Company's business plan and prospects. The actions are: Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-01797-JZB), filed by Daniel Borteanu in the United States District Court of the District of Arizona on September 15, 2020; Salem v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 1:20-cv-04354), filed by Arab Salem in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 16, 2020; Wojichowski v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-01819-DLR), filed by John Wojichowski in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on September 17, 2020; Malo v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 5:20-cv-02168), filed by Douglas Malo in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 16, 2020; and Holzmacher, et al. v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-2123-JJT), filed by Albert Holzmacher, Michael Wood and Tate Wood in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on November 3, 2020, and Eves v. Nikola Corporation, et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-02168-DLR), filed by William Eves in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on November 10, 2020. In October 2020, stipulations by and among the parties to extend the time for the defendants to respond to the complaints until a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and an operative complaint are identified were entered as orders in certain of the filed actions. On November 16, 2020 and December 8, 2020 respectively, orders in the Malo and Salem actions were entered to transfer the actions to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On November 16, 2020, ten motions both to consolidate the pending securities actions and to be appointed as lead plaintiff were filed by putative class members. On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al., No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL, and appointed Angelo Baio as the “Lead Plaintiff”. On December 23, 2020, a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order appointing the Lead Plaintiff was filed. On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the District Court’s Lead Plaintiff order and directing the court to appoint another Lead Plaintiff was filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819. The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 18, 2021. On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus petition, vacated the district court’s December 15, 2020 order, and remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff. On November 18, 2021, the Court appointed Nikola Investor Group II as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as co-lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order pursuant to which Lead Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due January 24, 2022, Defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond was set for March 10, 2022 and Plaintiffs’ deadline to file any responsive memorandum was set for April 11, 2022 with any reply from Defendants due by May 11, 2022. On January 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On February 5, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ joint application for an extension of the deadline for Defendants to file an answer or move to dismiss until April 8, 2022, with Plaintiffs’ opposition due 30 days following the filing of a motion to dismiss, and any reply from Defendants due 30 days following Plaintiffs’ opposition. In accordance with the Court’s scheduling order, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss on April 8, 2022. On May 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss, and on June 8, 2022, Defendants filed their reply briefs. The Court has not yet ruled on the motions. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be material. On December 17, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the PSLRA stay of discovery. On January 18, 2022, Nikola filed its opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s motion to lift the PSLRA stay of discovery and on January 25, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed its reply. On April 21, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to lift the PSLRA stay. Derivative Litigation Beginning on September 23, 2020, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ( Byun v. Milton, et al. , Case No. 1:20-cv-01277-UNA; Salguocar v. Girsky et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01404-UNA), purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain of the Company's current and former directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and gross mismanagement. The Byun action also brings claims for unjust enrichment and abuse of control, while the Salguocar action brings a claim for waste of corporate assets. On October 19, 2020, the Byun action was stayed until 30 days after the earlier of (a) the Shareholder Securities Litigation being dismissed in their entirety with prejudice; (b) defendants filing an answer to any complaint in the Shareholder Securities Litigation; or (c) a joint request by plaintiff and defendants to lift the stay. On November 17, 2020, the Byun and Salguocar actions were consolidated as In re Nikola Corporation Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 20-cv-01277-CFC. The consolidated action remains stayed. On December 18, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Huhn v. Milton et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02437-DWL, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment, and against defendant Jeff Ubben, a member of the Company’s board of directors, insider selling and misappropriation of information. On January 26, 2021, the Huhn action was stayed until 30 days after the earlier of (a) the Shareholder Securities Litigation being dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; (b) defendants filing an answer to any complaint in the Shareholder Securities Litigation; or (c) a joint request by plaintiff and defendants to lift the stay. On January 7, 2022, Barbara Rhodes, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed her Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint in Delaware Chancery Court captioned Rhodes v. Milton, et al. and Nikola Corp. , C.A. No. 2022-0023-KSJM (the “ Rhodes Action”). On January 10, 2022, Zachary BeHage and Benjamin Rowe (together, the “BeHage Rowe Plaintiffs”), purported stockholders of the Company, filed their Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint in Delaware Chancery Court captioned BeHage v. Milton, et al. and Nikola Corp. , C.A. No. 2022-0045-KSJM (the “BeHage Rowe Action” together with the Rhodes Action, the “Related Actions”). The Related Actions are against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and allege breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling under Brophy , aiding and abetting insider selling, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On January 28, 2022, Rhodes and the BeHage Rowe Plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order for consolidation of the Related Actions. The proposed order states that Defendants need not answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints filed in the Related Actions and contemplates that counsel for Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint or designate an operative complaint within fourteen days of entry of an order consolidating these actions and shall meet and confer with counsel for Defendants or any other party regarding a schedule for Defendants to respond to the operative complaint. The proposed order was granted by the Court on February 1, 2022. On February 15, 2022, Rhodes and the BeHage Rowe Plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Stockholder Derivative Complaint in the Related Actions (the “Amended Complaint”). On April 4, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order, pursuant to which the parties to the Related Actions agreed that Defendants need not answer, move, or otherwise respond to certain counts of the Amended Complaint. In accordance with the Court-ordered stipulation, Defendants filed their motions to stay the remaining counts of the Amended Complaint on April 13, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions on May 4, 2022, and Defendants filed their replies on May 25, 2022. In a bench ruling following a telephonic oral argument on June 1, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motions to stay the remaining counts of the Amended Complaint. The Court ordered the Defendants to submit a status report on October 31, 2022, or within three days of receipt of a decision on the motions to dismiss in the Shareholder Securities Litigation, whichever comes first, in which Defendants can request a continued stay of the Related Actions. On March 10, 2022, Michelle Brown and Crisanto Gomes (together, the “Brown & Gomes Plaintiffs”), purported stockholders of the Company, filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint in Delaware Chancery Court captioned Brown v. Milton, et al. and Nikola Corp. , C.A. No. 2022-0223-KSJM (the “Brown & Gomes Action”). The Brown & Gomes Action is against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and alleges claims against those defendants for purported breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On March 14, 2022, the Brown & Gomes Plaintiffs notified the court in the Related Actions of their belief that the Brown & Gomes Action properly belongs as part of the consolidated Related Actions. