COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contractual Obligations

As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, the Company had $270.2 million and $593.9 million, respectively, in commitments related to AMP-1 and AMP-2 plant and equipment. These commitments represent future expected payments on open purchase orders entered into as of December 31, 2023 and 2022.

The Company’s non-cancellable long-term commitments primarily related to certain inventory component purchases. The estimated future payments having a remaining term in excess of one year as of December 31, 2023 were as follows (in thousands):


Years ended December 31,	Minimum Purchase Commitment(1)
2024	$	344,793
2025	462,918
2026	706,427
2027	703,205
2028	692,764
Thereafter	2,016,409
Total	$	4,926,516

(1) Included minimum purchase commitment of approximately $4.9 billion of battery cells from Panasonic Energy Co., Ltd. and certain of its affiliates.

Legal Matters

From time-to-time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these claims, lawsuits and other proceedings may involve highly complex issues that are subject to substantial uncertainties, and could result in damages, fines, penalties, non-monetary sanctions or relief.

Beginning on April 18, 2021, two individual actions and two putative class actions were filed in federal courts in Alabama, California, New Jersey and Indiana, asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Company (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp IV), its wholly owned subsidiary, Atieva, Inc. (“Lucid Motors”), and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, generally relating to the Merger. On September 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the New Jersey action voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit. The remaining actions were ultimately transferred to the Northern District of California and consolidated under the caption, In re CCIV / Lucid Motors Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-09323-YGR (the “Consolidated Class Action”). On December 30, 2021, lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action filed a revised amended consolidated complaint (the “Complaint”), which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased stock in CCIV between February 5, 2021 and February 22, 2021. The Complaint names as defendants Lucid Motors and the Company’s chief executive officer, and generally alleges that, prior to the public announcement of the Merger, defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding the expected start of production for the Lucid Air and related matters. The Complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action as well as compensatory damages, interest thereon, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 11, 2023, with plaintiffs being provided the ability to seek leave to amend. On June 29, 2023, the District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, dismissed the lawsuit and terminated the case. On July 28, 2023, plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decisions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Currently, the parties are litigating the case on appeal.

On December 3, 2021, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting the production of certain documents related to an investigation by the SEC related to the business combination between the Company (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp IV) and Legacy Lucid and certain projections and statements. The Company responded and fully cooperated with the SEC in its review. On April 27, 2023, SEC staff informed the Company that the SEC has concluded this matter and it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company.

In addition, two separate purported shareholders of the Company filed shareholder derivative actions, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in California federal court, captioned Sahr Lebbie v. Peter Rawlinson, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00531-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (filed on January 26, 2022) and Zsata Williams-Spinks v. Peter Rawlinson, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-01115-YGR (N.D. Cal.) (filed on February 23, 2022). The complaint also names the Company as a nominal defendant. Based on allegations that are similar to those in the Consolidated Class Action, the Lebbie complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets and a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act in connection with the Consolidated Class Action and the Williams-Spinks complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Consolidated Class Action. The complaints seek compensatory damages, interest thereon, certain corporate governance reforms, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company is advancing defendants’ fees and expenses incurred in their defense of the actions.

On April 1, 2022 and May 31, 2022, two alleged shareholders filed putative class actions under the federal securities laws against Lucid Group, Inc. and certain officers of the Company relating to alleged statements, updated projections and guidance provided in the late 2021 to early 2022 timeframe. The complaints, which were filed in the Northern District of California, are captioned Victor W. Mangino v. Lucid Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-JD, and Anant Goel v. Lucid Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03176-JD. The two matters were consolidated into one action, entitled In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-02094-JD. The consolidated complaint names as defendants Lucid Group, Inc. and the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and generally allege that defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding delivery and revenue projections and related matters between November 15, 2021 and August 3, 2022. The consolidated complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, as well as compensatory damages, interest thereon, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 23, 2023, which is pending before the court. Defendants believe that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to defend themselves vigorously, but they cannot ensure that their efforts to dismiss the consolidated complaint will be successful or that they will avoid liability in this matter.

In addition, on July 11, 2022, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative action, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in California state court, captioned Floyd Taylor v. Glenn August, et al., Superior Court, Alameda County, Case No. 22CV014130. The complaint also names the Company as a nominal defendant. Based on allegations that are similar to those in the In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation action, the Taylor complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company is advancing defendants’ fees and expenses incurred in their defense of the action.

Moreover, on March 25, 2021, the Illinois Automobile Dealers Association, Chicago Automobile Trade Association, Peoria Metro New Car Dealers Association, Illinois Motorcycle Dealers Association, and 241 individual motor vehicle dealers filed an action against the Office of the Illinois Secretary of State (“SOS”), Jesse White, in his official capacity as the Illinois Secretary of State; Lucid USA, Inc. (“Lucid USA”); and other defendants, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 2021CH01438. The suit generally alleges that Illinois law does not permit manufacturers to obtain licenses as motor vehicle dealers. Plaintiffs seek to prevent Lucid from engaging in the sale of motor vehicles directly to consumers. The SOS granted Lucid USA a dealer’s license on June 3, 2021. In December 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Illinois First District Appellate Court and the parties are currently litigating the case on appeal.

Furthermore, while we have registered and applied for trademarks in an effort to protect our brand and goodwill with customers, competitors or other third parties are, have in the past, and may in the future, oppose our trademark applications or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks and other brand names in which we have invested. Such oppositions and challenges can be expensive and may adversely affect our ability to maintain the goodwill gained in connection with a particular trademark. In addition, we may lose our trademark or are unable to submit specimens of use by the applicable deadline to perfect such trademark rights. For instance, we are evaluating and responding to a claim in a United States Patent and Trademark Office administrative hearing opposing and requesting cancellation of our trademark application and registration for the use of “Gravity”.

At this time, the Company does not consider any such claims, lawsuits or proceedings that are currently pending, individually or in the aggregate, including the matters referenced above, to be material to the Company’s business or likely to result in a material adverse effect on its future operating results, financial condition or cash flows should such proceedings be resolved unfavorably.

Indemnification

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, investors, directors, officers, and certain key employees with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of our breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. These indemnification provisions may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. The Company has never paid a material claim, nor has it been sued in connection with these indemnification arrangements. The Company has indemnification obligations with respect to letters of credit and surety bond primarily used as security against facility leases, utilities infrastructure and other agreements that require securitization. The indemnification obligations were $56.3 million and $52.5 million as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, for which no liabilities are recorded in the consolidated balance sheets.