Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings
The Company is party to ordinary and routine litigation incidental to its business. On a case-by-case basis, the Company engages inside and outside counsel to assess the probability of potential liability resulting from such litigation. After making such assessments, the Company makes an accrual for the estimated loss only when the loss is probable, and an amount can be reasonably estimated.
On February 9, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York styled Artery v. Astra Space, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00737 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Artery Action”). The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain statements concerning the Company’s capabilities and business prospects. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between February 2, 2021 and December 29, 2021. On March 23, 2022, a second putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York styled Riley v. Astra Space, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01591 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Riley Action,” with the Artery Action, the “Securities Actions”). The Riley Action alleges the same claims, based upon similar facts, against the same defendants, and seeks the same damages. The Company expects that the two cases will be consolidated into a single action. Defendants intend to move to dismiss once the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and an amended complaint is filed. The Company believes that the Securities Actions are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. Due to the early stage of the cases, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined.
On March 8, 2022, a stockholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the State of Delaware styled Meyer, et al., v. Kemp, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00308 (D. Del.). The complaint asserts claims against the current members of the Company’s board of directors and certain of its current and former officers, for breach of their fiduciary duty, waste, unjust enrichment, and contribution under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based upon the conduct alleged in the Artery Action. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in favor of the Company in an unstated amount, reformation of the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution including a disgorgement of any compensation, profits or other benefits achieved, and reimbursement of the plaintiffs’ reasonable fees and costs, including attorney’s fees. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Due to the early stage of the case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined. See Note 17 — Subsequent events for information regarding the status of this lawsuit.
On April 27, 2022, a stockholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York styled Gonzalez v. Kemp, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02401 (E.D.N.Y.). The complaint asserts claims against the current members of the Company’s board of directors and certain of its current and former officers for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and for contribution under Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based upon the conduct alleged in the Artery Action described above. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages in favor of the Company in an unstated amount, reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution including disgorgement of any compensation, profits or other benefits received, and reimbursement of the plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs, including attorney’s fees. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Due to the early stage of the case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined.
The Company has tendered defense of each of the three foregoing claims under its Directors’ and Officers’ policy. The retention under this policy is $20.0 million.
Indemnification Obligations to former Company Board Members
On May 20, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware styled Newbold v. McCaw et. al., Case No. 2022-0439 (the “Newbold Action”). The complaint alleges that Pendrell Corporation, X-icity Holdings Corporation f/k/a Pendrell Holicity Holdings and certain former officers, directors or controlling stockholders of Holicity, Inc. n/k/a Astra Space, Inc., breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in closing on the Business Combination. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of stockholders of the Company’s securities from June 28, 2021 through June 30, 2021.
Neither the Company nor any of its board members are parties in this action. The Company’s former board member, Mr. McCaw, is a defendant in this action, but the allegations relate to periods prior to the Business Combination. Astra is obligated to indemnify certain of the defendants in the Newbold Action. The Company has tendered defense of this action under its Directors’ and Officers’ Policy. The Company tendered defense of this claim under the tail policy it was required to purchase in connection with the Business Combination. The retention under that policy is $1.5 million. Due to the early stage of this case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined.
21