On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of SRAC filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC (“Sponsor”), Brian Kabot (SRAC CEO), James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the Company’s co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned Jensen v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05744 (the “Jensen class action”). The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020, and July 13, 2021. Subsequent complaints captioned Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05943 and Depoy v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-06287 were consolidated in the first filed matter (collectively, referred to as the “Securities Class Actions”). An amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2021. The Company disputes the allegations in the Securities Class Actions.

On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Actions and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Securities Class Actions. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Securities Class Actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the Company (at least $4.0 million of which was funded by insurance proceeds).

On April 10, 2023, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court, and on August 18, 2023, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement. On August 30, 2023 the lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice on September 21, 2023. Pursuant to that Order, on October 5, 2023, the Company paid $1.0 million into the settlement escrow account. On November 16, 2023, following the Court’s order granting lead plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and despite the Company’s attempts to negotiate an extension of time to satisfy its payment obligations, the Company paid an additional $3.5 million into the settlement escrow account. Insurance carriers made additional payments totaling $4.0 million into the settlement escrow account.

On April 23, 2024, the Court entered an order and judgment finally approving the settlement of the Securities Class Actions. A group of plaintiffs asserting the Delaware Class Actions (see below) objected to the scope of the release in the settlement, and the Court overruled the objection. Those objectors may or may not appeal the Court’s decision to overrule their objections and approve the settlement. The Company does not know the timing of when such an appeal, if filed, would be heard. If the objectors do not appeal the approval of the settlement, or if their appeal is ultimately rejected by the Court of Appeals, then the settlement will resolve all claims in the Securities Class Actions against the Company (except as to any shareholders that may elect to opt-out of the class). The Company and the other defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the Securities Class Actions, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants. In the event that a court, on appeal or otherwise, overturns the approval of the settlement, the Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Securities Class Actions.

As a result of the agreement to settle the Securities Class Action, the Company recorded a litigation settlement contingency of $8.5 million. The Company additionally recorded an insurance receivable of $4.0 million for the insurance proceeds expected from its insurers related to the settlement. The net amount of $4.5 million was recognized in litigation settlement, net during the year ended December 31, 2022. As of December 31, 2024, the contingent liability in relation to Securities Class Action had been paid in full.

On June 20, 2022, a shareholder derivative action was filed by Brian Lindsey, on behalf of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:22-cv-04212, against the Company (as a nominal defendant), SRAC, Brian Kabot, Juan Manuel Quiroga, James Norris, James Hofmockel, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, Chris Hadfield, Mitchel B. Kugler, Victorino Mercado, Kimberly A. Reed, Linda J. Reiners, and John C. Rood. This derivative action alleges the same core allegations as stated in the Securities Class Actions litigation. The defendants dispute the allegations as stated in this derivative action. On September 27, 2022, the plaintiff filed his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice seeking to dismiss the case. Because the plaintiff’s dismissal of this derivative action was voluntary and without prejudice, this plaintiff and/or other shareholders may seek to re‑file the claims asserted in this matter at a later date. As noted below, Brian Lindsey re‑filed a shareholder derivative action in Delaware Chancery Court on June 30, 2023.

On January 25, 2023, a shareholder derivative action was filed by Melissa Hanna, on behalf of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:23-cv-00374, against the Company (as a nominal defendant), SRAC, Brian Kabot, Juan Manuel Quiroga, James Norris, James Hofmockel, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, Chris Hadfield, Mitchel B. Kugler, Victorino Mercado, Kimberly A. Reed, Linda J. Reiners, and John C. Rood (the “Derivative Action II”). The Derivative Action II alleges the same core allegations as stated in the Securities Class Actions, and also claims that the Company ignored and/or refused a prior demand made by Ms. Hanna on the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

On April 25, 2023, a shareholder derivative action was filed by Justin Rivlin, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-03120, against the Company (as a nominal defendant), Brian Kabot, James Norris, Marc Lehmann, James Hofmockel, and Ann Kono. The Rivlin derivative action alleges the same core allegations as stated in the Securities Class Actions. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims are time-barred and that the plaintiff was not excused from making a demand on the Company before filing the lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On August 4, 2023, the plaintiff in the Rivlin action responded to the Company’s motion to dismiss by filing an amended complaint adding new claims and new defendants, including existing Board members Chris Hadfield, Mitchel B. Kugler, Kimberly A. Reed, Linda J. Reiners, and John C. Rood.

On June 30, 2023, a shareholder derivative action was filed by Brian Lindsey, purportedly on behalf of the Company in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0674), against the Company (as a nominal defendant), Juan Manuel Quiroga, James Norris, James Hofmockel, Stable Road Acquisition Corp., SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Mikhail Kokorich, Brian Kabot, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, Chris Hadfield, Mitchel B. Kugler, Victorino Mercado, Kimberly A. Reed, Linda J. Reiners, and John C. Rood. The Lindsey derivative action alleges the same core allegations as stated in the Securities Class Actions. The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

On August 26, 2024, an unopposed motion for the preliminary approval of settlement was filed after the Company reached an agreement in principle for a proposed settlement of certain shareholder derivative litigation. The proposed settlement, as set forth more fully in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement filed with the court, requires the Company to adopt certain corporate governance reforms. The reforms must be maintained for a minimum period of four years.

