Affirm Holdings, Inc.AFRM
Affirm Holdings, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Loan Repurchase Obligations
Under the normal terms of our whole loan sales to third-party investors, we may become obligated to repurchase loans from investors in certain instances where a breach in representations and warranties is identified. Generally, a breach in representations and warranties could occur where a loan has been identified as subject to verified or suspected fraud, or in cases where a loan was serviced or originated in violation of Affirm’s guidelines. We would only experience a loss if the contractual repurchase price of the loan exceeds the fair value on the repurchase date. As of June 30, 2025, the aggregate outstanding balance of loans held by third-party investors or
unconsolidated VIEs was $7.8 billion, of which we have recorded a repurchase liability of $8.7 million within accrued expenses and other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.
Legal Proceedings
From time to time, we are subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. The results of such matters often cannot be predicted with certainty. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we establish an accrued liability for legal proceedings and claims when those matters present loss contingencies which are both probable and reasonably estimable.
Kusnier v. Affirm Holdings, Inc.
On December 8, 2022, plaintiff Mark Kusnier filed a putative class action lawsuit against Affirm, Max Levchin, and Michael Linford in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Kusnier action”). On May 5, 2023, plaintiffs Kusnier and Chris Meinsen filed their first amended complaint alleging that the defendants (i) caused Affirm to make materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Affirm’s BNPL service facilitated excessive consumer debt (including with respect to certain for-profit educational institutions), regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; (ii) made false and/or misleading statements about certain public regulatory actions; and (iii) made false and/or misleading statements about whether Affirm’s business model was vulnerable to interest rate changes. On December 20, 2023, the Court granted Affirm’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend. On January 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which contains only the allegations from the first amended complaint relating to false and/or misleading statements about whether Affirm’s business model was vulnerable to interest rate changes. In light of the above, plaintiffs assert that Affirm violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Levchin and Linford violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and expenses. Affirm filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 2, 2024. On August 26, 2024, the Court granted Affirm’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On September 23, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order granting Affirm's motion to dismiss. On August 14, 2025, the Court resolved plaintiffs' motion in Affirm's favor and directed plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint or stand on their second amended complaint and submit a joint proposed form of judgment.
Quiroga v. Levchin, et al.
On March 29, 2023, plaintiff John Quiroga filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Quiroga action”) against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm’s current officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Kusnier action at the time of filing. The Quiroga complaint purports to assert claims on Affirm’s behalf for contribution under the federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks corporate reforms, unspecified damages and restitution, and fees and costs. On May 1, 2023, the action was stayed by agreement of the parties. The stay can be lifted at the request of either party or upon certain conditions relating to the resolution of the Kusnier action.
Jeffries v. Levchin, et al.
On May 24, 2023, plaintiff Sabrina Jeffries filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Jeffries action”) against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm's current officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Kusnier and Quiroga actions at the time of filing. The Jeffries complaint purports to assert claims on Affirm's behalf for breach of fiduciary duties, making false statements under federal securities law, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, and seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, and fees and costs. On August 15, 2023, the action was stayed by agreement of the parties. The stay can be lifted at the request of either party or upon certain conditions relating to the resolution of the Kusnier action.
Vallieres v. Levchin, et al.
On September 14, 2023, plaintiff Michael Vallieres filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Affirm, as a nominal defendant, and certain of Affirm’s current officers and directors as defendants based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Kusnier, Quiroga, and Jeffries actions at the time of filing. The Vallieres complaint purports to assert claims on Affirm's behalf for breach of fiduciary duties, gross management, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and contribution, and seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, and fees and costs. On November 30, 2023, the case was stayed by agreement of the parties.
We have determined, based on current knowledge, that the aggregate amount or range of losses that are estimable with respect to our legal proceedings, including the matters described above, would not have a material adverse effect within our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty.
Purchase Commitments
We entered into non-cancelable purchase obligations with our third-party cloud computing web services provider, which included annual purchase commitments for the period from March 2023 through February 2030 with an aggregate committed spend of $650.0 million during such period. For the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, we had remaining purchase commitments of $535.4 million and $575.9 million, respectively, primarily related to cloud and hosting services. If we fail to meet any of the purchase commitments, we will be required to pay the difference. We pay our cloud-computing web services provider monthly, and we may pay more than the minimum purchase commitment based on usage.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Aug 28, 2025 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Aug 28, 2024 | |
| 2023 | Aug 25, 2023 | |
| 2022 | Aug 29, 2022 | |
| 2021 | Sep 17, 2021 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.