COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2025
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase Obligations The Company has purchase obligations to certain suppliers. In some cases, the products the Company purchases are unique and have provisions against cancellation of the order. Contingencies The Company may, from time to time, be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any litigation involving the Company, management does not believe any pending legal proceedings will result in judgment or settlement that will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On December 3, 2024, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Aehr Test Systems, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that the Company and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s earnings guidance and other financial projections for 2024. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of the Company’s securities between January 9, 2024 and March 24, 2024. On February 3, 2025, Lucid and individual investor Yue Guo each filed motions requesting appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 19, 2025, the court appointed Yue Guo, who is represented by Rosen Law, as lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action. On April 4, 2025, the court ordered lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint or designate the existing complaint as operative by May 16, 2025; defendants to file their anticipated motion to dismiss by June 6, 2025; lead plaintiff to respond to the motion by June 27, 2025; and defendants to reply by July 11, 2025. The court scheduled a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss for August 8, 2025. Additionally, two shareholder derivative complaints have been filed, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct by certain directors and officers of the Company. The derivative complaints have been consolidated before the same judge as the putative shareholder class action lawsuit, but the court has not yet entered a schedule for defendants to respond to the complaints. The Company believes the claims in all three lawsuits are meritless and intends to vigorously defend its position. Given the procedural posture and the nature of the cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters. On October 16, 2024, the Company filed a complaint with the China Suzhou Intermediate Court to protect its intellectual property rights in China against Suzhou Semight Instruments Co., Ltd. (“Semight”) and its related entities and/or distributors, alleging infringement of the Company’s two patents related to wafer burn-in systems and wafer reliability test systems. The Company is seeking injunctive relief, claiming that Semight’s actions have infringed upon its intellectual property rights and caused substantial harm to its business. The Company believes its claims are valid and is vigorously pursuing its legal remedies. At this stage, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain, and the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of success or estimate the potential financial impact, if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company has also incurred and expects to continue to incur legal expenses related to this matter. On November 15 and December 6, 2024, Semight filed a petition for acceptance of request for invalidation to the two aforementioned Chinese patents with the Department of National Intellectual Properties in Beijing, respectively. The oral hearings for both of the patents have been held, and the decision is expected within one to three months. In addition, the Company received a suspension ruling from Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court on the infringement proceedings, pending the outcome of the validity rulings. In the normal course of business to facilitate sales of its products, the Company indemnifies other parties, including customers, with respect to certain matters, for example, including against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or from intellectual property infringement or other claims. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors, and the Company’s bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to the Company’s agents. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. To date, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company’s operating results, financial position or cash flow.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Feb. 28, 2025

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase Obligations

The Company has purchase obligations to certain suppliers. In some cases, the products the Company purchases are unique and have provisions against cancellation of the order.

Contingencies

The Company may, from time to time, be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any litigation involving the Company, management does not believe any pending legal proceedings will result in judgment or settlement that will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On December 3, 2024, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Aehr Test Systems, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that the Company and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s earnings guidance and other financial projections for 2024. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of the Company’s securities between January 9, 2024 and March 24, 2024. On February 3, 2025, Lucid and individual investor Yue Guo each filed motions requesting appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 19, 2025, the court appointed Yue Guo, who is represented by Rosen Law, as lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action. On April 4, 2025, the court ordered lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint or designate the existing complaint as operative by May 16, 2025; defendants to file their anticipated motion to dismiss by June 6, 2025; lead plaintiff to respond to the motion by June 27, 2025; and defendants to reply by July 11, 2025. The court scheduled a hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss for August 8, 2025. Additionally, two shareholder derivative complaints have been filed, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct by certain directors and officers of the Company. The derivative complaints have been consolidated before the same judge as the putative shareholder class action lawsuit, but the court has not yet entered a schedule for defendants to respond to the complaints. The Company believes the claims in all three lawsuits are meritless and intends to vigorously defend its position. Given the procedural posture and the nature of the cases, including that the pending proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters.

On October 16, 2024, the Company filed a complaint with the China Suzhou Intermediate Court to protect its intellectual property rights in China against Suzhou Semight Instruments Co., Ltd. (“Semight”) and its related entities and/or distributors, alleging infringement of the Company’s two patents related to wafer burn-in systems and wafer reliability test systems. The Company is seeking injunctive relief, claiming that Semight’s actions have infringed upon its intellectual property rights and caused substantial harm to its business. The Company believes its claims are valid and is vigorously pursuing its legal remedies. At this stage, the outcome of the litigation is uncertain, and the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of success or estimate the potential financial impact, if any, on its condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company has also incurred and expects to continue to incur legal expenses related to this matter. On November 15 and December 6, 2024, Semight filed a petition for acceptance of request for invalidation to the two aforementioned Chinese patents with the Department of National Intellectual Properties in Beijing, respectively. The oral hearings for both of the patents have been held, and the decision is expected within one to three months. In addition, the Company received a suspension ruling from Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court on the infringement proceedings, pending the outcome of the validity rulings.

In the normal course of business to facilitate sales of its products, the Company indemnifies other parties, including customers, with respect to certain matters, for example, including against losses arising from a breach of representations or covenants, or from intellectual property infringement or other claims. These agreements may limit the time within which an indemnification claim can be made and the amount of the claim. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers and directors, and the Company’s bylaws contain similar indemnification obligations to the Company’s agents.

It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. To date, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company’s operating results, financial position or cash flow.