result of the Court’s order, on March 4, 2022, Karma submitted its application for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $110,431.34. The Company does not intend to oppose Karma’s application for costs and fees at this time.
On January 27, 2022, the District Court granted the parties’ request to vacate the scheduled case deadlines and August 2022 trial date. Fact discovery is now scheduled to close on July 5, 2022, and a jury trial data has been set for December 5, 2022.
The Company is continuing to evaluate the matters asserted in the lawsuit, and is vigorously defending against Karma’s claims. The Company continues to believe that there are strong defenses to the claims and any damages demanded. At this time, however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process.
Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18, 2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-616); Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-633); Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-720); Brury, et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-760); Romano et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC, et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp. et al., (Case No. 21-cv-1021). The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead plaintiff’s counsel. On September 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed as of March 3, 2022. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled and a decision has not yet been rendered. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.
Four related stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, former DiamondPeak directors, and against the Company as a nominal defendant between April 28, 2021 and July 9, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Cohen, et al. v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-604); Kelley, et al. v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 12-cv-724); Patterson, et al. v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-910); Sarabia v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1010). The derivative actions in the District of Delaware have been consolidated. On August 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a) and Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling, and unjust enrichment, all relating to vehicle pre-orders, production timeline, and the merger with DiamondPeak. On October 11, 2021, defendants filed a motion to stay this consolidated derivative action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. On March 7, 2022, the court granted in part defendants' motion to stay, staying the action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action, but requiring the parties to submit a status report if the motion to dismiss is not resolved by September 3, 2022. The court further dismissed sua sponte on ripeness grounds plaintiffs' claim for contribution for violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act without prejudice. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.
Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 30, 2021 (Thai et al. v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1267)), asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste, based on similar facts as the consolidated derivative action. On October 21, 2021, the court in the Northern District of Ohio derivative action entered a stipulated stay of the action and scheduling order relating to defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and/or subsequent motion to stay that is similarly conditioned on the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 2, 2021 (Cormier v. Burns, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1049)), asserting breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling, and unjust enrichment, based on similar facts as the federal derivative actions. On January 18, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to stay pending resolution of the consolidated securities class action. The parties do not yet have a schedule for briefing the motion to stay or responding to the complaint. An additional related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on February 18, 2022 (Jackson v. Burns, et al. (C.A. No. 2022-0164)), also asserting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and insider selling, based on similar facts as the federal derivative actions. The parties do not yet have a schedule for responding to the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend against these actions. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.