XML 34 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company, in the normal course of business, is subject to claims and litigation. The Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company would accrue a liability for the estimated loss. 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, 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 (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”). The Keippel Action similarly alleged misstatements and/or omissions in 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 during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Court entered an order that the Keippel Action was in all material respects substantially similar to the Plymouth Action that both actions arise out of the same or similar operative facts, and that the parties are substantially the same parties. 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”). 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. 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. 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 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 ground 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. At this time the Company believes that the likelihood of any material loss related to these matters is remote given the preliminary stage of the claims and strength of the Company’s defenses. The Company has not recorded any material loss contingency in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2022 or December 31, 2021. Contingent Consideration Tax Receivable Agreement Concurrent with the Former Parent’s acquisition of Array Technologies Patent Holdings Co., LLC on July 8, 2016, Array Tech, Inc. entered into a Tax Receivable Agreement (the “TRA”) with the former majority shareholder of Array. The TRA is valued based on the future expected payments under the agreement. The TRA provides for the payment by Array Tech, Inc. to the former owners for certain federal, state, local and non-U.S. tax benefits deemed realized in post-closing taxable periods by Array, from the use of certain deductions generated by the increase in the tax value of the developed technology. The TRA is accounted for as contingent consideration and subsequent changes in fair value of the contingent liability are recognized in contingent consideration in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the fair value of the TRA was $7.7 million and $14.6 million, respectively. Estimating the amount of payments that may be made under the TRA is by nature imprecise. The significant fair value inputs used to estimate the future expected TRA payments to the former owners include the timing of tax payments, a discount rate, book income projections, timing of expected adjustments to calculate taxable income and the projected rate of use for attributes defined in the TRA. Payments made under the TRA consider tax positions taken by the Company and are due within 125 days following the filing of the Company’s U.S. federal and state income tax returns under procedures described in the agreement. The current portion of the TRA liability is based on tax returns. The TRA will continue until all tax benefit payments have been made or the Company elects early termination under the terms described in the TRA. The following table summarizes the liability related to the estimated TRA (in thousands):
| Three Months Ended June 30, |  | Six Months Ended June 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021 |  | 2022 |  | 2021
Beginning balance | $ | 9,364 |  |  | $ | 19,839 |  |  | $ | 14,577 |  |  | $ | 19,691 |
Payments | — |  |  | (7,810) |  |  | (1,483) |  |  | (7,810) |
Fair value adjustment | (1,678) |  |  | (13) |  |  | (5,408) |  |  | 135 |
Ending balance | $ | 7,686 |  |  | $ | 12,016 |  |  | $ | 7,686 |  |  | $ | 12,016 |
The TRA liability requires significant judgment and is classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. Surety Bonds As of June 30, 2022, the Company posted surety bonds in the total amount of approximately $189.8 million. The Company is required to provide surety bonds to various parties as required for certain transactions initiated during the ordinary course of business to guarantee the Company’s performance in accordance with contractual or legal obligations. These off-balance sheet arrangements do not adversely impact the Company’s liquidity or capital resources.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration