COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 6 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company has entered into supply agreements with Samsung and LG Energy Solution to purchase lithium-ion cylindrical battery cells. The agreements provide for certain pricing and minimum quantity parameters, including our obligation to purchase such minimum amounts which totaled approximately $16.3 million, $139.4 million and $273.6 million in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively, subject to change for increases in raw material pricing. We are in the process of negotiating amendments to reduce the amounts of these obligations, but there is no assurance that we will reach such agreements. The Company is subject to various pending and threatened legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a liability for loss contingencies in the consolidated financial statements when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Our provisions are based on historical experience, current information and legal advice, and they may be adjusted in the future based on new developments. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple forecasted factors that often depend on judgments and potential actions by third parties. On October 30, 2020, the Company, together with executive officers Mr. Burns, Mr. LaFleur, Mr. Post and Mr. Schmidt, and certain of our employees, were named as defendants in a lawsuit 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 contains 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 asserts claims for conspiracy, fraud, interstate racketeering activity, and violations of certain provisions of the California Penal Code relating to unauthorized computer access. Karma is seeking permanent injunctive relief and monetary damages. After several months of discovery, Karma filed a motion for preliminary injunction on August 8, 2021, seeking to temporarily enjoin the Company from producing any vehicle that incorporated Karma’s alleged trade secrets. On August 16, 2021, Karma also moved for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. On September 16, 2021, the District Court denied Karma’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and denied, in part, and granted, in part, Karma’s motion for sanctions. As a result of its partial grant of Karma’s sanctions motion, the District Court awarded Karma a permissive adverse inference jury instruction, the scope of which will be determined at trial. On September 20, 2021, the District Court granted the parties’ request to continue the trial date and other pretrial deadlines. Discovery is now set to close on March 1, 2022, and trial is scheduled to begin on August 8, 2022.The Company is continuing to evaluate the matters asserted in the lawsuit, and is vigorously defending against Karma’s claims. The Company continues to believe that there are strong defenses to the claims and the damages demanded. At this time, however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. 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, et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-760)); Romano et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC, et al. 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. 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 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 their motion to dismiss on November 9, 2021. Plaintiffs’ response is due by January 17, 2022, and the motion to dismiss will be fully briefed by March 3, 2022. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any. 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); Sarabia v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1010)). The derivative actions in the District of Delaware have been consolidated. On August 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 21D, Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) 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 on the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the motion to stay is November 24, 2021, and the motion will be fully briefed by December 22, 2021. Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 30, 2021 (Thai et al. v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1267)), asserting violations under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20, 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. 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. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any. In addition, between approximately March 26, 2021 and September 23, 2021, LMC received eight demands for books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from stockholders who state they are investigating whether to file similar derivative lawsuits, among other purposes. Also, on or around July 26, 2021, the Company received a stockholder litigation demand that the Company’s board of directors investigate and commence legal proceedings against certain current and former officers and directors based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any. 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. Except as described above, the Company is not a party to any material legal proceedings and is not aware of any pending or threatened claims. From time to time however, the Company may be subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

NOTE 6 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has entered into supply agreements with Samsung and LG Energy Solution to purchase lithium-ion cylindrical battery cells. The agreements provide for certain pricing and minimum quantity parameters, including our obligation to purchase such minimum amounts which totaled approximately $16.3 million, $139.4 million and $273.6 million in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively, subject to change for increases in raw material pricing. We are in the process of negotiating amendments to reduce the amounts of these obligations, but there is no assurance that we will reach such agreements.

The Company is subject to various pending and threatened legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company records a liability for loss contingencies in the consolidated financial statements when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Our provisions are based on historical experience, current information and legal advice, and they may be adjusted in the

future based on new developments. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple forecasted factors that often depend on judgments and potential actions by third parties.

On October 30, 2020, the Company, together with executive officers Mr. Burns, Mr. LaFleur, Mr. Post and Mr. Schmidt, and certain of our employees, were named as defendants in a lawsuit 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 contains 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 asserts claims for conspiracy, fraud, interstate racketeering activity, and violations of certain provisions of the California Penal Code relating to unauthorized computer access. Karma is seeking permanent injunctive relief and monetary damages.

After several months of discovery, Karma filed a motion for preliminary injunction on August 8, 2021, seeking to temporarily enjoin the Company from producing any vehicle that incorporated Karma’s alleged trade secrets. On August 16, 2021, Karma also moved for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. On September 16, 2021, the District Court denied Karma’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and denied, in part, and granted, in part, Karma’s motion for sanctions. As a result of its partial grant of Karma’s sanctions motion, the District Court awarded Karma a permissive adverse inference jury instruction, the scope of which will be determined at trial.

On September 20, 2021, the District Court granted the parties’ request to continue the trial date and other pretrial deadlines. Discovery is now set to close on March 1, 2022, and trial is scheduled to begin on August 8, 2022.The Company is continuing to evaluate the matters asserted in the lawsuit, and is vigorously defending against Karma’s claims. The Company continues to believe that there are strong defenses to the claims and the damages demanded. At this time, however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process.

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, et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al. (Case No. 21-cv-760)); Romano et al. v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-994); and FNY Managed Accounts LLC, et al. 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. 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 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 their motion to dismiss on November 9, 2021. Plaintiffs’ response is due by January 17, 2022, and the motion to dismiss will be fully briefed by March 3, 2022. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The

proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.

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); Sarabia v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1010)). The derivative actions in the District of Delaware have been consolidated. On August 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 21D, Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) 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 on the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the motion to stay is November 24, 2021, and the motion will be fully briefed by December 22, 2021. Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 30, 2021 (Thai et al. v. Burns, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-1267)), asserting violations under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20, 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. 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. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.

In addition, between approximately March 26, 2021 and September 23, 2021, LMC received eight demands for books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from stockholders who state they are investigating whether to file similar derivative lawsuits, among other purposes. Also, on or around July 26, 2021, the Company received a stockholder litigation demand that the Company’s board of directors investigate and commence legal proceedings against certain current and former officers and directors based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any.

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.

Except as described above, the Company is not a party to any material legal proceedings and is not aware of any pending or threatened claims. From time to time however, the Company may be subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities.