What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2022-11-09 compared with 2022-08-09 · 24 added, 15 removed, 19 unchanged (67% of the section changed)

Legal Proceedings

On August 30, 2017, Array filed its first amended complaint in the U.S.

On August 30, 2017, the Company filed its first amended complaint in the U.S.

District Court for the District of New Mexico against Nextracker LLC, Daniel S.

Shugar, Marco Garcia, Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc., Scott Graybeal and Colin Mitchell (collectively “Defendants”) asserting (among other claims) trade secret

misappropriation, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and breach of contract.

On July 15, 2022, the Company settled its claims against Defendants for $42.8 million and the settlement was paid on August 4, 2022.

Shugar, Marco Garcia, Flextronics International U.S.A., Inc., Scott Graybeal and Colin Mitchell (collectively, the “Defendants”) asserting (among other claims) trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and breach of contract (the “Nextracker Litigation”).

On July 15, 2022, the Company settled its claims against Defendants for $42.8 million and received payment on August 4, 2022.

On May 14, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.

District Court for 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 “IPO”), the Company’s December 2020 follow-on offering (the “2020 Follow-On Offering”), and the Company’s March 2021 follow-on offering (the “2021 Follow-On Offering”) during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021.

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”).

2 unchanged sentences

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 Derivative 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 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.

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.

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”).

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 and associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020;

(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.

Consistent with the individual rules of practice for the Court in the Plymouth Action, on January 24, 2022, the defendants in the Plymouth Action, including the Company and certain of its officers and directors named as defendants therein, served on lead plaintiff and the Court a letter outlining why the Consolidated Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.

Lead plaintiff responded to that letter on February 23, 2022 disagreeing with the grounds for dismissal outlined in the defendants’ initial letter and contending that its Consolidated Amended Complaint should not be dismissed.

Because the parties could not agree that the Consolidated Amended Complaint was deficient in any respect, the defendants, including the Company, submitted a letter to the Court on March 21, 2022 setting forth the reasons why the Consolidated Amended Complaint should be dismissed and requesting the Court’s leave to file a motion to dismiss.

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 the other defendants in the Plymouth Action filed a join motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 17, 2022.

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 in the 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 amended complaints in the Plymouth Action, or (c) the public announcement of a settlement of the Plymouth Action.

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.

2 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings