Virgin Galactic Holdings, IncSPCE
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Leases
The Company has certain noncancelable operating leases primarily for its premises. These leases generally contain renewal options for periods ranging from 3 to 20 years and require the Company to pay all executory costs, such as maintenance and insurance. Certain lease arrangements have rent free periods or escalating payment provisions, and the Company recognizes rent expense of such arrangements on a straight-line basis.
Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases and future minimum finance lease payments as of December 31, 2025 are as follows:
| Operating Leases | Finance Leases | |||||||||||||
| (In thousands) | ||||||||||||||
| Year ending December 31: | ||||||||||||||
| 2026 | $ | 14,191 | $ | 230 | ||||||||||
| 2027 | 13,951 | 115 | ||||||||||||
| 2028 | 9,790 | 50 | ||||||||||||
| 2029 | 7,265 | 15 | ||||||||||||
| 2030 | 7,152 | 2 | ||||||||||||
| Thereafter | 24,799 | — | ||||||||||||
| Total payments | 77,148 | 412 | ||||||||||||
| Less: present value discount/imputed interest | 26,394 | 54 | ||||||||||||
| $ | 50,754 | $ | 358 | |||||||||||
Legal Proceedings
From time to time, the Company is a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company applies accounting for contingencies to determine when and how much to accrue for and disclose related to legal and other contingencies. Accordingly, the Company discloses contingencies deemed to be reasonably possible and accrues loss contingencies when, in consultation with legal advisors, it is concluded that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters is subject to many uncertainties and is therefore not predictable with assurance, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these matters, individually and in the aggregate, beyond that provided at December 31, 2025, would not be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims could differ materially from those projected.
The Boeing Company and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation v. the Company
On March 21, 2024, The Boeing Company and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, a Boeing Company (collectively, “Boeing”), filed suit against the Company in the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned The Boeing Company and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation, a Boeing Company v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In its complaint, Boeing alleges that the Company breached the parties’ Master Agreement. Boeing further alleges trade secret misappropriation under the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“DUTSA”), 6 Del C. § 2001, et. seq., and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et. seq., and filed a motion for preliminary injunction to destroy certain disputed documents. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $25 million, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. On April 12, 2024, the Company filed an answer to Boeing’s complaint and a counterclaim seeking damages relating to Boeing’s breach of the Master Agreement, as well as an opposition to Boeing’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
On April 4, 2024, the Company filed suit against Boeing in the Central District of California. In its complaint, the Company sought: (1) declaratory judgment of no misappropriation of trade secrets under either DUTSA or DTSA by the Company, (2) declaratory judgment of no breach of contract by the Company, and (3) damages related to Boeing’s
breach of contract for failure to adequately perform, including incomplete work on design phases of the project. On April 12, 2024, Boeing filed a motion for an anti-suit injunction in connection with the Company’s California suit. On June 6, 2024, the Company voluntarily dismissed the California action without prejudice, electing to pursue its affirmative claims against Boeing by way of the counterclaim filed in the Virginia action, and on that same day the Company and Boeing jointly informed the Virginia court that the Company’s voluntary dismissal of the California action without prejudice rendered moot Boeing’s motion for an anti-suit injunction.
A hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction took place on May 24, 2024. On June 20, 2024, the Court denied the preliminary injunction sought by Boeing, and ordered that the Company could use the disputed documents internally, and with third parties under a non-disclosure agreement, for the purpose of developing a new launch vehicle.
On October 2, 2024, Boeing and the Company executed a “Material Terms of Settlement Agreement,” endorsed by Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, by which they agreed to resolve all disputes between them relating to the lawsuits. The parties entered into a final Settlement Agreement effective October 31, 2024, and the litigation was dismissed in its entirety on November 4, 2024. The Company has reflected a benefit associated with this settlement in research and development expense in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2024.
Lavin v. the Company
On May 28, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070. In September 2021, the Court appointed Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier as co-lead plaintiffs for the purported class. Co-lead plaintiffs amended the complaint in December 2021, asserting violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company’s common stock between July 10, 2019 and October 14, 2021.
The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the safety of the Company’s ships and success of its commercial flight program. Co-lead plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and, on November 7, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint.
Plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint on December 12, 2022, and subsequently filed that complaint on February 9, 2023. The second amended complaint contains many of the same allegations as in the first amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint and, on August 8, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion and did not give plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal order and, on December 19, 2023, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion. On March 27, 2024, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining Section 10(b) insider trading claim alleged against Branson. On April 2, 2024, the Court stayed briefing on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pending resolution of plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for leave to add a new representative plaintiff, which plaintiffs subsequently filed on May 1, 2024. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion on July 2, 2024. On July 8, 2024, defendants withdrew their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On August 21, 2024, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in which Xinqiang Cui, Justin Carlough, Jennifer Ortiz, Richard O’Keefe-Jones, Vipul Gupta, Maria Josephine Rosales, and Hesham Ibrahim (previously named plaintiffs), were designated by plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs (in addition to Robert Scheele and Mark Kusnier), and an additional named plaintiff, Montgomery Brantley, was added. The third amended complaint contains substantively the same allegations as in the second amended complaint. On September 11, 2024, defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs’ third amended complaint.
