Array Technologies, Inc. 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings On August 30, 2017, Array filed its first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against Colin Mitchell, Nextracker, Inc., Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc., Marco Garcia, Daniel S. Shugar, and Scott Graybeal (collectively “Defendants”) asserting (among other claims) trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and breach of contract. Defendant Mitchell was formerly an employee of the Company, but was hired by Nextracker in violation of his non-compete agreement, and he shared with Nextracker and the other defendants certain of Array’s trade secrets and confidential information in violation of his legal obligations. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on 42 February 5, 2018 denying the allegations, but did not assert any counterclaims against Array. The case has been vigorously litigated through the close of fact discovery and expert discovery. As of September 1, 2020, the court has ruled on a number of motions, including a dismissal of the Defendants’ unclean hands defense and granting partial summary judgment in favor of Array for breach of contract. As of September 30, 2021, the Court has denied in every material aspect the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendants. The Court denied, without prejudice, a motion for sanctions filed by Array. The Court has set trial for July 18, 2022. On May 14, 2021, a 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, 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, the Company’s December 2020 offering, and the Company’s March 2021 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 October 2020 initial public offering, the Company’s December 2020 offering, and the Company’s March 2021 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 against certain officers and directors of the Company (“First 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 against certain officers and directors of the Company (“Second 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 Derivative Action was consolidated with the First 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 appointed a group comprised of institutional investors Plymouth County Retirement Association and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiff in the Plymouth Action. The deadline for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint in the Plymouth action is November 19, 2021 43 From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations and businesses that cover a wide range of matters, including, among others, intellectual property matters, contract and employment claims, personal injury claims, product liability claims and warranty claims. Currently, there are no claims or proceedings against us that we believe will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, the results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty and, regardless of the outcome, we may incur significant costs and experience a diversion of management resources as a result of litigation.