COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
NOTE 8 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings, Liabilities Subject to Compromise and Other Potential Claims On June 27, 2023, the Company and its subsidiaries commenced the Chapter 11 Cases in the Bankruptcy Court. See Note 1 – Description of Organization and Business Operations – Description of Business – Voluntary Chapter 11 Proceedings. Since filing the Chapter 11 petitions, until our emergence from bankruptcy on March 14, 2024, the Company operated as debtor-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company received the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of its customary motions filed on June 27, 2023, which authorized the Company to conduct its business activities in the ordinary course, including among other things and subject to the terms and conditions of such orders: (i) pay employees’ wages and related obligations; (ii) pay certain taxes; (iii) pay critical vendors; (iv) continue to honor certain customer obligations; (v) maintain their insurance program; (vi) continue their cash management system; and (vii) establish certain procedures to protect any potential value of the Company’s NOLs. On August 8, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court approved procedures for the Company to conduct a comprehensive marketing and sale process for some, all, or substantially all of their assets in order to maximize the value of those assets. The marketing process culminated in the Company entering into the LandX Asset Purchase Agreement on March 29, 2023, providing for the sale of specified assets of the Company related to the design, production and sale of electric light duty vehicles focused on the commercial fleet market free and clear of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, and assume certain specified liabilities of the Company for a total purchase price of $10.2 million in cash. This transaction closed on October 27, 2023. See Note 1 – Description of Organization and Business Operations – Description of Business. The Company has been subject to extensive pending and threatened legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business and has already incurred, and expects to continue to incur, significant legal expenses in defending against these claims. The Company sought and achieved resolution of many of these matters as part of the Chapter 11 Cases and has and may in the future enter into further discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes it is in the best interest of the Company’s stakeholders. The Company records a liability for loss contingencies in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal fees and costs of litigation, settlement by the Company or adverse decisions with respect to the matters disclosed may result in a liability that is not insured or that is in excess of insurance coverage and could significantly exceed our current accrual and ability to pay and be, individually or in the aggregate, material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, and diminish or eliminate any assets available for any distribution to creditors and Interest holders. The filing of the Chapter 11 Cases resulted in an initial automatic stay of legal proceedings against the Company, as further described below. On July 27, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court modified the automatic stay that was in effect at the time of filing the Chapter 11 Cases to allow the Karma Action (defined below) to proceed against the Company in the District Court (defined below) and that matter was settled, as further described below. With respect to the stockholder derivative suits filed on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors and certain former DiamondPeak directors prior to the Chapter 11 Cases, the derivative claims asserted in those suits became the property of the Company. The Company appointed an independent committee of directors to evaluate such claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel, to make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims, including, among other things, whether to pursue or release some or all of those claims against some or all of those officers and directors. Ultimately, such claims were retained by the Company and not released under the Plan. With respect to the Ohio Securities Class Action opt-out claims (discussed below), the Post-Petition Securities Action and any other similar claims for damages arising from the purchase or sale of the Class A common stock, Section 510(b) the Bankruptcy Code treats such claims as subordinated to all claims or Interests that are senior to the Class A common stock and having the same priority as the Class A common stock. The Bankruptcy Court established October 10, 2023 as the deadline by which parties were required to file proofs of claim in the Chapter 11 Cases and December 26, 2023 for all governmental entities to file their proofs of claim, which includes any claim asserted by the SEC with respect to the matter described under “SEC Matter” below or that may arise due to our obligations under the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (the “Safety Act”) administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) described under “NHTSA Matters” below. In addition, the deadline for parties to file proofs of claim arising from the Company’s rejection of an executory contract or unexpired lease, and proofs of claim for administrative expense claims, was April 15, 2024. Several rejection damages and administrative expense claims were filed and are being reviewed by the Company. While the Company may file objections to some or all of these additional claims, the Company cannot provide any assurances as to what the Company’s total actual liabilities will be based on such claims. The amount of such liability may diminish the assets available to satisfy general unsecured claims. There is substantial risk of litigation by and against the Company or its indemnified