The Company, in the normal course of business, is subject to claims and litigation. The Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company would accrue a liability for the estimated loss.

On May 14, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Southern District of New York” or the “Court”) against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (“Plymouth Action”). The Plymouth Action alleges misstatements and/or omissions in the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company’s October 2020 initial public offering (“IPO”), the Company’s December 2020 offering (the “2020 Follow-On Offering”), and the Company’s March 2021 offering (the “2021 Follow-On Offering”) during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021.

On June 30, 2021, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (“Keippel Action”). The Keippel Action similarly alleged misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company’s IPO, the Company’s 2020 Follow-On Offering, and the Company’s 2021 Follow-On Offering during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Court entered an order that the Keippel Action was in all material respects substantially similar to the Plymouth Action that both actions arise out of the same or similar operative facts, and that the parties are substantially the same parties. The Court accordingly consolidated the Keippel Action with the Plymouth Action for all pretrial purposes and, ordered all filings to be made in the Plymouth Action.

On July 16, 2021, a verified derivative complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of the Company (“First SDNY Derivative Action”). The complaint alleges: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for misleading proxy statements, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) abuse of control, (5) gross mismanagement, (6) corporate waste, (7) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and (8) contribution under sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 30, 2021, a second and related verified derivative complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of the Company (“Second SDNY Derivative Action”). The complaint alleges: (1) violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for causing the issuance of a false/misleading proxy statement, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 24, 2021, the Second SDNY Derivative Action was consolidated with the First SDNY Derivative Action, the Court appointed co-lead counsel, and the case was temporarily stayed pending the entry of an order on all motions to dismiss directed at the pleadings filed in the Plymouth Action. The stay shall remain in effect until the later of (a) the entry of an order on any motions to dismiss the Plymouth Action or, (b) to the extent the complaint in the Plymouth Action is amended, the entry of an order on any motions to dismiss any such amended complaints in the Plymouth Action.

On September 21, 2021, the Court in the Plymouth Action appointed a group comprised of institutional investors Plymouth County Retirement Association and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiff.

On December 7, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff in the Plymouth Action against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during the period from October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021 (the “Consolidated Amended Complaint”). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges misstatements and/or omissions in: (1) certain of the Company’s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company’s IPO, the Company’s 2020 Follow-On Offering, and the Company’s 2021 Follow-On Offering; (2) in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020; and (3) in the Company’s November 5, 2020 and March 9, 2021 earnings calls.

On August 17, 2022, the Court in the Plymouth Action set a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss with the opening motion and supporting memorandum to be filed on or before October 17, 2022, any opposition to be filed on or before December 16, 2022, and any reply in support of the motion to be filed on or before January 16, 2023. The Company and other defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a joint motion to dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”) the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 17, 2022. The lead plaintiff filed a motion opposing the Motion to Dismiss on December 16, 2022, and the Company and other defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on January 17, 2023.

On May 19, 2023, the Court in the Plymouth Action granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. On July 5, 2023, the Court denied the lead plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint and dismissed the Plymouth Action with prejudice.

On August 3, 2022, a verified derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court of Chancery”) against certain officers and directors of the Company, asserting claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty and (2) unjust enrichment (“First Delaware Derivative Action”).

On August 11, 2022, a second verified derivative complaint was filed against certain officers and directors of the Company Court of Chancery, asserting claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty; (3) waste of corporate assets; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) insider selling; and (6) aiding and abetting insider selling (“Second Delaware Derivative Action”).

On September 2, 2022, the Second Delaware Derivative Action was consolidated with the First Delaware Derivative Action, the Court of Chancery appointed co-lead counsel, and the case was temporarily stayed pending the entry of an order on all motions to dismiss directed at the pleadings filed in the Plymouth Action. The stay shall remain in effect until the later of (a) the entry of an order on the pending motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Plymouth Action, (b) to the extent the Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Plymouth Action is further amended, the entry of an order on any motions to dismiss any such

At this time the Company believes that the likelihood of any material loss related to these matters is remote given the preliminary stage of the claims and strength of the Company’s defenses. The Company has not recorded any material loss contingency in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2023.

Concurrent with the Former Parent’s acquisition of Array Technologies Patent Holdings Co., LLC on July 8, 2016, the Company’s operating subsidiary, Array Tech, Inc. (f/k/a Array Technologies, Inc.), entered into a Tax Receivable Agreement (the “TRA”) with the former majority shareholder of Array. The TRA is valued based on the future expected payments under the agreement. The TRA provides for the payment by Array Tech, Inc., to the former owners for certain federal, state, local and non-U.S. tax benefits deemed realized in post-closing taxable periods by Array Tech, Inc., from the use of certain deductions generated by the increase in the tax value of the developed technology. The TRA is accounted for as contingent consideration and subsequent changes in fair value of the contingent liability are recognized in contingent consideration on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. As of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the fair value of the TRA was $9.4 million and $8.6 million, respectively.

Estimating the amount of payments that may be made under the TRA is by nature imprecise. The significant fair value inputs used to estimate the future expected TRA payments to the former owners include the timing of tax payments, a discount rate, book income projections, timing of expected adjustments to calculate taxable income and the projected rate of use for attributes defined in the TRA.

Payments made under the TRA consider tax positions taken by the Company and are due within 125 days following the filing of the Company’s U.S. federal and state income tax returns under procedures described in the agreement. The current portion of the TRA liability is based on tax returns. The TRA will continue until all tax benefit payments have been made or the Company elects early termination under the terms described in the TRA.


	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2023		2022		2023		2022
Beginning balance	$	8,724	$	9,364	$	8,586	$	14,578
Payments	—		—		(1,200)		(1,483)
Fair value adjustment	705		(1,678)		2,043		(5,409)
Ending balance	$	9,429	$	7,686	$	9,429	$	7,686