Legal Proceedings
+Added: In 2025, the Company was notified by a former vendor that it intended to pursue a claim against the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, AEye Technologies, Inc., arising out of an agreement entered into in May 2020, in which the former vendor alleges that AEye Technologies, Inc.
+Added: failed to pay approximately $3,300 plus interest from the date the former vendor alleges such payments were due.
+Added: In February 2026, the former vendor initiated a binding arbitration proceeding against AEye Technologies, Inc.
+Added: pursuant to the underlying purchase agreement.
+Added: AEye Technologies, Inc.
+Added: has, and continues to dispute the total amount owed based, in part, on the claim that the products supplied by the former vendor were largely defective and such former vendor was repeatedly made aware of the existence of such defects.
+Added: While it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in this legal proceeding.
In or about July of 2024, AEye, Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary, AEye Technologies, Inc.
(“AEye Tech,” formerly known as AEye, Inc.) surrendered possession of the premises as described in that certain Office Lease dated April 26, 2019 (the “Lease”), entered into by and between the predecessor-in-interest to IGEP Park Place, LLC, as landlord (the “Landlord”) and AEye Tech, as tenant.
−Removed: A copy of the Lease was filed as Exhibit 10.8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the U.S.
−Removed: Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021.
In connection with AEye Tech’s surrender of possession, AEye Tech was purported to be served with a complaint that was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda on August 26, 2024 (the “Complaint”) that (1) alleges AEye Tech is in breach of the Lease because of, among other things, AEye Tech’s failure to pay rent as required by the Lease and (2) provides notice to AEye Tech that the Lease had been terminated by the Landlord.
−Removed: The Complaint does not quantify the damages sought thereunder, however, as discovery in the litigation has only recently commenced, the only quantification of damages is the Landlord’s informal demand at the outset of the litigation of approximately $4.35 million, which is net of the $2.15 million security deposit retained by the Landlord.
−Removed: If we are unable to resolve the purported default under the Lease and AEye, Inc.
−Removed: is subsequently found liable for the amounts claimed by the Landlord that are allegedly owed to it by AEye Tech, it could have a material adverse effect on AEye, Inc.’s liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations.
+Added: The Landlord claimed that the amount owed could be up to $8.5 million.
+Added: Thereafter, in August 2024, the Landlord fully drew down the standby letter of credit of $2.15 million, which was held as security for the payment of rent, due to the alleged default of the lease.
+Added: On April 28, 2025, the Company and the former landlord entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all outstanding disputes related to the early termination of the lease.
+Added: Under the terms of the agreement, the Company paid $1.4 million in cash in May 2025 and issued warrants to purchase up to 350,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $2.22 per share in August 2025.
In addition, from time to time, we may become involved in actions, claims, suits, and other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business, including assertions by third parties relating to intellectual property infringement, breaches of contract or warranties, or employment-related matters.
3 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.