| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings, Liabilities Subject to Compromise and Other Potential Claims On June 27, 2023, the Company and its subsidiaries commenced the Chapter 11 Cases in the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 1 – Description of Organization and Business Operations – Description of Business – Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings. Since filing the Chapter 11 petitions, the Company has operated as debtor-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company received the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of its customary motions filed on June 27, 2023, which authorized the Debtors to conduct their business activities in the ordinary course, including among other things and subject to the terms and conditions of such orders: (i) pay employees’ wages and related obligations; (ii) pay certain taxes; (iii) pay critical vendors; (iv) continue to honor certain customer obligations; (v) maintain their insurance program; (vi) continue their cash management system; and (vii) establish certain procedures to protect any potential value of the Company’s NOLs. On August 8, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court approved procedures for the Debtors to conduct a comprehensive marketing and sale process for some, all, or substantially all of their assets in order to maximize the value of those assets. The marketing process culminated in the Debtors entering into the LandX Asset Purchase Agreement on September 29, 2023, providing for the sale of specified assets of the Company related to the design, production and sale of electric light duty vehicles focused on the commercial fleet market free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, and assume certain specified liabilities of the Company for a total purchase price of $10.2 million in cash. This transaction closed on October 27, 2023. See Note 9 – Subsequent Events. The Company has been subject to extensive pending and threatened legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and has already incurred, and expects to continue to incur, significant legal expenses in defending against these claims. The Company has sought and may continue to seek to achieve resolution of these matters with respect to the Company as part of the Chapter 11 Cases and has and may in the future enter into further discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes it is in the best interest of the Company’s stakeholders. The Company records a liability for loss contingencies in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal fees and costs of litigation, settlement by the Company or adverse decisions with respect to the matters disclosed may result in liability that is not insured or that is in excess of insurance coverage and could significantly exceed our current accrual and ability to pay and be, individually or in the aggregate, material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, impair our ability to sell certain assets and diminish or eliminate any assets available for any distribution to creditors and Interest holders in the Chapter 11 Cases. The filing of the Chapter 11 Cases resulted in an initial automatic stay of legal proceedings against the Company, as further described below. On July 27, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court modified the automatic stay that was in effect at the time of filing the Chapter 11 Cases to allow the Karma Action (defined below) to proceed against the Company in the District Court (defined below) and that matter was settled, as further described below. With respect to the stockholder derivative suits filed on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors and certain former DiamondPeak directors prior to the Chapter 11 Cases, the derivative claims asserted in those suits became the property of the Debtors’ estate. Accordingly, the Company has appointed an independent committee of directors to evaluate such claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel. That committee will make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims, including, among other things, whether to pursue or release some or all of those claims against some or all of those officer and directors. With respect to the Ohio Securities Class Action, the Post-Petition Securities Action and any other similar claims for damages arising from the purchase or sale of the Class A common stock, Section 510(b) the Bankruptcy Code treats such claims as subordinated to all claims or Interests that are senior to the Class A common stock and having the same priority as the Class A common stock. Estimated amounts accrued as of September 30, 2023 by the Company with respect to these securities class action matters do not reflect this impact of the Bankruptcy Code, or the applicable terms of the Proposed Plan discussed below, which remains subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court and may change. The Bankruptcy Court established October 10, 2023 as the deadline by which parties are required to file proofs of claim in the Chapter 11 Cases and December 26, 2023 for all governmental entities to file their proofs of claim, which includes any claim asserted by the SEC with respect to the matter described under “SEC Matter” below or that may arise due to our obligations under the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (the “Safety Act”) administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) described under “NHTSA Matters” below. In addition, the deadline for parties to file proofs of claim arising from the Debtors’ rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease is the later of (a) the general bar date or the governmental bar date (if a governmental unit is the counterparty to the applicable executory contract or unexpired lease) and (b) 5:00 p.m. (ET) on the date that is 30 days after the service of an order of the Bankruptcy Court authorizing the Debtors’ rejection of the applicable executory contract or unexpired lease. Any such additional losses or claims may be significant. There is substantial risk of additional litigation and claims against the Company or its indemnified directors and officers, as well as other claims by third parties that may be known or unknown and the Company does not have the resources to adequately defend or dispute such claims due to the Chapter 11 Cases. The Company cannot provide any assurances as to what the Company’s total actual liabilities will be based on such claims. In accordance with ASC 852, in the accompanying September 30, 2023 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, the caption “Liabilities subject to compromise” reflects the expected allowed amount of the pre-petition claims that are not fully secured and that have at least a possibility of not being repaid at the