Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The Company has loan purchase obligations under the Company’s loan agreements with certain lending partners. These lending partners retain ownership of the loans facilitated through Upstart’s platform for three days or longer (the “holding period”) after origination, as required under the respective agreements. The Company has committed to purchase the loans at the conclusion of the required holding period. As of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, the total loan purchase commitment included outstanding principal balance of $72.8 million and $116.4 million, respectively. The Company has extended a line of credit in connection with one of its committed capital and other co-investment arrangements. As of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, the Company had unfunded commitments related to the line of credit of $7.6 million and $7.9 million, respectively. The Company has commitments to fund future advances on HELOCs. As of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, these commitments were $7.6 million and $16.2 million, respectively, however, since these commitments could expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Contingencies Accounting for contingencies requires the Company to use judgment related to both the likelihood of a loss and the estimate of the amount or range of loss. The Company records a loss contingency when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company discloses material contingencies when it believes a loss is not probable but reasonably possible and may voluntarily provide information on additional contingencies. From time to time the Company is subject to, and it is presently involved in, various litigation and legal proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business activities, the outcome of which the Company cannot reasonably determine. Other than the class actions and derivative actions described below, the Company does not believe that it is presently a party to any litigation of which the outcome would individually, or taken together, have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial condition. As of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, immaterial loss contingencies were recorded in connection with legal proceedings. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to vendors, directors, officers and other parties with respect to certain matters. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. No demands have been made upon the Company to provide indemnification under such agreements, and thus, there are no claims that the Company is aware of that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. Repurchases Under the terms of the loan purchase and loan servicing agreements between the Company and institutional investors, as well as in agreements with investors in securitizations and pass-through certificate transactions, the Company may, in certain circumstances, become obligated to repurchase loans from such institutional investors. Generally, these circumstances include the occurrence of verifiable identity theft, the failure of sold loans to meet the terms of certain loan-level representations and warranties that speak as of the time of origination or sale, the failure to comply with other contractual terms with the institutional investors, or a violation of the applicable federal, state, or local lending laws. The maximum potential amount of future payments associated under this obligation is the outstanding balances of the loans sold to the institutional investors, which as of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, was $11,237.2 million and $12,217.4 million, respectively. Actual payments made relating to the Company’s repurchase and indemnification obligations were immaterial and $3.7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024, respectively, and immaterial for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025. The Company did not have material contingent liabilities related to future loan repurchase obligations as of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025. These amounts are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. Legal On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees. On August 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. On December 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which names the same defendants as the previous complaint, along with two Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its managing partner (also a former Upstart board member). The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the previous complaint but adds a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On February 24, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 29, 2023, the Court issued an order, granting in part and denying in part the Upstart defendants’ motion. On November 7, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on August 5, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Lead Plaintiff, Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, and plaintiffs, Kathy Brooks and Kevin Crain, filed a motion for an order to certify this matter, now captioned In re Upstart Holdings Securities Litigation, as a class action, appoint themselves as class representatives, and approve their selection of Motley Rice LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-class counsel, which motion the Court granted on March 27, 2025. On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. On January 21, 2025, Third Point Ventures LLC, Third Point LLC, and its CEO filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, and on February 18, 2025 plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. No hearing has been set on the motion. The Company believes the remaining claims in the action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On July 28, 2022, a derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned OConnor v. Huber et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02961-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The OConnor action includes allegations similar to those in the Crain complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The OConnor action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The OConnor action seeks unspecified monetary damages and an accounting from the individual defendants. The OConnor action also seeks unspecified corporate governance and internal procedure modifications, punitive damages, and legal fees. On October 7, 2022, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Chung v. Huber et al., No. 2:22-cv-03620-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio). The Chung action includes allegations similar to those in the OConnor complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Chung action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Chung action seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On December 12, 2022, in response to a joint motion by the parties, the Court consolidated the OConnor and Chung matters, appointed co-lead counsel, and stayed the consolidated case until resolution of the related securities class action. On April 24, 2024, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint includes allegations similar to those in the initial complaint in the OConnor action, and names the same defendants as the initial complaint, along with an additional Company executive and another former board member. The amended complaint brings the same claims as the initial complaint in the OConnor action but adds claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The amended complaint seeks similar relief to that sought in the initial complaint in the OConnor action. On February 3, 2023, a third derivative lawsuit was filed, in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Hsu v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00132-UNA (D. Del.). The Hsu action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Hsu action includes claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duties, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On February 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Hsu action until resolution of the related securities class action. On March 8, 2023, a fourth derivative lawsuit was filed, in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Sornchai et al. v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00253-MN (D. Del). The Sornchai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, its Chief Financial Officer, and a Company executive. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Sornchai action includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of fiduciary duty through misappropriation of material non-public information, and unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On March 24, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Sornchai action until resolution of the related securities class action. On April 5, 2023, a fifth derivative lawsuit was filed, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Okhai v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Okhai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants the Company’s current board members, two former board members, its Chief Financial Officer, and two current or former Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Okhai action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, aiding and abetting such alleged breaches, and unjust enrichment, and seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. On August 3, 2023, in response to a motion to stay by the defendants in the Okhai action, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. Following the issuance of the September 29, 2023 order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action, on November 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the September 29, 2023 order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. Following denial of the motion for reconsideration in the related securities class action, the parties in the Okhai action finished briefing and argued the defendants’ motion to continue the stay. On October 24, 2024, the Court continued the stay until February 1, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the parties submitted to the Court a proposed schedule for briefing Defendants’ motion to continue the stay. On April 11, 2025, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court ordered that the case remain stayed pending plaintiffs filing a consolidated amended complaint on or before May 7, 2025, after which Defendants shall file a renewed motion to stay. Subsequent developments are discussed below. On October 13, 2023, a sixth derivative lawsuit was filed, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Romanyshyn v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1029-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Romanyshyn action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Romanyshyn action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On November 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Romanyshyn action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Subsequent developments are discussed below. On October 24, 2023, a seventh derivative lawsuit was filed, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Agarwal v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1075-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Agarwal action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Agarwal action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On November 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Agarwal action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Subsequent developments are discussed below. On November 22, 2024, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court consolidated the Okhai, Romanyshyn, and Agarwal matters under the consolidated caption In re Upstart Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On May 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as plaintiffs Evan Levitan and Charlie Romanyshyn and removes plaintiffs Okhai and Agarwal. The consolidated amended complaint includes allegations similar to those in the initial Okhai complaint and names the same defendants as the initial Okhai complaint, along with the CEO of Third Point LLC. The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the initial Okhai complaint and seeks similar relief. On June 4, 2025, Defendants filed a renewed motion to stay, which the parties currently are briefing. The consolidated action remains stayed pending a decision on Defendants’ renewed motion to stay. Given the uncertainty of litigation described above, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

