Affirm Holdings Inc

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase Obligation

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. This amount was not material as of December 31, 2023.

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.

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 on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of

December 31, 2023 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty.