We are involved in a variety of claims, suits, investigations, inquiries, and proceedings in the normal course of business activities including claims of alleged infringement of intellectual property rights, commercial, employment, tax, prosecution of unauthorized use, business practices, and other matters. In our opinion, resolution of pending matters is not expected to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position. Given the unpredictable nature of legal proceedings, there is a reasonable possibility that an unfavorable resolution of one or more such proceedings could in the future materially affect our results of operations, cash flows, or financial position in a particular period, however, based on the information known by us as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of our financial statements, any such amount is either immaterial or it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such potential loss. In early March 2024, the Audit Committee of Autodesk’s Board of Directors commenced an internal investigation with the assistance of outside counsel and advisors regarding the Company’s free cash flow and non-GAAP operating margin practices (the “Internal Investigation”). On April 24, 2024, Michael Barkasi filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the Northern District of California against Autodesk, our Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Anagnost, and our former Chief Financial Officer, Deborah L. Clifford. The complaint, which was filed shortly after Autodesk’s announcement of the Internal Investigation, generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 10, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the action, and an amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2024. The action purported to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities between February 23, 2023 and April 16, 2024, and sought unspecified damages and other relief. On November 25, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 18, 2025, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On August 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which purported to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on August 29, 2025. On January 26, 2026, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. On February 12, 2026, the Court entered judgment. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 12, 2026 and filed an opening brief on appeal on May 27, 2026. At this stage, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible financial loss that could result from this matter. In addition, on June 7, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming our directors at the time of the complaint and our Chief Strategy Officer as defendants and our company as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets, based on similar underlying allegations contained in the purported federal securities class action complaint described above. A second purported stockholder derivative complaint naming the same defendants was filed in the Northern District of California on June 25, 2024. The complaint in that case generally alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution, also based on similar underlying allegations contained in the purported federal securities class action described above. On October 29, 2024 the Court consolidated and stayed the two stockholder derivative actions. A third purported stockholder derivative complaint naming the same defendants was filed in the District of Delaware on February 14, 2025. That complaint generally alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of information, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, also based on similar underlying allegations contained in the purported federal securities class action described above. The plaintiff in the District of Delaware action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice on April 4, 2025, which the Court entered on April 7, 2025. 40