COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase Obligation —T he Company has purchase obligations, which includes agreements and issued purchase orders containing non-cancelable payment terms to purchase goods and services. As of June 30, 2024, future minimum purchase obligations are as follows (in thousands): Purchase Remainder of 2024 $ 8,273 2025 557 2026 53 Thereafter — Total $ 8,883 Litigation —The Company is named from time to time as a party to lawsuits and other types of legal proceedings and claims in the normal course of business. The Company accrues for contingencies when it believes that a loss is probable and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. On July 23, 2021, plaintiff William J. Brown, a former employee and a stockholder of Matterport, Inc. (now known as Matterport Operating, LLC) (“Legacy Matterport”), sued Legacy Matterport, Gores Holdings VI, Inc. (now known as Matterport, Inc.), Maker Merger Sub Inc., Maker Merger Sub II, LLC, and Legacy Matterport directors R.J. Pittman, David Gausebeck, Matt Bell, Peter Hebert, Jason Krikorian, Carlos Kokron and Michael Gustafson (collectively, the “Brown Defendants”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On September 3, 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint advancing three counts. The plaintiff’s complaint claimed that the Brown Defendants imposed invalid transfer restrictions on his shares of Matterport stock in connection with the Gores Merger transactions between Matterport, Inc. and Legacy Matterport (the “Transfer Restrictions”), and that Legacy Matterport’s board of directors violated their fiduciary duties in connection with a purportedly misleading letter of transmittal. The complaint sought damages and costs, as well as a declaration from the court that he may freely transfer his shares of Class A common stock of Matterport received in connection with the Gores Merger transactions. An expedited trial regarding the facial validity of the Transfer Restrictions took place in December 2021. On January 11, 2022, the court issued a ruling that the Transfer Restrictions did not apply to the plaintiff. The opinion did not address the validity of the Transfer Restrictions more broadly or whether Brown suffered any damages as a result of the Transfer Restrictions. Matterport filed a notice of appeal of the court’s ruling on February 8, 2022, and a hearing was held in front of the Delaware Supreme Court on July 13, 2022, after which the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Separate proceedings regarding the plaintiff’s remaining claims, including the amount of any damages suffered by Brown were the subject of the second phase of the case. The Company’s position was that Brown did not suffer any damages as he would have sold his shares as soon as possible after the Gores Merger transaction closed had the Company not prevented him from trading based on its application of the Transfer Restrictions. The plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on September 16, 2022, which asserted the causes of action described above but omitted as defendants Maker Merger Sub Inc., Maker Merger Sub II, LLC, and Legacy Matterport directors David Gausebeck, Matt Bell, and Carlos Kokron, and added an additional cause of action alleging that Matterport, Inc. violated the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code by failing to timely register the plaintiff’s requested transfer of Matterport, Inc. shares. The remaining defendants’ answer to the Third Amended Complaint was filed on November 9, 2022. Trial was held in November 2023 and a post-trial hearing was held on February 22, 2024. On May 28, 2024, the court ruled that Matterport had a reasonable basis to deny the plaintiff’s November 2021 demand that the transfer restrictions be removed from his shares and that the plaintiff lacked standing as to whether the transfer restrictions complied with Delaware law. However, the court awarded the plaintiff $79.1 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest as damages for losses caused by Matterport’s initial refusal to issue freely transferable shares. The Company recorded an aggregate litigation expense of $95.0 million in our consolidated statement of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024. On July 29, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal of the court’s ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court. On July 19, 2024, Damien Leostic and William Schmitt (the “Leostic and Schmitt Plaintiffs”), each former employees of Matterport, filed separate complaints against Matterport in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging that Matterport prevented the Leostic and Schmitt Plaintiffs from trading their Matterport shares through an invalid transfer restriction that did not apply to their shares and seeking damages for the harm to the Leostic and Schmitt Plaintiffs. The Company has not yet answered the complaints. Given the early stage of the case, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from the matters. On February 1, 2024, two stockholders, Laurie Hanna and Vasana Smith (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of Matterport, Inc. against R.J. Pittman, Michael Gustafson, Peter Hebert, James Krikorian, James Daniel Fay, David Gausebeck, Japjit Tulsi, Judi Otteson, Jay Remley, and numerous stockholders of Matterport, Inc. (collectively “Hanna and Smith Defendants”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the issuance of 23,460,000 earn-out shares worth $225 million was a breach of fiduciary duty and an act of corporate waste, which unjustly enriched recipients of the earn-out shares at the expense of Matterport and its common stockholders. