PURCHASE COMMITMENTS

As of March 31, 2021, the Company had a remaining purchase commitment of approximately $10,000,000, which will become payable upon the suppliers’ delivery of the charging stations and other related items. The purchase commitments were made primarily for future sales and deployments of these charging stations and other related items.

LITIGATION AND DISPUTES

On August 24, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Michael Farkas (Blink’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael Rama (Blink’s Chief Financial Officer) (the “Bush Lawsuit”). On September 1, 2020, another purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and seeking to recover the same alleged damages (the “Vittoria Lawsuit”). On October 1, 2020, the court consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit with the Bush Lawsuit and on December 21, 2020 the court appointed Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 19, 2021. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and functionality of the Blink Network, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Amended Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Blink’s common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19, 2020. On April 20, 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The deadline for the Co-Lead Plaintiffs to file an opposition brief in response to the motion to dismiss is June 21, 2021 and the deadline for Blink to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss is July 21, 2021. The Company believes that the claim has no merit, and wholly and completely disputes the allegations therein. The Company has retained legal counsel in order to defend the action vigorously. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2021 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

On September 15, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Klein (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Farkas et al., Case No. 20-19815CA01, was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court seeking to pursue claims belonging to the Company against Blink’s Board of Directors and Michael Rama (the “Klein Lawsuit”). Blink is named as a nominal defendant. The Klein Lawsuit asserts that the Director defendants caused Blink to make the statements that are at issue in the securities class action and, as a result, the Company will incur costs defending against the consolidated Bush Lawsuit and other unidentified investigations. The Klein Lawsuit asserts claims against the Director defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and corporate waste and against all of the defendants for unjust enrichment. Klein did not quantify the alleged damages in his complaint, but he seeks damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate governance changes, restitution, and disgorgement of profits from the defendants and attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses. The parties agreed to temporarily stay the Klein Lawsuit until there is a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated Bush Lawsuit. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2021 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

On December 22, 2020, JMJ Financial v. Blink Charging Co. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to pursue claims for alleged breach of contract and conversion (the “JMJ Lawsuit”). The complaint alleges that JMJ Financial purchased warrants to acquire 147,057 shares of Blink common stock on or about April 9, 2018, which permitted a cashless exercise, and that on November 23, 2020, JMJ Financial delivered a notice of warrant exercise to Blink and that the Company failed to deliver the shares. The claim alleges breach of contract and conversion; the plaintiff requests damages of at least $4.2 million, attorneys’ fees, and specific enforcement requiring delivery of the shares. In January 2021, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with JMJ under which the parties exchanged releases and the litigation was discontinued with prejudice. The Company did not make a cash payment in the settlement, but rather delivered 66,000 shares of stock, representing a modification of the initial warrant exercise but did not result in the recognition of any incremental expense.

On December 23, 2020, another shareholder derivative action, captioned Bhatia (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Farkas et al., Case No. 20-27632CA01, was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court against the same defendants sued in the Klein Lawsuit and asserting similar claims, as well as additional claims relating to the Company’s nomination, appointment and hiring of minorities and women and the Company’s decision to retain its outside auditor (the “Bhatia Lawsuit”). On February 17, 2021, the parties agreed to consolidate the Klein and Bhatia actions, which the court consolidated under the caption In re Blink Charging Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2020-019815-CA-01. The parties also agreed to keep in place the temporary stay. The Company believes that the claim has no merit, and wholly and completely disputes the allegations therein. The Company has retained legal counsel in order to defend the action vigorously. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2021 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

On February 12, 2021, another shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Wolery (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Buffalino et al., Case No. A-21-829395-C, was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada seeking to pursue claims belonging to the Company against Blink’s Board of Directors (the “Wolery Lawsuit”). Blink is named as a nominal defendant. The Wolery complaint alleges that the amount of restricted stock awarded to Blink’s outside directors in December 2020 exceeded the amounts permitted by Blink’s incentive compensation plan. The complaint asks the court to rescind the excess restricted stock awards, as well as other relief. The parties have agreed that the defendants could have an extension to respond to the complaint and consequently no response has been filed. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2021 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.