In the ordinary course of business, from time to time the Company and its affiliates are involved in judicial or regulatory proceedings, arbitration or mediation concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its businesses, including contractual and employment matters. In addition, government agencies and self-regulatory organizations conduct periodic examinations, investigations and initiate administrative proceedings regarding the Company’s business, including, among other matters, compliance, accounting, recordkeeping and operational matters, that can result in censure, fine, the issuance of cease and desist orders or the suspension or expulsion of a broker-dealer, investment advisor, or its directors, officers or employees. In view of the inherent difficulty of determining whether any loss in connection with such matters is probable and whether the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, the Company often cannot estimate the amount of such loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. For matters where the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of a probable loss, or range of loss, the Company will accrue a loss for such matters in accordance with U.S. GAAP for the aggregate of the estimated amount or the minimum amount of the range, if no amount within the range is a better estimate. Subject to the foregoing, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that it is not currently party to any material pending proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, the resolution of which would have a significant adverse effect on the Company. On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of Archer Aviation, Inc. (“Archer”) (and formerly, Atlas Crest Investment Corp. (“Atlas Crest”)) filed a class action lawsuit (the “Singh Complaint”), on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the directors and officers of Atlas Crest, the sponsor, Atlas Crest Investment LLC, Archer, the Archer co-founders, Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis & Company LLC (the “Defendants”). The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, in connection with the merger between Atlas Crest and Archer, including claims against the foregoing Moelis entities for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs request damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys’ and experts’ fees. Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of Archer filed a class action lawsuit (the “Wortman Complaint”), on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery asserting similar claims as the Singh Complaint against the same Defendants. On July 23, 2024, the Court entered an order consolidating the Singh and Wortman actions, designating the Singh Complaint as the operative complaint (the “Complaint”), and appointing the three putative stockholders as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On October 3, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, and on January 13, 2025, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their answering brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss. Defendants' reply briefs were due on February 28, 2025. The Court scheduled oral argument on the motions to dismiss for April 17, 2025. On July 21, 2025, the Court issued a telephonic bench ruling, granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court allowed the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims to proceed as to the directors and officers of Atlas Crest (with the exception of one director who was dismissed) and the sponsor, but narrowed the scope of the surviving claims as to all remaining Defendants. The Court also dismissed the aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment claims against the foregoing Moelis entities, Archer and the Archer co-founders.