On September 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order primarily approving the settlement and providing for notice of the settlement to stockholders of the Company in the matters captioned Hanna v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00374 (N.D. Cal.); Rivlin v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2:23‑cv-03120 (C.D. Cal.);  Lindsey v. Quiroga, et al., Case No. 20230674 (Del. Ch.); and the litigation demand made by Momentus stockholder, Kamal Qureshi (collectively, the “Derivative Matters”). The proposed settlement calls for the Company to adopt certain corporate governance reforms and pay lead plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and lead plaintiff service awards.

The order set a final approval hearing for November 21, 2024, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement agreement, including the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the defendants, via Order dated January 10, 2025. The matter was fully covered under the Company’s insurance policy, and all associated legal fees and settlement costs were paid directly by the insurer. As a result, the Company did not incur any expenses related to legal fees or settlement costs in connection with this matter.

On July 20, 2022, The Larian Living Trust (“TLLT”) filed an action against the Company in New Castle County Superior Court, Delaware, in the Complex Commercial Litigation Division, Case No. N22C-07-133 EMD CCLD. TLLT pleads claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract arising from two investment contracts pursuant to which TLLT alleges it invested $4.0 million in the Company. TLLT alleges that a “liquidity event” occurred when the Company closed the Business Combination, such that it was entitled to the greater of its $4.0 million investment or its “Conversion Amount” of the Company’s shares, which was a total of 59 shares of the Company’s stock. TLLT further alleges that the Company refused to provide it the conversion amount of shares until April 2022, at which point the value of its shares had dropped significantly from their peak value in August of 2021, in excess of $7.6 million. TLLT seeks damages in excess of $7.6 million, in addition to interests and its attorney’s fees and costs. On March 16, 2023, the Company’s motion to dismiss TLLT’s claims was denied and the parties will move forward with discovery. On July 13, 2023, the Company filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The hearing on the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment was set for November 8, 2023, TLLT filed an Answering Brief on September 15, 2023, and the Company filed a Reply Brief on October 16, 2023. On January 31, 2024, the Superior Court denied the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. The Company and TLLT have held settlement discussions, but an agreement in principle has not been finalized. On April 30, 2025, the Court entered an order stating that the matter would be dismissed for want of prosecution if no proceedings are undertaken within 30 days of that date. No such proceedings have been instituted by the plaintiff after the filing of that order.

On June 8, 2021, former co-founders and shareholders of the Company, Mikhail Kokorich and Lev Khasis, signed the NSA alongside stock repurchase agreements, whereby they agreed to divest their interests in the Company in exchange for a cash payment and other considerations. As part of the NSA and stock repurchase agreements, Messrs. Kokorich and Khasis agreed to a broad waiver and release of all claims (broadly defined) against the Company. The Company has maintained that this release is effective as to various advancement and indemnification claims either individual may have against the Company.

Both Messrs. Kokorich and Khasis have, through counsel, disagreed with the Company’s position. For example, Mr. Kokorich is named as a defendant in the securities class action pending against the Company and other defendants, although he has not been served nor appeared in those matters. In addition, Mr. Kokorich is the sole defendant in a civil litigation action filed against him by the SEC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:21-cv-01869. On November 25, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a final consent judgment in the SEC’s civil action against Mr. Kokorich (Case No. 1:21-cv-01869), resolving all claims in that proceeding. Mr. Kokorich has demanded indemnification and advancement from the Company for his fees and costs incurred in these actions, which claims are disputed by the Company.

The Company continues to maintain that Mr. Kokorich’s release in the NSA and stock repurchase agreements is effective as to his claims for advancement and indemnification in these litigation matters. On August 16, 2022, Mr. Kokorich filed a verified complaint against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Case No. 2022‑0722) seeking indemnification and advancement from the Company. Following the Company filing a motion to dismiss this action, on November 14, 2022, Mr. Kokorich filed an amended complaint. Additional motions to dismiss and replies were filed and considered at a hearing on February 2, 2023. The Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Kokorich indemnification claim action on May 15, 2023. On June 13, 2023, Mr. Kokorich filed a notice of appeal. On July 28, 2023, Mr. Kokorich filed Appellant’s Brief. The Company filed Appellee’s Answering Brief on August 28, 2023, and Mr. Kokorich filed a Reply Brief on September 15, 2023. The oral argument on Mr. Kokorich’s appeal was scheduled for November 15, 2023. On November 30, 2023, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On March 24, 2023, Mr. Khasis filed a verified complaint against the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Case No. 2023-0361) seeking indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company. On April 17, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On May 16, 2023. Mr. Khasis filed an amended complaint. On May 23, 2023, Momentus filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Separately, Mr. Khasis has requested an expedited trial in his claim for advancement of fees. On June 23, 2023, the Court of Chancery ordered that

On March 5, 2026, Lev Khasis filed a verified complaint against the Company in Delaware Court of Chancery (Case No. 2026-0179-DG) seeking indemnification and advancement expenses from the Company in connection with the NSA and investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Legal counsel to Khasis indicated that total expenses for which Khasis seeks indemnification is approximately $1.2 million plus legal expenses in connection with this suit. The Company believes it is probable that it can settle this claim for an amount of approximately $0.4 million. The Company is attempting to resolve these claims, but there can be no assurances a resolution will be achieved.

