Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations Momentus enters into purchase obligations in the normal course of business. These obligations include purchase orders and agreements to purchase goods or services that are enforceable, legally binding, and have significant terms and minimum purchases stipulated. As of December 31, 2022, the Company’s future unconditional purchase obligations are as follows: (in thousands) 2023 15,368 2024 600 Thereafter — Total $ 15,968 Legal Proceedings Securities Class Actions On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of SRAC filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC ("Sponsor"), Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the Company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned Jensen v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp ., et al ., No. 2:21-cv-05744 (the " Jensen class action"). The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On July 22, 2021 and August 4, 2021, purported stockholders of SRAC filed putative class action complaints against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot, James Norris, Momentus, and Mikhail Kokorich in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in cases captioned Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp ., et al ., No. 2:21-cv-05943 (the " Hall class action") and Depoy v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp ., et al ., No. 2:21-cv-06287 (the " Depoy class action"). The allegations in the Hall and Depoy class actions are substantially the same as the allegations in the Jensen class action (collectively, referred to as the "Securities Class Actions") and the purported class period is identical. On October 20, 2021, the Securities Class Actions were consolidated in the first filed matter. Other, similar suits may follow. On November 12, 2021, Lead Plaintiff Hartmut Haenisch filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) against SRAC, Sponsor, Brian Kabot, Juan Manuel Quiroga, James Norris, James Hofmockel (collectively, the "Stable Road Defendants"), Momentus, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy (collectively, the "Momentus Defendants"), and Mikhail Kokorich. Ms. Harms and Mr. Kennedy, and others, were added as defendants in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. On February 14, 2022, the Momentus Defendants filed their motions to dismiss and the Stable Road Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Mr. Kokorich has not been served, nor appeared, in the litigation. On July 13, 2022, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss, granting the Stable Road Defendants' motion as to Count 1 as against Defendants Quiroga, Norris and Hofmockel, granting the motion, granting the Momentus Defendants' motions as to Count III as against Defendants Harms and Kennedy, and denying the motions on all other counts. The Momentus Defendants and the Stable Road Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on August 2, 2022. A case management conference previously scheduled for August 22, 2022 was vacated and a case management and scheduling order issued without conference on August 25, 2022. A jury trial date has been set for November 14, 2023. Momentus disputes the allegations in the Amended Complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Actions and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Securities Class Actions. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Securities Class Actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the Company (at least $4.0 million of which is expected to be funded by insurance proceeds). The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement, notice to the proposed class, and approval by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. If these conditions are satisfied, the proposed settlement will resolve all claims in the Securities Class Actions against the Company (except as to any shareholders that may elect to opt-out of the class). The Company and the other defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the Securities Class Actions, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants. In the event that the Company is unable to execute a final stipulation of settlement and obtain Court approval, the Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Securities Class Actions. As a result of the agreement in principle to settle the Securities Class Action, the Company recorded a litigation settlement contingency of $8.5 million. The Company additionally recorded an insurance receivable of $4.0 million for the insurance proceeds expected from its insurers related to the settlement. The net amount is included in other expense in the consolidated statement of operations. SEC Settlement and CFIUS Review On January 24, 2021, the Company received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC ("Division of Enforcement") requesting documents regarding the Registration Statement on Form S-4 and Amendment No. 1 thereto (the "Registration Statement") filed by SRAC in connection with the Business Combination. The Company entered into a settlement with the SEC on July 8, 2021. As a result of the settlement, in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies , (“ASC 450”) the Company paid a fine of $2 million and recorded a liability of $5 million within other current liabilities, due one year from the settlement date. The Company paid the remaining $5 million liability on July 8, 2022. In February 2021, the Company and Mr. Kokorich, with support from SRAC, submitted a joint notice to the CFIUS for review of the historical acquisition of interests in the Company by Mr. Kokorich, his wife, and entities that they control in response to concerns of the U.S. Department of Defense regarding the Company’s foreign ownership and control. On June 8, 2021, U.S. Departments of Defense and the Treasury, on behalf of CFIUS, Mr. Kokorich, on behalf of himself and Nortrone Finance S.A. (an entity controlled by Mr. Kokorich), Lev Khasis and Olga Khasis, each in their respective individual capacities and on behalf of Brainyspace LLC (an entity controlled by Olga Khasis) entered into a National Security Agreement (the "NSA"). In accordance with the NSA and pursuant to stock repurchase agreements entered into with the Company, effective as of June 8, 2021, each of Mr. Kokorich, Nortrone Finance S.A. and Brainyspace LLC (collectively “the Co-Founders”) sold 100% of their respective equity interests in the Company on June 30, 2021. In exchange for their equity interests, the Company initially paid each entity $1, but will additionally pay up to an aggregate of $50,000,000, out of funds legally available therefor, to the Co-Founders, on a pro rata basis, as follows: (i) an aggregate of $40,000,000 to be paid out of funds legally available therefor, within 10 business days after the earlier of (A) a