The Company has loan purchase obligations under the Company’s loan agreements with certain lending partners. These lending partners retain ownership of the loans facilitated through Upstart’s platform for three days or longer (the “holding period”) after origination, as required under the respective agreements. The Company has committed to purchase the loans at the conclusion of the required holding period. As of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, the total loan purchase commitment included outstanding principal balance of $72.8 million and $116.4 million, respectively.

From time to time the Company is subject to, and it is presently involved in, various litigation and legal proceedings arising from the ordinary course of business activities, the outcome of which the Company cannot reasonably determine. Other than the class actions and derivative actions described below, the Company does not believe that it is presently a party to any litigation of which the outcome would individually, or taken together, have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows, or financial condition. As of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, immaterial loss contingencies were recorded in connection with legal proceedings.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to vendors, directors, officers and other parties with respect to certain matters. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. No demands have been made upon the Company to provide indemnification under such agreements, and thus, there are no claims that the Company is aware of that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Under the terms of the loan purchase and loan servicing agreements between the Company and institutional investors, as well as in agreements with investors in securitizations and pass-through certificate transactions, the Company may, in certain circumstances, become obligated to repurchase loans from such institutional investors. Generally, these circumstances include the occurrence of verifiable identity theft, the failure of sold loans to meet the terms of certain loan-level representations and warranties that speak as of the time of origination or sale, the failure to comply with other contractual terms with the institutional investors, or a violation of the applicable federal, state, or local lending laws.

The maximum potential amount of future payments associated under this obligation is the outstanding balances of the loans sold to the institutional investors, which as of December 31, 2024 and June 30, 2025, was $11,237.2 million and $12,217.4 million, respectively. Actual payments made relating to the Company’s repurchase and indemnification obligations were immaterial and $3.7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024, respectively, and immaterial for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025.

