Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Indemnifications From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require the Company to indemnify the Company's officers, directors, and employees for liabilities arising out of their employment relationship. Generally, a maximum obligation under these contracts is not explicitly stated. Because the maximum amounts associated with these agreements are not explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated. The Company has not been required to make payments under these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets. Standby Letter of Credit During the course of business, the Company’s bank issues standby letters of credit on behalf of the Company to certain vendors and other third parties of the Company. As of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the total value of the standby letters of credit issued by the bank is $13.8 million and $15.7 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2023, $1.0 million had been drawn under the standby letters of credit. Litigation and Environmental Settlements In December 2014, the Company finalized the terms of a litigation settlement with a third party where the Company agreed to pay the other party a total of $32.0 million periodically over the next ten years. The Company recorded the present value of future payments as a liability and records interest expense, included in interest and other, net in the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, as it accretes the liability. The balances of the litigation settlement liability are recorded in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and other liabilities, respectively, on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as follows (in thousands): September 30, 2023 December 31, 2022 Litigation settlement liability - current $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Litigation settlement liability - non-current 3,332 5,794 Total litigation settlement liability $ 6,332 $ 8,794 In August 2023, the Company finalized the terms of an environmental settlement with the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality (“MCEQ”), Desoto County Regional Utility Authority (“DCRUA”) and the City of Olive Branch, Mississippi (“Olive Branch”) where the Company agreed to pay a fine of $3.0 million over a three-year period in equal installments of $1.0 million to the federal government, a civil penalty of $1.5 million to MCEQ and a community service payment of $0.5 million to DCRUA. The Company has also completed the installation of a wastewater treatment and recycling system, which resulted in approximately $4.8 million in capital expenditures as of September 30, 2023. The Company will also be on probation for three years. The balances of the environmental settlement liability are recorded in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and other liabilities, respectively, on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets as follows (in thousands): September 30, 2023 December 31, 2022 Environmental settlement liability - current $ 1,000 $ 1,450 Environmental settlement liability - non-current 1,000 3,000 Total environmental settlement liability $ 2,000 $ 4,450 Litigation From time to time, the Company is subject to claims, litigation, internal or governmental investigations, including those related to labor and employment, contracts, intellectual property, environmental, regulatory compliance, commercial matters, and other related matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages and claims. Some of these actions may be brought as class actions on behalf of a class or purported class of employees. The Company is also defendant in judicial and administrative proceedings involving matters incidental to the business. Legal expenses are expensed as incurred. The Company accrues a charge when management determines that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When a loss is probable, the Company records an accrual based on the reasonably estimable loss or range of loss. When no point of loss is more likely than another, the Company records the lowest amount in the estimated range of loss and discloses the estimated range. The Company does not record liabilities for reasonably possible loss contingencies but does disclose a range of reasonably possible losses if they are material and the Company is able to estimate such a range. If the Company cannot provide a range of reasonably possible losses, the Company explains the factors that prevent it from determining such a range. The Company regularly evaluates current information available to it to determine whether an accrual should be established or adjusted. The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates, and inherent uncertainties and cannot be predicted with certainty. Should the ultimate outcome of any legal matter be unfavorable, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. The Company may also incur substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in defending against legal claims. Securities Litigation On August 18, 2021, plaintiff Asif Mehedi filed a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Mehedi v. View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II et al. (No. 5:21CV06374, N.D. Cal.)) alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company, Rao Mulpuri, and Vidul Prakash. On February 8, 2022, the Court appointed Stadium Capital LLC (“Stadium Capital”) lead plaintiff and denied the competing motion of Sweta Sonthalia. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ms. Sonthalia’s petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the lead plaintiff order. On July 15, 2022, Stadium Capital filed an amended complaint against View, Mulpuri, and Prakash; certain current and former View board members; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and related entities; officers and board members of CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II (“CF II”); and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”). The action was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of (i) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired View and/or CF II securities between November 30, 2020 and May 10, 2022, inclusive; (ii) all persons or entities who were holders of CF II Class A common stock as of the January 27, 2021 record date that were entitled to vote to approve the merger between View and CF II; and (iii) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired View securities pursuant or traceable to the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by CF II on December 23, 2020. The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder), 14(a) (and Rule 14a-9 thereunder), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on October 6, 2022. The motions were heard by the court on April 20, 2023. On May 22, 2023, the court issued a written order granting the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. On August 21, 2023, Stadium Capital and additional plaintiff David Sherman filed a second amended complaint against View, Mulpuri, and Prakash; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and related entities; and officers and board members of CF II. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder), 14(a) (and Rule 14a-9 thereunder), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of (i) all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired View and/or CF II securities between November 30, 2020 and November 9, 2021, inclusive; and (ii) all persons or entities who were holders of CF II Class A common stock as of the January 27, 2021 record date that were entitled to vote to approve the merger between View and CF II. The second amended complaint dropped as defendants the current and former View board members and PwC; it also dropped the claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act. The second amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company’s warranty-related obligations and associated cost of revenue were materially false and misleading because they excluded installation expenses the Company was incurring to address certain warrantied quality issues, and that the Company was incurring those expenses even though the standard warranty did not obligate the Company to do so. As a result, the second amended complaint alleges that the price of the Company’s stock was inflated. The second amended complaint alleges that class members were damaged when the price of the Company’s stock declined on the trading day following (1) August 16, 2021, when the Company announced an independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the Company’s previously disclosed warranty accrual, and (2) November 9, 2021, when the Company announced that its independent investigation was substantially complete, that the Company’s previously reported warranty-related liabilities were materially misstated, and that it would restate certain previously reported financials. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs, including attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on October 2, 2023. Plaintiff’s opposition brief to those motions is due November 13, 2023, Defendants’ reply briefs are due December 8, 2023, and the motions will be heard by the court on March 14, 2024. Given the possibility that the plaintiff may amend its complaint, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss (or range of loss), if any, at this time; therefore, a liability has not been recorded as of September 30, 2023. Derivative Litigation On December 6, 2021, a purported Company shareholder, Matthew Jacobson, filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint (nominally on behalf of the Company) against Rao Mulpuri, Nigel Gormly, Harold Hughes, Tom Leppert, Toby Cosgrove, Lisa Picard, Julie Larson-Green, and Vidul Prakash (Jacobson v. Mulpuri, et al. (No. 1:21CV01719, D. Del.)). On May 24, 2022, plaintiff and purported Company shareholder Anil Damidi filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint (nominally on behalf of the Company) against the same defendants as in the Jacobson complaint: Mr. Mulpuri, Mr. Gormly, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Leppert, Mr. Cosgrove, Ms. Picard, Ms. Larson-Green, and Mr. Prakash. On July 26, 2022, plaintiff and purported Company stockholder James Monteleone filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint (nominally on behalf of the Company) against the same defendants as in the Jacobson and Damidi complaints: Mr. Mulpuri, Mr. Gormly, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Leppert, Mr. Cosgrove, Ms. Picard, Ms. Larson-Green, and Mr. Prakash. On September 8, 2022, the Jacobson, Damidi, and Monteleone cases were assigned to Judge Gregory Williams. On September 30, 2022, Judge Williams entered the parties’ stipulation to (1) consolidate the three actions into In re View, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No, 21-1719-GBW (Consolidated), (2) appoint co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, and (3) stay all proceedings in the consolidated action until the Mehedi class action is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and all appeals related thereto have been exhausted, or is resolved by settlement, or the motions to dismiss in the Mehedi class action are denied. Any party may request that the Court lift the stay upon good cause shown and bringing the matter to the Court’s attention. The stipulation deems the Damidi complaint to be the operative complaint in the consolidated case until any amended complaint is filed. The Damidi complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The Damidi complaint seeks unspecified money damages, restitution, punitive damages, and costs (including attorneys’ fees and accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses). The Damidi complaint alleges that the defendants failed to prevent the Company from making false statements regarding the Company’s business results and prospects and that the Company has been harmed by incurring legal fees and potential liability in investigations and lawsuits. On May 9, 2023, plaintiff and purported Company shareholder Alexandre Roberts filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint (nominally on behalf of the Company) against Rao Mulpuri, Vidul Prakash, Toby Cosgrove, Lisa Picard, and Nigel Gormly ( Roberts v. Mulpuri, et al. (No. 5:23-cv-02248, N.D. Cal.)). The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, restitution, punitive damages, and costs (including attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses). The Roberts complaint alleges that the defendants failed to prevent the Company from making false statements regarding the Company’s business results and prospects and that the Company has been harmed by incurring legal fees and potential liability in lawsuits. On August 1, 2023, the judge in the Mehedi case ordered that the Roberts case should be related to the Mehedi case and ordered that the Roberts case should be reassigned to the Mehedi judge. Given the early stage of this matter, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss (or range of loss), if any, at this time; therefore, a liability has not been recorded as of September 30, 2023. Government Investigations On November 9, 2021, the Company announced that it had voluntarily reported to the SEC that the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors was conducting an independent, internal investigation into the adequacy of the Company’s previously reported warranty accrual. In January 2022, the Company was informed that the SEC was conducting a formal investigation of this matter. In June 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requested |