directors and officers with respect to such claims. In accordance with ASC 852, in the accompanying March 31, 2024 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, the caption “Liabilities subject to compromise” reflects the expected allowed amount of the pre-petition claims that are not fully secured and that have at least a possibility of not being repaid at the full claim amount. “Liabilities subject to compromise” at March 31 2024 consisted of the following: “Liabilities subject to compromise” are recorded at the expected or estimated amount of the total allowed claim, however, the ultimate settlement of these liabilities remains subject to analysis and negotiation, approval of the Bankruptcy Court and the other factors discussed above, and they may be settled or resolved for materially different amounts. These amounts are also subject to adjustments if we make changes to our assumptions or estimates related to claims as additional information becomes available to us. Such adjustments may be material, and the Company will continue to evaluate the amount and classification of its pre-petition liabilities. Any additional liabilities that are subject to compromise will be recognized accordingly, and the aggregate amount of “Liabilities subject to compromise” may change materially. As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases and ceasing production of the Endurance, the Company has received claims from its suppliers and vendors for amounts those parties believe the Company owes. We are conducting an extensive claims reconciliation process to analyze approximately $23.1 million of claims. In addition, there are $7.2 million in asserted claims for liquidated portion of indemnification obligations (excluding those contained in the litigation accrual described below), rejection damages related to certain contracts and real property leases, potential government claims and interest due on allowed claims. The Company, its advisors, and the Claims Ombudsman appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases are analyzing the claims for validity and intends to vigorously defend against claims it believes are invalid. We have accounts payable and accrued vendor claims of approximately $26.9 million and $30.5 million as of March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, which reflect both undisputed and partially disputed amounts we may owe, reported in Liabilities subject to compromise. The remainder is disputed for one or more reasons, including a lack of information provided by the claimant. The Company had accruals of $3.5 million and $6.5 million, for the periods ending March 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively, for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings and potential related obligations within “liabilities subject to compromise” and “accrued and other current liabilities” on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Our liabilities for legal proceedings and potential related obligations may include amounts for the securities litigation, government claims and indemnification obligations described in more detail below or other claims that may be asserted against us and may or may not be offset by insurance. The amount accrued as of March 31, 2024 was estimated based on available information and legal advice, the potential resolution of these matters in light of historical negotiations with the parties, and the potential impact of the outcome of one or more claims on related matters, but does not take into account the impact of the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the terms of the Plan, ongoing discussions with the parties thereto and other stakeholders or actual amounts that may be asserted in Claims submitted in the Chapter 11 Cases or for indemnification as these factors cannot yet be determined and are subject to substantial uncertainty. Accordingly, the accrued amount may be adjusted in the future based on new developments and it does not reflect a full range of possible outcomes for these proceedings, or the full amount of any damages alleged, which are significantly higher. Insurance Matters The Company was notified by its primary insurer under its post-merger directors and officers insurance policy that the insurer is taking the position that no coverage is available for the Ohio Securities Class Action, various shareholder derivative actions, the consolidated stockholder class action, various demands for inspection of books and records, the SEC investigation, and the investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York described below, and certain indemnification obligations, under an exclusion to the policy called the “retroactive date exclusion.” The insurer has identified other potential coverage issues as well. Excess coverage attaches only after the underlying insurance has been exhausted, and generally applies in conformance with the terms of the underlying insurance. The Company is analyzing the insurer’s position and intends to pursue any available coverage under this policy and other insurance. As a result of the denial of coverage, no or limited insurance may be available to us to reimburse our expenses or cover any potential losses for these matters, which could be significant. The insurers in our Side A D&O insurance program, providing coverage for individual directors and officers in derivative actions and certain other situations, have issued a reservation of rights letter which, while not denying coverage, has cast doubt on the availability of coverage for at least some individuals and/or claims. Changes in our operations in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases reduced our need to maintain insurance coverage at previous levels or to carry certain insurance policies. Ohio Securities Class Action Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18, 2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Brury v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Romano v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; and FNY Managed Accounts LLC v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.). The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead plaintiff’s counsel (the “Ohio Securities Class Action”). On March 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed as of March 3, 2023. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 11, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay. On August 28, 2023, the court denied the pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice, given the notice of the automatic stay, subject to potential re-filing by the Defendants following the lifting of the stay. The Plan settled the Ohio Securities Class Action, with the lead plaintiff receiving (i) $3 million in cash and (ii) up to an additional $7 million, consisting of (a) 25% of all net litigation proceeds received by the Company on Retained Causes of Action (if any); and (b) the lesser of (x) 16% of any distribution made by the Company on account of Foxconn’s preferred stock liquidation preference, and (y) $5 million, on behalf of the Ohio Settlement Class (as defined in the Plan). Derivative Litigation Four related stockholder derivative lawsuits were filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, former DiamondPeak directors, and against the Company as a nominal defendant between April 28, 2021 and July 9, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Cohen, et al. v. Burns, et al.; Kelley, et al. v. Burns, et al.; Patterson, et al. v. Burns, et al.; and Sarabia v. Burns, et al.). The derivative actions in the District Court of Delaware have been consolidated. On August 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a) and Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling, and unjust enrichment, all relating to vehicle pre-orders, production timeline, and the merger with DiamondPeak. On October 11, 2021, defendants filed a motion to stay this consolidated derivative action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. On March 7, 2023, the court granted in part defendants’ motion to stay, staying the action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action, but requiring the parties to submit a status report if the motion to dismiss was not resolved by March 3, 2023. The court further determined to dismiss without a motion, on the grounds that the claim was premature, plaintiffs’ claim for contribution for violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act without prejudice. The parties filed a joint status report as required because the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action was not resolved as of March 3, 2023. The parties filed additional court-ordered joint status reports on October 28, 2022, January 6, 2023 and April 3, 2023. On April 4, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to submit a letter brief addressing whether the Court should lift the stay. On April 14, 2023, the parties submitted a joint letter requesting that the Court not lift the stay. On April 17, 2023, the court lifted the stay and ordered the parties to meet and confer by May 8, 2023 and submit a proposed case-management plan. On May 9, 2023, the court reinstated the stay and ordered the parties to advise the court of any developments in the consolidated securities class action or material changes to Lordstown’s condition. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 27, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay. The court entered an order acknowledging the effect of the automatic stay on June 28, 2023. An independent committee of directors evaluated the derivative claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel to make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims. Ultimately, such claims were retained by the Company and not released under the Plan. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on June 30, 2021 (Thai v. Burns, et al.), asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a) and Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste, based on similar facts as the consolidated derivative action in the District Court of Delaware. On October 21, 2021, the court in the Northern District of Ohio derivative action entered a stipulated stay of the action and scheduling order relating to defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and/or subsequent motion to stay that is similarly conditioned on the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 19, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay. An independent committee of directors evaluated the derivative claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel to make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims. Ultimately, such claims were retained by the Company and not released under the Plan. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. Another related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 2, 2021 (Cormier v. Burns, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1049)), asserting breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling, and unjust enrichment, based on similar facts as the federal derivative actions. An additional related stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on February 18, 2023 (Jackson v. Burns, et al. (C.A. No. 2023-0164)), also asserting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and insider selling, based on similar facts as the federal derivative actions. On April 19, 2023, the parties in Cormier and Jackson filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the two actions, staying the litigation until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action and appointing Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP and Lifshitz Law PLLC as Co-Lead Counsel. On May 10, 2023, the court granted the parties’ proposed stipulation and order to consolidate the actions, and to stay the consolidated action pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action. While the action remains stayed, on June 24, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint asserting similar claims, and substituting a new plaintiff (Ed Lomont) for Cormier, who no longer appears to be a named plaintiff in the consolidated action. On June 27, 2023, the Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay. An independent committee of directors evaluated the derivative claims with the assistance and advice of special litigation counsel to make a recommendation as to the disposition of such claims. Ultimately, such claims were retained by the Company and not released under the Plan. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. DiamondPeak Delaware Class Action Litigation Two putative class action lawsuits were filed against former DiamondPeak directors and DiamondPeak Sponsor LLC on December 8 and 13, 2021 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hebert v. Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1066); and Amin v Hamamoto, et al. (C.A. No. 2021-1085)) (collectively, the “Delaware Class Action Litigation”). The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors in DiamondPeak and assert breach of fiduciary duty claims based on allegations that the defendants made or failed to prevent alleged misrepresentations regarding vehicle pre-orders and production timeline, and that but for those allegedly false and misleading disclosures, the plaintiffs would have exercised a right to redeem their shares prior to the de-SPAC transaction. On February 9, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating the two putative class action lawsuits, appointing Hebert and Amin as co-lead plaintiffs, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel and setting a briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss and motions to stay. The motions to stay were fully briefed as of February 23, 2023 and the court held oral argument on February 28, 2023. On March 7, 2023, the court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2023, defendants filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on April 27, 2023, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10, 2023. On May 6, 2023, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On July 22, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint asserting similar claims. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on October 14, 2023. Plaintiffs’ answering brief and Defendants’ reply brief were due on November 18 and December 9, 2023, respectively. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 6, 2023. On January 5, 2023, the defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a case scheduling order setting forth pre-trial deadlines and a date for trial in March 2024. On February 3, 2023, defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint. On February 7, 2023, plaintiffs served the Company, as a non-party, with a subpoena for certain information, which the Company responded to on February 21, 2023. On June 9, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel regarding the appropriate scope of the Company’s response to the subpoena. On July 5, 2023, in the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company filed (i) an adversary complaint seeking injunctive relief to extend the automatic stay to the plaintiffs in the Delaware Class Action Litigation, initiating the adversary proceeding captioned Lordstown Motors Corp. v. Amin, Adv. Proc. No. 23-50428 (Bankr. D. Del.) and (ii) a motion and brief in support thereof, seeking a preliminary injunction extending the automatic stay to the Delaware Class Action Litigation. On August 3, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s preliminary injunction motion. On July 21, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the Delaware Class Action Litigation. The parties have advised the Company that they have reached an agreement to resolve this matter, and the former DiamondPeak directors are seeking indemnification from the Company with respect to a portion of the settlement amount. The Company believes it has defenses to such indemnification claims, including that such indemnification claims are subject to subordination pursuant to applicable law, and, if allowed, should receive the treatment set forth in Article III B.8 of the Plan. The proceedings remain subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process. SEC Claim The Company received two subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and information, including relating to the merger between DiamondPeak and Legacy Lordstown and pre-orders of vehicles, and the Company was informed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that it is investigating these matters. The Company cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, with these and any other regulatory or governmental investigations and inquiries. Ultimately, the SEC filed a claim against the Company for $45.0 million (the “SEC Claim”). The Company settled the SEC Claim by (i) settling the Ohio Securities Class Action and (ii) making an offer of settlement to the SEC, which was approved by the SEC on February 29, 2024. Upon the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy, the SEC Claim was deemed withdrawn pursuant to the terms of the offer of settlement and the Plan. See the section in this Note 8 titled “Ohio Securities Class Action” for additional information regarding the Company’s continuing contingent obligations related to the Ohio Securities Class Action settlement. No amounts attributable to the Company’s settlement of the SEC Claim were paid or are payable to the SEC. Indemnification Obligations The Company may have potential indemnification obligations with respect to the current and former directors named in the above-referenced actions, which obligations may be significant and may not be covered by the Company’s applicable directors and officers insurance. The Company believes it has defenses to certain of these potential indemnification obligations, including that such claims for indemnification are subject to subordination pursuant to applicable law, and, if allowed, should receive the treatment set forth in Article III.B.8 of the Plan. Foxconn Transactions We entered into a series of transactions with affiliates of Foxconn, beginning with the Agreement in Principle that was announced on September 30, 2021, pursuant to which we entered into definitive agreements to sell our manufacturing facility in Lordstown, Ohio under an asset purchase agreement (the “Foxconn APA”) and outsource manufacturing of the Endurance to Foxconn under a contract manufacturing agreement (the “CMA”). On November 7, 2022, we entered into an investment agreement with Foxconn under which Foxconn agreed to make additional equity investments in us (the “Investment Agreement”). The Investment Agreement superseded and replaced an earlier joint venture agreement. The Foxconn APA, the CMA and the Investment Agreement together are herein referred to as the “Foxconn Transactions.” On June 27, 2023, we commenced the Foxconn Litigation in the Bankruptcy Court seeking relief for breaches of the Investment Agreement, the Foxconn APA and the CMA and fraudulent and tortious actions that the Company believes were committed by Foxconn. See the following section and Note 1 – Description of Business – Foxconn Litigation for additional information. The Investment Agreement and the CMA were rejected pursuant to the Plan upon the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy. The Foxconn APA transaction was consummated before the Chapter 11 Cases. Foxconn Litigation On June 27, 2023, the Company commenced the Foxconn Litigation in the Bankruptcy Court seeking relief for breaches of the Investment Agreement and other agreements and fraudulent and tortious actions that the Company believes were committed by Foxconn, which have caused substantial harm to our operations and prospects and significant damages. On September 29, 2023, Foxconn filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the Foxconn Litigation and brief in support of the same (the “Foxconn Adversary Motion to Dismiss”), asserting that all of the Company’s claims are subject to binding arbitration provisions and that the Company has failed to state a claim for relief. The Debtors believe that the Foxconn Adversary Motion to Dismiss is without merit and, on November 6, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to Foxconn’s Adversary Motion to Dismiss. The Company intends to continue to vigorously oppose that motion and pursue its claims against Foxconn. Foxconn filed a reply in support of the Foxconn Adversary Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2023. To date, the Bankruptcy Court has not ruled on the Foxconn Adversary Motion to Dismiss. The Post-Petition Securities Action On July 26, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio by Bandol Lim (“Plaintiff Lim”), individually and on behalf of other stockholders asserting violations of Section 10(b), Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder relating to the Company’s disclosure regarding its relationship with Foxconn and the Foxconn Transactions (the “Post-Petition Securities Action”). The lawsuit names Edward Hightower, Adam Kroll, and Daniel Ninivaggi as Defendants (“Defendants”) in their capacities as Company officers and/or directors. Defendants dispute the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the suit. None of the Debtors is named as a Defendant in the Post-Petition Securities Action. Plaintiff Lim and RIDE Investor Group have each filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in the Post-Petition Securities Action and those motions remain pending as of the date of this filing. Separately, each of the members of the RIDE Investor Group filed proofs of claim (the “RIDE Proofs of Claims”) against the Company, purportedly on behalf of themselves and the putative class in the Post-Petition Securities Action, in an unliquidated amount. The RIDE Investor Group has not sought authority from the Bankruptcy Court to file its purported class proofs of claim. The Debtors dispute, each of the RIDE Proofs of Claim, and further dispute that the members of the Ride Investment Group had authority to file proofs of claim on behalf of the putative class in the Post-Petition Securities Action. Messrs. Hightower, Kroll, and Ninivaggi contend that they are both insureds under the directors’ and officers’ insurance policies of the Debtors that are currently in effect and have been granted relief from the automatic stay with respect to the Company to seek advancement and payment of expenses relating to the Post-Petition Securities Action under such policies. The Plan constituted an objection to each of the RIDE Proofs of Claim. To the extent any of the RIDE Claims are Allowed, the Plan provides for the treatment of Claims filed against the Debtors on the same or similar basis as those set forth in the Post-Petition Securities Action to limit recoveries (if any) from the Debtors on account of such Claims to available insurance. The Debtors dispute the merits of any such claims. NHTSA Matters The Company’s obligations under the Safety Act administered by NHTSA for the vehicles it has manufactured and sold continued in force during the pendency of and following the Chapter 11 Cases. During the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company’s obligations were treated as a claim of the United States government against the Company. The Plan did not discharge the Company from claims arising after emergence from bankruptcy, nor did it preclude or enjoin the enforcement of any police or regulatory power. The Company sought to repurchase all vehicles that remain in the possession of our customers (other than LAS Capital or its affiliates); however, it repurchased 35 vehicles, with 3 vehicles still in use. Accordingly, we cannot predict the extent of the liability that may arise from the Safety Act obligations for vehicles the Company has already manufactured and sold, or any claims that may be asserted by NHTSA.
|