business combination or capital raising transaction or series of transactions (whether in the form of debt or equity) resulting in cash proceeds of no less than $100,000,000 and (B) the Business Combination (the “First Payment Date”); and (ii) an aggregate of $10,000,000 to be paid out of funds legally available therefor, within 10 business days after a business combination or capital raising transaction or series of transactions (whether in the form of debt or equity) resulting in cash proceeds of no less than $250,000,000 (determined without any reduction for the $100,000,000 previously received in respect of the First Payment Date). As a result of the Business Combination, which generated $247.3 million of gross proceeds (as described in Note 3), the Company paid the Co-Founders $40.0 million in addition to the initial consideration paid of $3. The Company recorded the consideration paid as a reduction of common stock and additional paid in capital. Pursuant to the NSA, a portion of those divestment proceeds were placed in escrow accounts, and may not be released to the divested investors until after completion of audit by a third-party auditor of the investors compliance with the NSA and the lapse of a 15 day period without an objection from the CFIUS Monitoring Agencies. Following the third-party audit of the investors’ NSA compliance, all of the escrowed divestment proceeds were released to the Co-Founders as of March 1, 2022 in accordance with the NSA. If the Company were to undertake a business combination or capital raising transaction or series of transactions (whether in the form of debt or equity) resulting in cash proceeds of approximately $2.7 million or more, the Company would need to pay an aggregate of $10.0 million to the Co-Founders in accordance with the terms of the stock repurchase agreements (see Note 11). As a subsequent event, on February 27, 2023 the Company raised aggregate gross proceeds of $10.0 million through the sale of securities, which triggered the liability under the stock repurchase agreements. Refer to Note 16. The Company evaluated and periodically re-evaluates this potential consideration as a liability under ASC 480 utilizing a probability-weighted approach. Certain factors which would enable successful fundraising were considered, including progress toward compliance with the NSA, research and development progress, and agreements with launch providers, as well as the Company’s fundraising efforts under the at-the-market offering program describe above, resulting in an estimated liability of $10.0 million expected to be paid to the Co-Founders with a corresponding offset to additional paid in capital within the consolidated statements of stockholders’ equity (deficit), as of December 31, 2022. The NSA establishes various requirements and restrictions on the Company to protect national security, certain of which may materially and adversely affect the Company’s operating results due to the cost of compliance, limitations on the Company’s control over certain U.S. facilities, contracts, personnel, vendor selection and operations, and any potential penalties for noncompliance with such requirements and restrictions. The NSA provides for quarterly compliance auditing by an independent auditor. The NSA further provides for liquidated damages up to $1,000,000 per breach of the NSA. If the CFIUS Monitoring Agencies, the U.S. Departments of Defense and Treasury, find noncompliance, the CFIUS Monitoring Agencies could impose penalties, including liquidated damages. The Company incurred legal expenses related to these matters of approximately $1.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2022, and $7.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2021, and expects to continue to incur legal expenses in the future. Shareholder Section 220 Litigation On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff and Momentus shareholder James Burk filed a verified complaint against Momentus in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case. No. 2022-0519, to inspect the books and records of Momentus pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Plaintiff seeks production of books and records relating to the management of Momentus and its disclosures to potential investors in connection with the Business Combination. The matter is currently stayed pending the Company's production of certain documents to satisfy Plaintiff's requests for inspection. Plaintiff has demanded an order compelling the Company to comply with Plaintiff's production demands and granting Plaintiff an award of attorney's fees in connection with its prosecution of the matter. The Company from time to time responds to books and records requests properly submitted pursuant to applicable Delaware law. Momentus disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On June 20, 2022, a shareholder derivative action was filed by Brian Lindsey, on behalf of Momentus, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-04212, against Momentus (as a nominal defendant), SRAC, Brian Kabot, Juan Manuel Quiroga, James Norris, James Hofmockel, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, Chris Hadfield, Mitchel B. Kugler, Victorino Mercado, Kimberly A. Reed, Linda J. Reiners, and John C. Rood. This derivative action alleges the same core allegations as stated in the securities class action litigation. Defendants dispute the allegations as stated in this derivative action. On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice seeking to dismiss the case. Because Plaintiff’s dismissal of this derivative action was voluntary and without prejudice, this plaintiff and/or other shareholders may seek to re-file the claims asserted in this matter at a later date. Momentus intends to vigorously defend any such litigation. On January 25, 2023, a shareholder derivative action was filed by Melissa Hanna, on behalf of Momentus, Inc., in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-00374, against Momentus (as a nominal defendant), SRAC, Brian Kabot, Juan Manuel Quiroga, James Norris, James Hofmockel, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, Chris Hadfield, Mitchel B. Kugler, Victorino Mercado, Kimberly A. Reed, Linda J. Reiners, and John C. Rood (the “Derivative Action II”). The Derivative Action alleges the same core allegations as stated in the Securities Class Actions, and also claims that Momentus ignored and/or refused a prior demand made by Ms. Hanna on Momentus’s Board of Directors. Momentus disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. SAFE Note Litigation On July 20, 2022, The Larian Living Trust ("TLLT") filed an action against Momentus in New Castle County Superior Court, Delaware, in the Complex Commercial Litigation Division, Case No. N22C-07-133 EMD CCLD. TLLT pleads claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract arising from two investment