On November 10, 2022, purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint against Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, Ann Kono, Marc Lehmann, James Norris, Juan Manuel Quiroga, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Edward K. Freedman, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, and John C. Rood in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case captioned Shirley, et al. v. Kabot et al., 2022-1023-PAF (the “Shirley Action”). The complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Proposed Transaction, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On December 23, 2024, by stipulation and order of dismissal, Mr. Rood was dismissed from the complaint without prejudice.

On March 16, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a case captioned Lora v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2023-0322 (the “Lora Action”). Like the Shirley complaint, the complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021.

On March 17, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a case captioned Burk v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2023-0334 (the “Burk Action”). Like the Lora and Shirley complaints, the Burk complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021.

On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel designating the complaint filed in the Lora Action as the operative complaint. On June 30, 2023, the defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed their answering briefs in opposition to the motions to dismiss, and the defendants’ reply briefs were due to be filed on or before December 14, 2023, and a hearing on the motions to dismiss was held for February 1, 2024.

On May 29, 2024, the court issued its orders on the motions to dismiss: (1) granting the motions to dismiss with respect to defendants Fred Kennedy and Dawn Harms and dismissing the claims against them with prejudice, and (2) with respect to the SRAC Defendants, granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice. However, the court noted that defendants Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, and James Norris did not move to dismiss the portion of Count II relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the value of SRAC shares issued in the merger and defendant Brian Kabot did not move to dismiss the portion of Count III relating to the same. As such, the claims as to the SRAC Defendants were dismissed with prejudice, except for these remaining claims.

The Shirley Action, the Lora Action, and the Burk Action have been consolidated under the caption, In re Momentus Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2022-1023-PAF (Del Ch. Nov. 10, 2022). These putative class actions do not name the Company as a defendant. Regardless, the SRAC directors and officers, together with current and former directors and officers of the Company, have demanded indemnification and advancement from the Company, under the terms of the merger agreement and the exhibits thereto, the Delaware corporate code, the Company’s Bylaws, and their individual indemnification agreements. The Company may be liable for the fees and costs incurred by the defendants and has an obligation to advance such fees during the pendency of the litigation. The Company understands that the defendants dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against any such litigation.

ANV Global Services Inc. (“ANV”), the insurer who issued a Side-A directors and officers liability insurance policy that provides coverage for the SRAC directors and officers, has asserted a claim against the Company for indemnification of certain former SRAC directors and officers in connection with a lawsuit captioned In re Momentus, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, No. 2023-0322, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Consolidated Delaware Action”). ANV has requested reimbursement of $1.2 million for defense costs paid and contribution to a global settlement and has indicated it is prepared to file suit if a settlement is not reached. The Company has made a settlement offer of $0.1 million in shares of Class A common stock to each of the three former SRAC directors and officers subject to the Consolidated Delaware Action. Discussions with ANV and the affected individuals are ongoing, but there can be no assurances a resolution will be achieved.

Under the sublease for 3901, the Company has an obligation to restore certain modifications prior to termination of the lease. The Company is unable to complete these restorations on that timeline and is negotiating with the sublandlord and the landlord regarding a financial settlement. The Company believes that it is probable that it will be required to pay a yet-to-be-determined amount of restoration costs. Total restoration costs should not exceed $0.7 million to $0.8 million based on construction proposals received by the Company and the sublandlord. However, the Company’s obligation to restore certain alterations is subject to the landlord’s having designated such alterations for removal at the time the landlord approved the Company’s alteration plans. The Company has requested documentation from the landlord to evidence the Company’s restoration obligations. The Company has not yet received such documentation. The Company has recorded an asset retirement obligation (“ARO”) of $0.5 million related to these restoration costs, which it believes represents the low end of the range of possible loss.

These and other litigation matters may be time-consuming, divert management’s attention and resources, cause the Company to incur significant defense and settlement costs or liability, even if we believe the claims asserted against us are without merit. We intend to vigorously defend against all such claims. Because of the potential risks, expenses and uncertainties of litigation, as well as claims for indemnity from various of the parties concerned, we may from time to time settle disputes, even where we believe that we have meritorious claims or defenses. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, further compounded by various claims for indemnity which may or may not be fully insured, we cannot assure that the results of these actions, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated operating results and financial condition.

From time to time, the Company may be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business or in connection with the matters discussed above. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of judgment, defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. At each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under ASC 450-20. Legal fees are expensed as incurred.

As of December 31, 2025, the Company has recorded accruals for certain probable loss contingencies and an ARO. These include $0.4 million accrued for the Khasis claim, $0.3 million for the ANV claim, and a $0.5 million ARO recognized for the 3901 sublease. The $0.7 million of probable loss contingencies are recorded in litigation settlement contingency in the consolidated balance sheets, and the $0.5 million ARO is recorded in other current liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company believes these accruals are adequate based on information currently available.