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that issuance of the earn-out shares violated the February 7, 2021 Agreement and Gores Merger Agreement pursuant to which Legacy Matterport and Gores Holding VI, a publicly listed special purpose acquisition company, and two Gores subsidiaries merged, providing Legacy Matterport stockholders with shares of the surviving public company which took the name Matterport. The complaint seeks disgorgement all unjust enrichment by the the Hanna and Smith Defendants, an award of compensatory damages to Matterport, an award of costs and disbursements to the Plaintiffs, as well as a declaration that Plaintiffs may maintain the action on behalf of Matterport and that Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of Matterport, and a finding that demand on the Matterport board is excused as futile. On June 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which alleges, inter alia, that the members of the Matterport board breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy statement which failed to disclose certain information concerning Matterport’s prior issuance of certain earn-out shares previously issued and the subsequent impact on the amount of the CoStar Group Merger Consideration that would have been received by the plaintiffs and other stockholders if those earn-out shares had not been issued. The amended complaint sought an injunction to enjoin the stockholder vote relating to the Company’s proposed transaction with CoStar Group, and seeks, among other things, damages, and an award of plaintiffs’ costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The Plaintiffs in the Hanna Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholder vote and a motion for expedited proceedings regarding the motion for a preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2024, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to expedite. On June 3, 2024, a purported Matterport stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Andrew Rose v. Matterport, Inc., et al., naming Matterport and each member of the Matterport board as defendants (the “Rose Complaint”). The complaint alleges that CoStar Group’s Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the SEC on May 21, 2024 is materially misleading and omits certain purportedly material information relating to the sales process, financial projections of Matterport and CoStar Group, the valuation analyses performed by Qatalyst Partners, and negotiations over the terms of post-transaction employment of certain Matterport employees. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company’s board. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining consummation of the CoStar Group Mergers, an order directing the individual defendants to issue a new Registration Statement, and an award of plaintiff’s costs of the action, including plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Additionally, on July 9, and July 11, 2024, purported Matterport stockholders filed complaints in the New York Supreme Court, captioned Hamilton v. Matterport, Inc., et al., Case No. 653458/2024 (the “Hamilton Action”) and Scott v. Matterport, Inc., et al., Case No. 653515/2024 (the “Scott Action”), respectively. These complaints name Matterport and each member of the Matterport board as defendants and allege, inter alia, that the proxy statement misrepresents or omits certain purportedly material information relating to financial projections for Matterport, the valuation analyses performed by Qatalyst Partners, and potential conflicts of interest faced by Matterport insiders. The complaints assert claims for common law negligent misrepresentation and common law negligence. The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction enjoining consummation of the CoStar Group Mergers, damages, and an award of plaintiff’s costs of the action, including plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On May 11, 2020, Redfin Corporation (“Redfin”) was served with a complaint by Appliance Computing, Inc. III, d/b/a Surefield (“Surefield”), filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. In the complaint, Surefield asserted that Redfin’s use of Matterport’s 3D-Walkthrough technology infringes four of Surefield’s patents. Redfin has asserted defenses in the litigation that the patents in question are invalid and have not been infringed upon. We have agreed to indemnify Redfin for this matter pursuant to our existing agreements with Redfin. The parties have vigorously defended against this litigation. The matter went to jury trial in May 2022 and resulted in a jury verdict finding that Redfin had not infringed upon any of the asserted patent claims and that all asserted patent claims were invalid. Final judgment was entered on August 15, 2022. On September 12, 2022, Surefield filed post trial motions seeking to reverse the jury verdict. Redfin has filed oppositions to the motions. In addition, on May 16, 2022, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action against Appliance Computing III, Inc., d/b/a Surefield, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company had not infringed upon the four patents asserted against Redfin and one additional, related patent. The matter is pending in the Western District of Washington and captioned Matterport, Inc. v. Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield, Case No. 2:22-cv-00669 (W.D. Wash.). Surefield has filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Company filed an opposition to the motion. On August 28, 2023, the Court denied Surefield’s motion to dismiss the Washington case but stayed the action pending the resolution of the Texas case. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate if the Company had previously accrued. As of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023, there were no amounts accrued that the Company believes would be material to its financial position, except as noted above. Indemnification —In the ordinary course of busi ness, the Company enters into certain agreements that provide for indemnification by the Company of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, directors, officers, employees and other parties with respect to certain matters. Indemnification includes losses from breach of such agreements, services provided by the Company, or third-party intellectual property infringement claims. These indemnities may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future indemnification payments, in some circumstances, are not subject to a cap. As of June 30, 2024, there were no known events or circumstances that have resulted in a material indemnification liability. |