contracts pursuant to which TLLT alleges it invested $4 million in Momentus. TLLT alleges that a "liquidity event" occurred when Momentus closed the Business Combination, such that it was entitled to the greater of its $4 million investment or its “Conversion Amount” of Momentus shares, which was a total of 724,995 shares of Momentus stock. TLLT further alleges that Momentus refused to provide it the conversion amount of shares until April 2022, at which point the value of its shares had dropped significantly from their peak value in August of 2021, in excess of $7.6 million. TLLT seeks damages in excess of $7.6 million, in addition to interests and its attorney's fees and costs. On September 22, 2022, Momentus filed its motion to dismiss the complaint in this matter. On November 16, 2022, TLLT filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion to dismiss. Momentus filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 2, 2022. On January 24, 2023, TLLT filed its response to the motion to dismiss. On February 17, 2023, Momentus filed its reply in support of the motion to dismiss. Hearing on the motion to dismiss will take place on March 16, 2023. Momentus disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. Kokorich Litigation On June 8, 2021, former co-founders and shareholders of the Company, Mikhail Kokorich and Lev Khasis signed the NSA alongside stock repurchase agreements, whereby they agreed to divest their interests in the Company in exchange for a cash payments and other considerations. As part of the NSA and stock repurchase agreements, Messrs. Kokorich and Khasis agreed to a broad waiver and release of all claims (broadly defined) against the Company. The Company has maintained that this release is effective as to various advancement and indemnification claims either individual may have against the Company. Both Messrs. Kokorich and Khasis have, through counsel, disagreed with the Company’s position. For example, Mr. Kokorich is named as a defendant in the securities class action pending against the Company and other defendants, although he has not been served nor appeared in those matters. In addition, Mr. Kokorich is the sole defendant in a civil litigation action filed against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which remains pending in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:21-cv-01869. Mr. Kokorich has demanded indemnification and advancement from Momentus for his fees and costs incurred in these actions, which claims are disputed by the Company. The Company continues to maintain that Mr. Kokorich’s release in the NSA and stock repurchase agreements is effective as to his claims for advancement and indemnification in these litigation matters. On August 16, 2022, Mr. Kokorich filed a verified complaint against Momentus in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Case. No. 2022-0722) seeking indemnification and advancement from Momentus. On October 14, 2022, Momentus filed its motion to dismiss this action. On November 14, 2022 Kokorich filed an amended complaint, after which Momentus’ motion to dismiss survived only as to its Rule 12(b)(1) argument. On the same day, Kokorich filed his opposition to Momentus’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). On December 2, 2022, Momentus filed its reply in support of this motion to dismiss complaint. Also on December 2, 2022, Momentus filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 5, 2023, Kokorich filed his response to the motion to dismiss. On January 26, 2023, Momentus filed its reply in support of the motion to dismiss. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on February 2, 2023, and the Court of Chancery has taken the matter under advisement, with an order on Momentus’s motion to dismiss expected in the coming weeks. Momentus disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. Delaware Class Action On November 10, 2022, purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint against Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, Ann Kono, Marc Lehmann, James Norris, Juan Manuel Quiroga, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Edward K. Freedman, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, and John C. Rood in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case captioned Shirley, et al. v. Kabot et al., 2022-1023-PAF. The complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Proposed Transaction, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. The putative class action does not name Momentus as a defendant. Regardless, the SPAC directors and officers, together with current and former directors and officers of Momentus, have demanded indemnification and advancement from Momentus, under the terms of the merger agreement and the exhibits thereto, the Delaware corporate code, the Company’s bylaws, and their individual indemnification agreements. Momentus may be liable for the fees and costs incurred by the SPAC defendants, and has an obligation to advance such fees during the pendency of the litigation. On December 5, 2022, a motion of interested party James Burk to stay proceedings was filed by the plaintiff in the Shareholder Section 220 Litigation (discussed above). On January 25, 2023, the putative stockholders filed their opposition to the motion of interested party James Burk to stay proceedings. On February 3, 2023, interested party James Burk filed his reply in support of the motion to stay proceedings. On February 9, 2023, the court denied the motion of interested party James Burk to stay proceedings. Momentus disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against any such litigation. Other Litigation and Related Matters These and other litigation matters may be time-consuming, divert management’s attention and resources, cause the Company to incur significant defense and settlement costs or liability, even if we believe the claims asserted against us are without merit. We intend to vigorously defend against all such claims. Because of the potential risks, expenses and uncertainties of litigation, as well as claims for indemnity from various of the parties concerned, we may from time to time, settle disputes, even where we believe that we have meritorious claims or defenses. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, further compounded by various claims for indemnity which may or may not be fully insured, we cannot assure that the results of these actions, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition. From time to time, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business on in connection with the matters discussed above. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of judgment, defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. At each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under ASC 450, Contingencies . Legal fees are expensed as incurred. |