The weighted-average remaining lease terms were 2.0 years and 1.9 years as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. The weighted-average discount rates were 6.04% and 5.25% as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. Operating lease costs for the year ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, were $3.7 million, $3.3 million and $2.3 million, respectively.

Short-term lease costs for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, were $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively.

Variable lease costs for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, were $0.5 million and $0.5 million, respectively.

The following is a maturity analysis of the annual undiscounted cash flows reconciled to the carrying value of the operating lease liabilities as of December 31, 2023 (in thousands):


	Operating Leases
2024	$	3,949
2025		3,157
2026		729
Total minimum lease payments		7,835
Less: imputed interest		(481	)
Total lease liability	$	7,354

From time to time, the Company is involved in actions, claims, suits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including assertions by third parties relating to intellectual property infringement, breaches of contract or warranties or employment-related matters. When it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability for such loss contingencies. The Company’s estimates regarding potential losses and materiality are based on the Company’s judgment and assessment of the claims utilizing currently available information. Although the Company will continue to reassess its reserves and estimates based on future developments, the Company’s objective assessment of the legal merits of

such claims may not always be predictive of the outcome and actual results may vary from the Company’s current estimates.

On November 27, 2023, Anita Wallace (“Plaintiff”) filed a Verified Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”) under the caption Wallace v. Salehian, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1187-PAF (the “Action”) on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of Aeva Technologies, Inc. (“Aeva”) challenging disclosures made in connection with the then-proposed issuance of shares of Aeva’s common stock in proxy solicitation materials submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on November 17, 2023 (the “Preliminary Proxy Statement”). The Action sought, among other things, a preliminary injunction against the vote on the proposed stock issuance.

On December 7, 2023, Aeva filed a proxy statement supplement containing supplemental disclosures that mooted the allegations in the Action. On January 11, 2024, the Court entered an Order dismissing the Action as moot and retaining jurisdiction solely for adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Aeva, on behalf of all defendants in the Action, subsequently agreed to pay $350,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses which was recorded as accrued liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2023, in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Action.

On January 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order closing the Action, subject to Aeva filing an affidavit with the Court confirming that this notice has been issued. In entering the Order, the Court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness.

On March 7, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against InterPrivate Acquisition Management LLC, InterPrivate LLC, and former directors and officers of InterPrivate Acquisition Corp (“IPV”). The lawsuit is captioned, Louis Smith v. Ahmed M. Fattouh, et al., (Del. Ch. 2024). Among other remedies, the complaint seeks damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In connection with IPV’s March 12, 2021, merger transaction with Aeva Inc., Aeva granted certain indemnification rights to IPV’s former directors and officers. However, neither Aeva nor its current directors or officers are named as defendants in the complaint.