Spire Global, Inc.

From time to time, we are involved in various legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business activities.

Stockholder Litigation

On August 20, 2024, we and two of our executive officers were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Michal Bousso v. Spire Global, Inc. et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-1458 (the “Bousso Lawsuit”). On October 14, 2024, a second plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit against us and three current or former executive officers, also in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Kohei Tagawa v. Spire Global, Inc. et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-1810 (the “Tagawa Lawsuit”). On November 22, 2024, the court consolidated the Bousso Lawsuit and the Tagawa Lawsuit, appointed Michal Bousso as lead plaintiff, and renamed the case to “In re Spire Global, Inc. Securities Litigation,” Master File No. 1:24-cv-1458-MSN-WEF (the “Master Securities Lawsuit”). On December 23, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Master Securities Lawsuit, which alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder), arising from or relating to our announcements in August 2024 that certain of our previously issued audited and unaudited financial statements should not be relied upon. Plaintiff alleged that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements relating to (1) how revenue was recognized for pre-space services for certain space contracts, and (2) how costs for certain contracts were characterized. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our Class A common stock between May 11, 2022 and August 14, 2024. The plaintiff sought damages and other relief, including attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 22, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The court in the Master Securities Lawsuit held argument on our motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. After hearing argument from both sides, the court issued its order on the record dismissing the Master Securities Lawsuit without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiff 30 days to consider whether to amend, which deadline expired on April 13, 2025. The plaintiff did not file any amended complaint or any other paper after the court’s March 14, 2025 dismissal order.

On September 5, 2024, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors and us (as a nominal defendant), captioned Lawrence Hollin v. Platzer et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-01558 (the “Hollin Lawsuit”). On September 10, 2024, a second stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, also purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors and us (as a nominal defendant), captioned Richard Cobb v. Platzer et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-01596 (the “Cobb Lawsuit”). On November 12, 2024, a third stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, also purportedly on behalf of us against certain of our officers and directors and us (as a nominal defendant) captioned L. Robert Oros v. Platzer et al., 1:24-cv-02020 (the “Oros Lawsuit”). On November 14, 2024, the Court consolidated the Hollin Lawsuit and the Cobb Lawsuit and renamed the case to In re Spire Global, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-01596 (the “Master Derivative Case”). On December 2, 2024, the Court consolidated the Oros Lawsuit into the Master Derivative Case. The lawsuits in the Master Derivative Case arise out of the same subject matter as the Master Securities Lawsuit, and they allege some or all of the following claims: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) gross mismanagement; (3) waste of corporate assets; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) as against the director defendants, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; (6) as against the officer defendants, contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act; and (7) aiding and abetting. Each of the lawsuits in the Master Derivative Case seeks damages and other relief, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Following the dismissal of the Master Securities Lawsuit, on April 24, 2025, each of the parties to the Master Derivative Case agreed, and filed, a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of the Master Derivative Case.

Share Purchase Agreement Litigation

As previously disclosed, on November 13, 2024, we entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Kpler Holding SA, a Belgian corporation (“Buyer”), pursuant to which we agreed to sell our maritime business to Buyer and enter into certain ancillary agreements (the “Transactions”). The maritime business sold pursuant to the Transactions did not include any part of our satellite network or operations. The purchase price agreed to be paid by Buyer to us at the closing of the Transactions was a cash payment based upon an enterprise value of $233.5 million, subject to certain adjustments. The Transactions also included a twelve-month transition service and data provision agreement for $7.5 million.

On February 10, 2025, we filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Buyer seeking a grant of specific performance ordering Buyer to satisfy its obligations under the Purchase Agreement and consummate the closing in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement. In the complaint, we also requested a declaratory judgment declaring that Buyer has breached its obligations under the Purchase Agreement and is not excused from performing its obligations under the Purchase Agreement, including proceeding with the closing.

Buyer removed the matter to the District of Delaware, pursuant to a contract term in the Purchase Agreement promising not to contest removal to that court. The District of Delaware initially selected a March 4, 2025 trial date, but on February 26, 2025, the court set a trial date of May 28-30, 2025.

On April 6, 2025, we and Buyer reached an agreement to resolve the foregoing litigation and mutually release claims if closing in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement occurred by April 25, 2025. On April 25, 2025, we dismissed the foregoing litigation following the completion of the Transactions.

We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings that, if determined adversely to us, would, in our opinion, have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. Future litigation may be necessary to defend ourselves, our partners, and our customers by determining the scope, enforceability, and validity of third-party proprietary rights, or to establish our proprietary rights. The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

SEC Investigation

In July 2025, we received a subpoena from the SEC seeking records relating to, among other matters, (i) the restatement of our consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the unaudited condensed consolidated financial information as of the quarter ends and for the interim periods in the fiscal years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, and the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarter ended March 31, 2024; (ii) our historical accounting policies and practices; (iii) our internal control over financing reporting, disclosure controls and procedures, and material weaknesses therein; and (iv) the premature filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. We are in the process of producing records responsive to the subpoena and intend to continue cooperating with the SEC’s investigation; however, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome or timing of the investigation.