full claim amount. “Liabilities subject to compromise” at September 30, 2023 consisted of the following: (in thousands) September 30, 2023 Accounts payable $ 2,767 Accrued expenses and other current liabilities 3,085 Accrued vendor claims 13,133 Accrued legal liabilities 20,000 Liabilities subject to compromise $ 38,985 “Liabilities subject to compromise” are recorded at the expected or estimated amount of the total allowed claim, however, the ultimate settlement of these liabilities remains subject to analysis and negotiation, approval of the Bankruptcy Court and the other factors discussed above, and they may be settled or resolved for materially different amounts. These amounts are also subject to adjustments if we make changes to our assumptions or estimates related to claims as additional information becomes available to us. Such adjustments may be material, and the Company will continue to evaluate the amount and classification of its pre-petition liabilities. Any additional liabilities that are subject to compromise will be recognized accordingly, and the aggregate amount of “Liabilities subject to compromise” may change materially. As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases and ceasing production of the Endurance, the Company has received claims from its suppliers and vendors for amounts those parties believe the Company owes. We are conducting an extensive claims reconciliation process to analyze approximately $25.6 million of claims that does not reflect potential material government claims. The Company and its advisors are analyzing the claims for validity and intends to vigorously defend against claims it believes are invalid. We have accounts payable and accrued vendor claims of approximately $15.9 million as of September 30, 2023, which reflect both undisputed and partially disputed amounts we may owe, reported in Liabilities subject to compromise. The remainder is disputed for one or more reasons, including a lack of information provided by the claimant. The Company had accruals of $20.0 million and $35.9 million, for the periods ending September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings and potential related obligations within Liabilities subject to compromise and Accrued and other current liabilities on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Our liabilities for legal proceedings and potential related obligations may include amounts for the securities litigation, government claims and indemnification obligations described in more detail below or other claims that may be asserted against us and may or may not be offset by insurance. The amount accrued as of September 30, 2023 was estimated based on available information and legal advice, the potential resolution of these matters in light of historical negotiations with the parties, and the potential impact of the outcome of one or more claims on related matters, but does not take into account the impact of the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the terms of the Proposed Plan, ongoing discussions with the parties thereto and other stakeholders or actual amounts that may be asserted in Claims submitted in the Chapter 11 Cases or for indemnification as these factors cannot yet be determined and are subject to substantial uncertainty. Accordingly, the accrued amount may be adjusted in the future based on new developments and it does not reflect a full range of possible outcomes for these proceedings, or the full amount of any damages alleged, which are significantly higher. A number of additional claims may be filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, including on account of (i) rejection damages for executory contracts and unexpired leases rejected pursuant to the Proposed Plan and (ii) claims of governmental units, for each of which the deadlines to file proofs of claim have not yet passed as of the date of this report, which may be substantial and may result in a greater amount of allowed Claims than estimated in the Disclosure Statement. Any such additional losses or claims may be significant; however, the Company cannot presently estimate a possible loss contingency or range of reasonably possible loss contingencies beyond current accruals. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple forecasted factors that often depend on judgments and potential actions by third parties. Insurance Matters The Company was notified by its primary insurer under its post-merger directors and officers insurance policy that the insurer is taking the position that no coverage is available for the Ohio Securities Class Action, various shareholder derivative actions, the consolidated stockholder class action, various demands for inspection of books and records, the SEC investigation, and the investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York described below, and certain indemnification obligations, under an exclusion to the policy called the “retroactive date exclusion.” The insurer has identified other potential coverage issues as well. Excess coverage attaches only after the underlying insurance has been exhausted, and generally applies in conformance with the terms of the underlying insurance. The Company is analyzing the insurer’s position and intends to pursue any available coverage under this policy and other insurance. As a result of the denial of coverage, no or limited insurance may be available to us to reimburse our expenses or cover any potential losses for these matters, which could be significant. The insurers in our Side A D&O insurance program, providing coverage for individual directors and officers in derivative actions and certain other situations, have issued a reservation of rights letter which, while not denying coverage, has cast doubt on the availability of coverage for at least some individuals and/or claims. Changes in our operations in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases has reduced our need to maintain insurance coverage at previous levels or to carry certain insurance policies. Insurance we presently have, including product liability coverage, may expire and we may not be able to obtain replacement policies or such policies may only be available at a substantially higher cost. If we reduce or no longer maintain insurance coverage, we may be subject to increased or additional potential losses and liabilities. Karma Litigation On October 30, 2020, the Company, together with certain of its current and former executive officers, including Mr. Burns, Mr. LaFleur, Mr. Post and Mr. Schmidt, and certain of our other current and former employees, were named as defendants in a lawsuit (the “Karma Action”) filed by Karma Automotive LLC (“Karma”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“District Court”). On November 6, 2020, the District Court denied Karma’s request for a temporary restraining order. On April 16, 2021, Karma filed an Amended Complaint that added additional defendants ( two Company employees and two Company contractors that were previously employed by Karma) and a number of additional claims alleging generally that the Company unlawfully poached key Karma employees and misappropriated Karma’s trade secrets and other confidential information. The Amended Complaint contained a total of 28 counts, including: (i) alleged violations under federal law of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Defend Trade Secrets Act; (ii) alleged violations of California law for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition; (iii) common law claims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract; (iv) common law claims for breach of contract, including confidentiality agreements, employment agreements and the non-binding letter of intent; and (v) alleged common law claims for breach of duties of loyalty and fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaint also asserted claims for conspiracy, fraud, interstate racketeering activity, and violations of certain provisions of the California Penal Code relating to unauthorized computer access. Karma sought permanent injunctive relief and monetary damages in excess of $900 million based on a variety of claims and theories asserting very substantial losses by Karma and/or improper benefit to the Company that significantly exceed the Company’s accrual with respect to the matter and ability to pay. The Company opposed Karma’s damages claims on factual and legal grounds, including lack of causality and vigorously challenged Karma’s asserted damages. The District Court initially stayed the Karma Action in light of the automatic stay imposed by the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. However, the Bankruptcy Court granted Karma relief from the automatic stay on July 31, 2023 to allow the multi-week trial in the Karma Action to proceed, which trial was scheduled for trial in California beginning on September 12, 2023. On August 14, 2023, the Company and Karma entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release memorializing an agreement to consensually resolve the claims asserted in the Karma Action (the “Settlement Agreement”) . The Settlement Agreement terms include: (i) a $40 million settlement payment by the Company to Karma (the “Karma Settlement Payment”), of which $5 million is allocated to a royalty with respect to the license described in (ii) of this paragraph, (ii) a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free (except for the full Karma Settlement Payment including the License Payment or Royalty therein (as defined in the Settlement Agreement)), fully paid-up, sublicensable, perpetual and irrevocable license granted by Karma to the Company and any of the Company’s assignees, which license will permit the Company or its assigns to use the intellectual property and technology, including patents, copyrights, software rights, know-how, design rights, database rights, and trade secrets, which Karma alleged in the Karma Action that the Company has misappropriated, (iii) mutual releases, and (iv) dismissal of the Karma Action, with prejudice as to all defendants after the final approval order by the Bankruptcy Court is no longer subject to any appeal. On August 28, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the Settlement Agreement and the Debtors made the Karma Settlement Payment. Ohio Securities Class Action 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 v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-760); Romano v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC 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 (the “Ohio Securities Class Action”). 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. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 11, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay; however the ultimate scope and effect of the stay remains subject to further proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court. On August 28, 2023, the court denied the pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice, given the notice of the automatic stay, subject to potential re-filing by the Defendants following the lifting of the stay. The Proposed Plan provides for the treatment of Claims filed against the Debtors in the Ohio Securities Class Action, with holders of allowed Claims (if any) in the applicable class (if any) receiving Class A common stock in an amount calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in the Proposed Plan, after accounting for any recoveries from applicable insurers or other third parties and subject to the post-effective date Debtors’ election to cash out such Class A common stock Interests. Alternatively, the Proposed Plan provides for an elective class that permits the Ohio Lead Plaintiff to elect to receive a $1.0 million settlement on behalf of a putative class of claimants in lieu of the treatment set forth in the preceding sentence. If the Ohio Lead Plaintiff elects to accept such treatment, a putative class will be sought to be certified solely for purposes of receiving distributions under the Proposed Plan and to the extent that such class is certified members of such class who do not opt-out will receive their pro rata share of the settlement amount, subject to the terms of the Proposed Plan. There is no guarantee that the proposed settlement will be accepted or that a settlement class would be certified even if the proposed settlement were accepted. To the extent that we do not reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the Ohio Securities Class Action, including through the terms of the Proposed Plan, we intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. Derivative Litigation 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); and Sarabia v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1010)). The derivative actions in the District Court 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 was not resolved by September 3, 2022. The court further determined to dismiss without a motion, on the grounds that the claim was premature, plaintiffs’ claim for contribution for violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act without prejudice. The parties filed a joint status report as required because the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action was not resolved as of September 3, 2022. The parties filed additional court-ordered joint status reports on October 28, 2022, January 6, 2023 and April 3, 2023. On April 4, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to submit a letter brief addressing whether the Court should lift the stay. On April 14, 2023, the parties submitted a joint letter requesting that the Court not lift the stay. On April 17, 2023, the court lifted the stay and ordered the parties to meet and confer by May 8, 2023 and submit a proposed case-management plan. On May 9, 2023, the court reinstated the stay and ordered the parties to advise the court of any developments in the consolidated securities class action or material changes to Lordstown’s condition. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 27, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay; however the ultimate scope and effect of the stay remains subject to further proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court. The court entered an order acknowledging the effect of the automatic stay on June 28, 2023. An independent committee of directors is evaluating the derivative claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel and will make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 30, 2021 (Thai 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 in the District Court of Delaware. 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. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 19, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay; however, the ultimate scope and effect of the stay remains subject to further proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court. An independent committee of directors is evaluating the derivative claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel and will make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. 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. 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. On April 19, 2022, the parties in Cormier and Jackson filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the two actions, staying the litigation until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action and appointing Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP and Lifshitz Law PLLC as Co-Lead Counsel. On May 10, 2022, the court granted the parties’ proposed stipulation and order to consolidate the actions, and to stay the consolidated action pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. While the action remains stayed, on June 24, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint asserting similar claims, and substituting a new plaintiff (Ed Lomont) for Cormier, who no longer appears to be a named plaintiff in the consolidated action. On June 27, 2023, the Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay; however the ultimate scope and effect of the stay remains subject to further proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court. An independent committee of directors is evaluating the derivative claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel and will make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. DiamondPeak Delaware Class Action Litigation Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and 13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery ( Hebert v. Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1085)) (collectively, the “Delaware Class Action Litigation”). The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction. On February 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits, appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss and motions to stay. The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2022 and the court held oral argument on February 28, 2022. On March 7, 2022, the court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2022, defendants filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2022, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2022. On May 6, 2022, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 22, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint asserting similar claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on October 14, 2022. Plaintiffs’ answering brief and Defendants’ reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9, 2022, respectively. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6, 2023. On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March 2024. On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the Company, as a non-party, with a subpoena for certain information, which the Company responded to on February 21, 2023. On June 9, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel regarding the appropriate scope of the Company’s response to the subpoena. On July 5, 2023, in the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company filed (i) an adversary complaint seeking injunctive relief to extend the automatic stay to the plaintiffs in the Delaware Class Action Litigation, initiating the adversary proceeding captioned Lordstown Motors Corp. v. Amin , Adv. Proc. No. 23-50428 (Bankr. D. Del.) and (ii) a motion and brief in support thereof, seeking a preliminary injunction extending the automatic stay to the Delaware Class Action Litigation. On August 3, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s preliminary injunction motion. On July 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the Delaware Class Action Litigation. The parties have advised the Company that they have reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, subject to negotiation of final documentation, and the former DiamondPeak directors are expected to seek indemnification from the Company with respect to a portion of the settlement amount. The proceedings remain subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. SEC Matter The Company has also received two subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and information, including relating to the merger between DiamondPeak and Legacy Lordstown and pre-orders of vehicles, and the Company has been informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that it is investigating these matters. The Company has cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, with these and any other regulatory or governmental investigations and inquiries. The SEC may make a governmental claim by the December 26, 2023 deadline established in the Chapter 11 Cases, which claim amount may be material. Indemnification Obligations The Company has potential indemnification obligations with respect to the current and former directors named in the above-referenced actions, which obligations may be significant and may not be covered by the Company’s applicable directors and officers insurance. Foxconn Litigation On June 27, 2023, the Company commenced the Foxconn Litigation in the Bankruptcy Court seeking relief for breaches of the Investment Agreement and other agreements and fraudulent and tortious actions that the Company believes were committed by Foxconn, which have caused substantial harm to our operations and prospects and significant damages. On September 29, 2023, Foxconn filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the Foxconn Litigation and brief |