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and fees associated with bringing the actions, and reform of the Company's corporate governance, risk management and operating practices. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these lawsuits, which could be material. In addition, on March 8, 2021, the Company received a demand letter from a law firm representing a purported stockholder of the Company alleging facts and claims substantially the same as many of the facts and claims in the filed derivative shareholder lawsuit. The demand letter requests that the board of directors (i) undertake an independent internal investigation into certain board members and management’s purported violations of Delaware and/or federal law; and (ii) commence a civil action against those members of the board and management for alleged fiduciary breaches. In April 2021, the board of directors formed a demand review committee, consisting of independent directors Bruce L. Smith, and Mary L. Petrovich, to review such demands and provide input to the Company and retained independent counsel. There can be no assurance as to whether any litigation will be commenced by or against the Company by the purported shareholder with respect to the claims set forth in the demand letter, or whether any such litigation could be material. Books and Record Demands Pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law Section 220 The Company has received a number of demand letters pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s records. The Company has responded to those demands, stating its belief that the demand letters fail to fully comply with the requirements of Section 220 of the DGCL. However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights of the defendants, the Company has engaged in negotiations with the shareholders, and has provided certain information that the Company had reasonably available to it. On January 15, 2021, Plaintiff Frances Gatto filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court seeking to compel inspection of books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL. On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel and the Company filed a joint letter, notifying the Court that the parties are engaged in dialogue regarding Plaintiff’s demand, and the Company need not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint at this time. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed the action without prejudice. On October 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Zachary BeHage and Benjamin Rowe filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court seeking to compel inspection of books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Company filed a joint letter, notifying the Court that the parties are engaged in dialogue regarding Plaintiffs’ demand, and the Company need not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint at this time. On January 14, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed the action without prejudice. On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Melissa Patel filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court seeking to compel inspection of books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL. On February 20, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal without prejudice, which the court granted on February 21, 2022. Commitments and Contingencies Coolidge Land Conveyance In February 2019, the Company was conveyed 430 acres of land in Coolidge, Arizona, by Pinal Land Holdings ("PLH"). The purpose of the land conveyance was to incentivize the Company to locate its manufacturing facility in Coolidge, Arizona, and provide additional jobs to the region. The Company fulfilled its requirement to commence construction within the period defined by the agreement and is required to complete construction of the manufacturing facility within five years of February 2019 (the “Manufacturing Facility Deadline”). If the Company fails to meet the Manufacturing Facility Deadline, the Company may extend the completion deadline by paying PLH $0.2 million per month, until construction is completed (the "Monthly Payment Option"). The extension of the Manufacturing Facility Deadline beyond two years will require express written consent of PLH. If the Company does not exercise the Monthly Payment Option, fails to make timely payments on the Monthly Payment Option, or fails to complete construction by the extended Manufacturing Facility Deadline, PLH is entitled to either the $4.0 million security deposit or may reacquire the land and property at the appraised value to be determined by independent appraisers selected by the Company and PLH. FCPM License In the third quarter of 2021, the Company entered into a fuel cell power module ("FCPM") license to intellectual property that will be used to adapt, further develop and assemble FCPMs. Payments for the license will be due in installments ranging from 2022 to 2023. As of September 30, 2022, the Company accrued $29.4 million in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. Merger with Romeo The Company entered into the Merger Agreement with Romeo and Purchaser, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Headquartered in Cypress, California, Romeo is an energy storage technology company focused on designing and manufacturing lithium-ion battery modules and packs for commercial vehicle applications. Concurrently with the execution of the Merger Agreement, Romeo and Romeo Systems, entered into the Loan Agreement with the Company as the lender. The Loan Agreement provides for the Facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $30.0 million (subject to certain incremental increases of up to $20.0 million), which shall be available for drawing subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement. Loans under the Facility may be made until the earlier of (a) six months from the date of the execution and delivery of the Merger Agreement and the Loan Agreement and (b) the date of the termination of the Merger Agreement. All amounts outstanding under the Facility will be due upon the earlier of (a) the date that is the six-month anniversary of the termination of the Merger Agreement and (b) July 30, 2023, subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of certain events set forth in the Loan Agreement. Interest will be payable on borrowings under the Facility at daily SOFR plus 8.00%. Romeo’s obligations under the Loan Agreement are secured by substantially all personal property assets of Romeo and Romeo Systems, subject to certain customary exclusions. As of September 30, 2022, Romeo has drawn $10.0 million under the Facility and $20.0 million remained available. For the three months ended September 30, 2022, the Company recognized $0.1 million of interest receivable on the outstanding loan balance. Additionally, a s part of the Merger Agreement, the Company agreed to a short-term battery price increase which will be considered part of the merger consideration. As of September 30, 2022 the Company recorded $11.9 million for the increased price in prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Company's consolidated balance sheets, which will be included in the business combination consideration. The merger with Romeo closed on October 14, 2022. Refer to Note 11, Subsequent Events for additional details. Leases executed not yet commenced As of September 30, 2022, the Company entered various lease agreements related to hydrogen fueling infrastructure which have not yet commenced. Undiscounted lease payments related to these obligations are $13.3 million. Purchase obligations During the three months ended September 30, 2022, the Company entered various non-cancellable purchase obligations related to hydrogen infrastructure and software licenses. Purchase obligations remaining as of September 30, 2022 total $14.3 million. |