L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES INC DE

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiff Bruce Taylor (“Plaintiff”), a purported stockholder of ours, filed a putative class action complaint (“Complaint”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court”) against the Company and the members of our Board of Directors, as well as D. E. Shaw Oculus Portfolios, L.L.C. and D. E. Shaw Valence Portfolios, L.L.C. (together, the “D. E. Shaw Parties” and collectively, the “Defendants”) under the caption Taylor v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0205-JTL (the “Action”). Plaintiff alleged that certain provisions in a Cooperation Agreement dated December 10, 2023 between the Company and the D. E. Shaw Parties, as defined and described in the Company’s prior Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on December 11, 2023, were invalid under Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law insofar as they allegedly required the Company’s Board to (i) “recommend that the shareholders of the Company vote to elect” and (ii) “use its reasonable best efforts to support and solicit proxies for the election of” certain directors in connection with the Company’s 2024 annual meeting (the “Recommendation Provisions”). The Defendants believe that the allegations of the Complaint were meritless, deny those allegations, and deny that any violation of applicable law has occurred. However, solely to minimize expenses and distraction and to avoid the uncertainty of any litigation, on March 26, 2024, the Company and the D. E. Shaw Parties entered into a “Limited Mutual Waiver” through which (i) the D. E. Shaw Parties irrevocably waived any and all obligations of the Company pursuant to the Recommendation Provisions and (ii) the Company agreed to notify, and irrevocably waive certain obligations of, the D. E. Shaw Parties in the event the Company’s Board changed its recommendation regarding the election of certain directors in connection with the Company’s 2024 annual meeting.

On March 28, 2024, the parties entered into a proposed Stipulation and Order Voluntarily Dismissing The Action As Moot And Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation and Proposed Order”), pursuant to which the Court would retain jurisdiction regarding any application Plaintiff may make for an award of attorneys’ fees.

The Court entered the Stipulation and Proposed Order the same day, and retained jurisdiction to approve a form of notice concerning attorneys’ fees payable to Plaintiff in connection with the Limited Mutual Waiver and the Action. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of any and all claims by Plaintiff and all of his counsel for fees and expenses in the Action.

On July 1, 2024 the Court entered an order closing the Action, subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court confirming that this notice has been issued. In entering the order, the Court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness. Plaintiff’s counsel are Kurt M. Heyman and Aaron M. Nelson of Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, (302) 472-7300. Counsel to the Company and the individual defendants are Raymond J. DiCamillo and Matthew D. Perri of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., (302) 651-7700.

In addition to the foregoing, see also Note Q: Legal Proceedings and Contingencies in the Notes for discussion regarding material legal proceedings and contingencies. Except as set forth in such discussion, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings as reported in Part I. Item 3. Legal Proceedings in our Fiscal 2023 Form 10-K.