← Back to AVAV filing summaryThis is the extracted source text from the SEC filing. Formatting may differ from the original document.
On May 26, 2026, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Eric Norrell naming AeroVironment; Wahid Nawabi, our President and CEO; Kevin McDonnell, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Mary Clum, President of our Space, Cyber & Directed Energy segment, as defendants. See Norell v. AeroVironment, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01429 (E.D. Va.). The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements regarding our work for the U.S. Space Force’s Satellite Communication Augmentation Resource (“SCAR”) program. The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during the period June 25, 2025 through March 10, 2026. The complaint seeks a jury trial and unspecified compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and other costs.
On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters. The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in unspecified amounts. We filed our answer on December 16, 2021. The parties participated in a mediation session on May 8, 2025, but did not reach a resolution during the session.
On March 29, 2024, a former employee filed a complaint against AeroVironment in the Ventura County Superior Court in California, alleging violations of the California Labor Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime,
55
Table of Contents
unreimbursed business expenses and other recordkeeping matters and seeking penalties recoverable under California Labor Code section 2698, et. seq., Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and all other remedies available under PAGA. The complaint seeks civil penalties on behalf of the plaintiff and similarly situations persons pursuant to PAGA. We filed our answer on June 20, 2024. The parties stipulated to stay this PAGA case ahead of the mediation in the class action matter listed in the immediately preceding paragraph above.
On June 11, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the class action complaint and PAGA complaint pursuant to a mediator’s proposal made on such a date by the mediator from the May 8, 2025 class action mediation session. A court must approve the terms of the settlement before we will pay any amounts pursuant to the settlement. The estimated settlement was accrued in our consolidated statements of income(loss) for the year ended April 30, 2025. We are currently working with the plaintiff to seek preliminary approval of the settlement.
We are subject to lawsuits, government investigations, audits and other legal proceedings from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. It is not possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding with any certainty. The outcome or costs we incur in connection with a legal proceeding could adversely impact our operating results and financial position.