Commitments and contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and contingencies

Commitments and contingencies

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies in the Normal Course of Business

Satellite construction contracts may include performance incentives whereby payment for a portion of the purchase price of the satellite is contingent upon in-orbit performance of the satellite. The Company’s ultimate receipt of orbital performance incentives is subject to the continued performance of its satellites generally over the contractually stipulated life of the satellites. A complete or partial loss of a satellite’s functionality can result in loss of orbital receivable payments or repayment of amounts received by the Company under a warranty payback arrangement. The Company generally receives the present value of the orbital receivables if there is a launch failure or a failure caused by a customer error, but will forfeit some or all of the orbital receivables if the loss is caused by satellite failure or as a result of Company error. The Company recognizes orbital performance incentives in the financial statements based on the amounts that are expected to be received and believes that it will not incur a material loss relating to the incentives recognized. With respect to the Company’s securitized liability for the orbital receivables, upon the occurrence of an event of default under the securitization facility agreement or upon the occurrence of limited events, the Company may be required to repurchase on demand any effected receivables at their then net present value.

The Company may incur liquidated damages on programs as a result of delays due to slippage, or for programs which fail to meet all milestone requirements as outlined within the contractual arrangements with customers. Losses on programs related to liquidated damages result in a reduction of revenue. Changes in estimates related to contracts accounted for using the cost-to-cost method are recognized in the period in which such changes are made for the inception-to-date effect of the changes. Unrecoverable costs on contracts that are expected to be incurred in future periods are recorded in program cost in the current period. Additionally, construction contracts may have termination for default clauses, which if triggered, could result in potential losses and legal disputes.

The Company enters into agreements in the ordinary course of business with resellers and others. Most of these agreements require the Company to indemnify the other party against third-party claims alleging that one of its products infringes or misappropriates a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right. Certain of

these agreements require the Company to indemnify the other party against claims relating to property damage, personal injury or acts or omissions by the Company, its employees, agents or representatives.

From time to time, the Company has made guarantees regarding the performance of its systems to its customers. Some of these agreements do not limit the maximum potential future payments the Company could be obligated to make. The Company evaluates and estimates potential losses from such indemnification based on the likelihood that the future event will occur. The Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification and guarantees in the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company has entered into industrial cooperation agreements, sometimes referred to as offset agreements, as a condition to entering into contracts for its products and services from certain customers in foreign countries. These agreements are designed to return economic value to the foreign country and may be satisfied through activities that do not require a direct cash payment, including transferring technology and providing manufacturing, training and other consulting support to in-country projects. These agreements may provide for penalties in the event the Company fails to perform in accordance with offset requirements. The Company has historically not been required to pay any such penalties.

Risks and uncertainties related to COVID-19

The near and long-term impacts of the pandemic on the cost and schedule of the numerous programs in the Company’s existing backlog and the timing of new awards remain uncertain. The Company is observing stress in its supplier base inside and outside the U.S. and will continue to monitor and assess the actual and potential COVID-19 impacts on employees, customers, suppliers and the productivity of the work being done, all of which to some extent could affect revenues, estimated costs to complete projects, earnings and cash flow. The Company has received some force majeure claims from suppliers related to COVID-19; however, at this time the Company does not expect the claims to result in a material financial impact.

Legal proceedings

On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (“Colorado Action”), naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company’s public disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages. On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of management in connection with the Company’s public disclosures between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company’s statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class period. On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2021, the court in the Colorado Action certified a class consisting of investors who purchased or acquired Maxar stock between May 9, 2018 and October 30, 2018, inclusive. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

In January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming misrepresentations in Maxar’s public disclosures and seeking monetary damages. On November 15, 2019, Mr. O’Brien and another Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar’s auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 lawsuit was discontinued. The Statement of Claim in the November

2019 lawsuit alleges that the Company’s statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class period and claims damages of $700 million. On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action as a class proceeding. By order dated September 23, 2021, the action against KPMG LLP was discontinued. On March 10, 2022, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave and certification was dismissed. The plaintiffs have not appealed the dismissal and the time period for such appeal expired on April 11, 2022.

On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company’s June 2, 2017 Registration Statement and Prospectus (“Offering Materials”) filed in anticipation of its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe, Inc. (the “DigitalGlobe Merger”). On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same causes of action against the same set of defendants as set forth in his original complaint. The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company’s statements regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or misleading when made. On January 24, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 20, 2021, the court certified a class consisting of investors who acquired Maxar stock in exchange for DigitalGlobe stock pursuant to the Offering Materials issued in connection with the DigitalGlobe Merger. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. 

On November 14, 2019, a derivative action was filed against Maxar and certain current and former members of management and the board of directors in United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned as Dorling, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Maxar Technologies Inc. v. Lance, et al., No. 19-cv-02134-UNA. On September 18, 2020, another purported derivative action was filed in the same court against Maxar and certain current and former members of management and the board of directors, captioned as Golub, Derivatively on Behalf of Maxar Technologies Inc. v. Lance, et al., No. 20-cv-01251-UNA. Both complaints concern the same factual allegations as asserted in the Colorado Action. The court has consolidated and stayed both derivative cases.

On September 15, 2021, a derivative action was filed against Maxar and certain current and former members of management and the board of directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned as Egan, on behalf of Maxar Technologies, Inc., v. Lance et al., C.A. No. 2021-0796-PAF. The complaint concerns the same factual allegations as asserted in the Colorado Action. The action is currently stayed by stipulation of the parties.

The Company is a party to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business as either a plaintiff or defendant. As a matter of course, the Company is prepared both to litigate these matters to judgment, as well as to evaluate and consider all reasonable settlement opportunities. The Company establishes accrued liabilities for these matters where losses are deemed probable and reasonably estimable. The outcome of any of these other proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. The Company expenses legal fees related to contingencies as incurred.

The Company maintains insurance policies for settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, for lawsuits such as those described in the preceding paragraphs, although the amount of insurance coverage that the Company maintains may not be adequate to cover all claims or liabilities. In addition, provisions of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws and indemnification agreements entered into with current and former directors and officers require the Company, among other things, to indemnify these directors and officers against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers and to advance expenses to such directors or officers in connection therewith.