Array Technologies, Inc. 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings From time to time we may be involved in claims arising in the ordinary course of business. To our knowledge, other than the cases described below, no material legal proceedings, governmental actions, investigations or claims are currently pending against us or involve us that, in the opinion of our management, could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. The Company believes the claims alleged in the actions discussed below are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend its position in these matters. 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. Plymouth Class Action On May 14, 2021, a putative class action (the “Plymouth Action”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District 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, as amended (the “ Exchange Act”) , and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “ Securities Act”). On June 30, 2021, a substantially similar 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 Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, which was consolidated with the Plymouth Action. A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on December 7, 2021. All defendants in the Plymouth Action, including the Company, moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On May 19, 2023, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and, on July 5, 2023, denied a request from the Plymouth Action plaintiffs for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint and dismissed the Plymouth Action in its entirety with prejudice. On August 4, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After full briefing, the court of appeals heard oral argument on June 26, 2024 . On March 24, 2026, the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the District Court's dismissal of the Plymouth Action with prejudice. 55 Derivative Complaints Southern District of New York 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. The complaint alleged: (i) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for misleading proxy statements; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv) abuse of control; (v) gross mismanagement; (vi) corporate waste; (vii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (viii) contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On July 30, 2021, a second verified derivative complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against certain officers and directors of the Company. The complaint alleged: (i) violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for causing the issuance of a false/misleading proxy statement; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; and (iii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 24, 2021, the Southern District of New York derivative actions were consolidated, and the court appointed co-lead counsel. On April 28, 2026, the District Court entered a stipulation and order submitted by the parties voluntarily dismissing the New York derivative action in light of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the dismissal of the Plymouth Action with prejudice. Delaware Court of Chancery On August 3, 2022, a verified derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain officers and directors of the Company, asserting claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty; and (ii) unjust enrichment. The derivative plaintiff in this action seeks: an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Company; restitution from the defendants and disgorgement of profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the defendants; an order directing the Company to reform its corporate governance and internal procedures; equitable or injunctive relief as permitted by law and equity; and the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys’ fees. On August 11, 2022, a second verified derivative complaint was filed with the Court of Chancery against certain officers and directors of the Company, asserting claims for: (i) breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) waste of corporate assets; (iv) unjust enrichment; (v) insider selling; and (vi) aiding and abetting insider selling. The derivative plaintiff in this action seeks: declaratory relief; an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Company; disgorgement of profits obtained from certain sales of Company stock by certain of the defendants; establishment of a constructive trust over certain amounts obtained by certain of the defendants; and the costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys’ fees. On September 2, 2022, the derivative cases with the Court of Chancery were consolidated and the court appointed co-lead counsel. The consolidated cases remain stayed pending the outcome of the appeal of the Plymouth Action. Sterling and Wilson Solar Solutions, Inc. (“SWSS”) vs. Array Technologies, Inc. On September 16, 2025, Sterling & Wilson Solar Solutions Inc. (“SWSS”) served an arbitration demand (the “Demand”) on the Company asserting contractual and negligence claims purportedly arising out of the Company’s provision of goods for use in a solar project in Bickleton, Washington. The Company filed its Answer on October 30, 2025, and asserted defenses, including that (i) SWSS’s claims are barred by applicable contractual limitations provisions and statutes of limitations, and (ii) are otherwise unsupported. In February 2026, SWSS filed a statement of claims and damages, specifying that it is seeking contractual damages from the Company, and further adding a claim seeking indemnification by the Company for any damages incurred 56 by SWSS relating to counterclaims brought against SWSS in another litigation concerning the same solar project. The Company is not a party to that litigation. The amount of potential damages to SWSS, if any, is unknown because the Company understands the underlying litigation to be in its early and preliminary stages. On March 5, 2026, the Company sought leave to file a dispositive motion concerning all of SWSS’ claims. On March 24, 2026, that request was denied, but the arbitration panel noted that it would consider additional requests at a later date. On April 29, 2026, the parties requested that the panel stay the arbitration pending the resolution of the underlying litigation. The Company is vigorously defending the arbitration.