On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees. On August 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. On December 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which names the same defendants as the previous complaint, along with two Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its managing partner (also a former Upstart board member). The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the previous complaint but adds a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On February 24, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 29, 2023, the Court issued an order, granting in part and denying in part the Upstart defendants’ motion. On November 7, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on August 5, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Lead Plaintiff, Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, and plaintiffs, Kathy Brooks and Kevin Crain, filed a motion for an order to certify this matter, now captioned In re Upstart Holdings Securities Litigation, as a class action, appoint themselves as class representatives, and approve their selection of Motley Rice LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-class counsel, which motion the Court granted on March 27, 2025. On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. On January 21, 2025, Third Point Ventures LLC, Third Point LLC, and its CEO filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, and on February 18, 2025 plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. No hearing has been set on the motion. The Company believes the remaining claims in the action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

On July 28, 2022, a derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned OConnor v. Huber et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02961-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The OConnor action includes allegations similar to those in the Crain complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The OConnor action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach

On October 7, 2022, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Chung v. Huber et al., No. 2:22-cv-03620-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio). The Chung action includes allegations similar to those in the OConnor complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Chung action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Chung action seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications.

On December 12, 2022, in response to a joint motion by the parties, the Court consolidated the OConnor and Chung matters, appointed co-lead counsel, and stayed the consolidated case until resolution of the related securities class action. On April 24, 2024, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint includes allegations similar to those in the initial complaint in the OConnor action, and names the same defendants as the initial complaint, along with an additional Company executive and another former board member. The amended complaint brings the same claims as the initial complaint in the OConnor action but adds claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The amended complaint seeks similar relief to that sought in the initial complaint in the OConnor action.

On February 3, 2023, a third derivative lawsuit was filed, in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Hsu v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00132-UNA (D. Del.). The Hsu action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Hsu action includes claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duties, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On February 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Hsu action until resolution of the related securities class action.

On March 8, 2023, a fourth derivative lawsuit was filed, in the United States District Court, District of Delaware, captioned Sornchai et al. v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00253-MN (D. Del). The Sornchai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, its Chief Financial Officer, and a Company executive. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Sornchai action includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of fiduciary duty through misappropriation of material non-public information, and unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On March 24, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Sornchai action until resolution of the related securities class action.

On April 5, 2023, a fifth derivative lawsuit was filed, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Okhai v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Okhai action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants the Company’s current board members, two former board members, its Chief Financial Officer, and two current or former Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Okhai action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, aiding and abetting such alleged breaches, and unjust enrichment, and seeks equitable and/or injunctive

relief, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. On August 3, 2023, in response to a motion to stay by the defendants in the Okhai action, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. Following the issuance of the September 29, 2023 order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action, on November 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the September 29, 2023 order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action. Following denial of the motion for reconsideration in the related securities class action, the parties in the Okhai action finished briefing and argued the defendants’ motion to continue the stay. On October 24, 2024, the Court continued the stay until February 1, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the parties submitted to the Court a proposed schedule for briefing Defendants’ motion to continue the stay. On April 11, 2025, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court ordered that the case remain stayed pending plaintiffs filing a consolidated amended complaint on or before May 7, 2025, after which Defendants shall file a renewed motion to stay. Subsequent developments are discussed below.

On October 13, 2023, a sixth derivative lawsuit was filed, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Romanyshyn v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1029-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Romanyshyn action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Romanyshyn action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On November 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Romanyshyn action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Subsequent developments are discussed below.

On October 24, 2023, a seventh derivative lawsuit was filed, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Agarwal v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1075-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Agarwal action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Agarwal action includes claims for breach of fiduciary, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On November 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Agarwal action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Subsequent developments are discussed below.

On November 22, 2024, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court consolidated the Okhai, Romanyshyn, and Agarwal matters under the consolidated caption In re Upstart Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On May 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as plaintiffs Evan Levitan and Charlie Romanyshyn and removes plaintiffs Okhai and Agarwal. The consolidated amended complaint includes allegations similar to those in the initial Okhai complaint and names the same defendants as the initial Okhai complaint, along with the CEO of Third Point LLC. The consolidated amended complaint brings the same claims as the initial Okhai complaint and seeks similar relief. On June 4, 2025, Defendants filed a renewed motion to stay, which the parties currently are briefing. The consolidated action remains stayed pending a decision on Defendants’ renewed motion to stay.