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, 2022, 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 September 3, 2022. 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
September 3, 2022. The parties filed another court-ordered joint
status report on October 28, 2022. We intend to vigorously
defend against the claims. 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. (Case No. 21-cv-1267)), 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. We intend to vigorously defend against the claims. 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, 2022
(Jackson v. Burns, et al. (C.A. No. 2022-0164)), also asserting
breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and insider selling,
based on similar facts as the federal derivative actions. On April
19, 2022, 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, 2022, 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, 2022, 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. We intend to
vigorously defend against these actions. The proceedings are
subject to uncertainties inherent in the litigation process.
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)). 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, 2022, 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, 2022 and the court held oral argument on
February 28, 2022. On March 7, 2022, the court denied the motion to
stay. On March 10, 2022, defendants filed their brief in support of
their motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on
April 27, 2022, and was scheduled for oral argument on May 10,
2022. On May 6, 2022, defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss
without prejudice. On July 22, 2022, 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, 2022. Plaintiffs’ answering brief and Defendants’ reply
brief are due on November 18 and December 9,