On October 12, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify their proposed class. The defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion on December 20, 2024, plaintiffs filed their reply on January 24, 2025, and defendants filed a sur-reply on March 21, 2025. On February 27, 2026, the Court entered an order denying the motion as moot in light of the parties’ settlement (see below).
On February 12, 2025, plaintiffs submitted a letter request to the Court seeking permission to file a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 17, 2025, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request to file a motion for leave to amend, which plaintiffs did on March 26, 2025. Defendants filed their opposition on April 11, 2025, and plaintiffs filed their reply on April 23, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Court issued an order allowing plaintiffs to file a fourth amended complaint. On June 26, 2025, plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint.
On July 18, 2025, plaintiffs and defendants (“Parties”) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) outlining the terms of a settlement to resolve all claims in the above-referenced action. In connection with the MOU, the Company recorded the expected net settlement of $2.25 million and included it in selling, general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2025. Pursuant to the MOU, the Company has agreed to pay $8.5 million, of which the Company currently expects $6.25 million to be covered and paid directly by the Company’s insurers pursuant to insurance policies. The Company accrued a liability for the gross settlement amount and also recorded a receivable for the portion of the settlement that is expected to be covered directly by insurance. On November 4, 2025, plaintiffs asked the Court to preliminarily approve the Parties’ settlement. On March 11, 2026, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The Company will make all payments related to the settlement by the second quarter of 2026, and expects the Court to provide final approval of the settlement and judgment later in 2026.
Spiteri, Grenier, Laidlaw, St. Jean, and Gera derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors
On February 21, 2022, March 1, 2022, September 21, 2022, December 13, 2022, and July 11, 2024, five alleged shareholders filed separate derivative complaints purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned Spiteri v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00933 (“Spiteri Action”), Grenier v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01100 (“Grenier Action”), Laidlaw v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05634 (“Laidlaw Action”), St. Jean v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-7551 (“St. Jean Action”), and Gera v. Branson et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04795 (“Gera Action”), respectively. On May 4, 2022, the Spiteri and Grenier Actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00933 (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). On September 30, 2023, the Laidlaw Action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action. On September 12, 2024, the Gera Action was consolidated into the Consolidated Derivative Action. Collectively, the complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934 and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above. The complaints seek an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. The parties are currently exploring a potential resolution of the Consolidated Derivative Action and the St. Jean Action.
Abughazaleh derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors
On February 13, 2023, alleged shareholder Yousef Abughazaleh filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the District of Delaware captioned Abughazaleh v. Branson et al., Case No. 23-156-MN. The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above.
The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. The Abughazaleh Action is presently stayed.
Molnar and Tubbs derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors
On April 9, 2024, alleged shareholders Crystal Molnar and Cleveland Tubbs filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the Central District of California captioned Molnar v. Branson et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-775. The complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above.
The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable relief.
On July 11, 2025, the Court entered an order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution. In response, on July 16, 2025, plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice indicating their intention to participate in the Espinosa action pending in Delaware Chancery Court. On July 17, 2025, the Court granted plaintiffs’ stipulation and entered an order of dismissal.
Espinosa derivatively on behalf of the Company vs. Certain Current and Former Officers and Directors
On September 3, 2024, alleged shareholder Kimberly Espinosa filed a derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors (the “Individual Defendants”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Espinosa v. Branson et al., Case No. 2024-0895-JTL. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the securities class action described above.
The complaint seeks an unspecified sum of damages, interest, restitution, expenses, attorneys’ fees and other equitable relief. On August 12, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff Crystal Molnar’s unopposed motion to intervene in the Espinosa action. On August 14, 2025, the Company and the Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs Espinosa and Molnar communicated their intent to file an amended complaint. Per Court order adopting the parties’ stipulation, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2025. On December 23, 2025, the Company and the Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On February 3, 2026, in light of ongoing settlement discussions in the Consolidated and St. Jean Actions (see above), the parties filed a stipulation seeking to stay the Espinosa Action, including remaining briefing on the Company’s and the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, for 120 days following the Court’s entry of the stay.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Mar 30, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 26, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 28, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 28, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Mar 1, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 28, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Mar 18, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 14, 2018 | |
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.