16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

PURCHASE COMMITMENTS

As of December 31, 2022, the Company had purchase commitments of approximately $60,532 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, deployments of charging stations, inventory management planning and other related items, all of which are expected to be received during the next 12-24 months.

PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT

On March 29, 2012, the Company, as licensee (the “Licensee”) entered into an exclusive patent license agreement with the Executive Chairman of the Board and Balance Holdings, LLC (an entity controlled by the Executive Chairman) (collectively, the “Licensor”), whereby the Company agreed to pay a royalty of 10% of the gross profits received by the Company from commercial sales and/or use of two provisional patent applications, one relating to an inductive charging parking bumper and one relating to a process which allows multiple EVs to plug into an EV charging station simultaneously and charge as the current becomes available.

On March 11, 2016, the Licensee and the Licensor entered into an agreement related to the March 29, 2012 patent license agreement. The parties acknowledged that the Licensee has paid a total of $9 in registration and legal fees for the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61529016 (the “Patent Application”) (related to the inductive charging parking bumper) to date. Effective March 11, 2016, the patent license agreement, solely with respect to the Patent Application and the parties’ rights and obligations thereto, was terminated. The Executive Chairman of the Board agreed to be solely responsible for all future costs and fees associated with the prosecution of the patent application. In the event the Patent Application is successful, the Executive Chairman of the Board shall grant a credit to the Licensee in the amount of $9 to be applied against any outstanding amount(s) owed to him. If the Licensee does not have any outstanding payment obligations to the Executive Chairman of the Board at the time the Patent Application is approved, the Executive Chairman of the Board shall remit the $9 to the Licensee within twenty (20) days of the approval. The parties agreed to a mutual release of any claims associated with the patent license agreement. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has not paid nor incurred any royalty fees related to this patent license agreement.

LITIGATION, DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS

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, which has now been fully briefed and is ready for review. On April 7, 2022, the court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss but did not issue a decision. The Company 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 December 31, 2022 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

BLINK CHARGING CO.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(in thousands except for share and per share amounts)

16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES – CONTINUED

LITIGATION, DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS – CONTINUED

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. On June 17, 2022, the court substituted the executrix of Klein’s estate as the plaintiff. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of December 31, 2022 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

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 court subsequently vacated the consolidation order and explained the parties should first file a motion to transfer, which the parties have done. On June 22, 2022, the court re-consolidated the Klein and Bhatia actions and reinstated the temporary stay. The Company 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 December 31, 2022 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. On September 15, 2021, the parties entered into a term sheet in which they agreed to settle the claims subject to the court’s approval. On April 18, 2022, the court signed a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. As a result of the settlement, the Company has agreed to make certain changes to its compensation practices for its directors and officers, including, among other things, eliminating the practice of making cash payments to directors to cover expected income taxes on stock grants and placing a $200 annual limit for two years on the combined stock and cash awards to outside directors. The defendants did not admit any liability or wrongdoing in the settlement and will not make any cash payment as part of the settlement, but the Company will be responsible for paying the costs to give notice of the settlement to the Company’s shareholders and to pay $190 in attorney’s fees to the plaintiff’s counsel which was paid in April 2022.

On February 7, 2022, another shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned McCauley (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Farkas et al., Case No. A-22-847894-C, was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, seeking to pursue claims belonging to the Company against six of Blink’s directors and Michael Rama (the “McCauley Lawsuit”). Blink is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint filed in the McCauley Lawsuit asserts similar allegations to the Klein Lawsuit relating to the statements at issue in the securities class action and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The McCauley Lawsuit seeks both injunctive and monetary relief from the individual defendants, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 29, 2022, the Nevada court approved the parties’ stipulation to temporarily stay the McCauley 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 December 31, 2022 as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

BLINK CHARGING CO.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(in thousands except for share and per share amounts)

16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES – CONTINUED

WARRANTY

The Company estimates an approximate cost of $250 to repair deployed chargers, which the Company owns as of December 31, 2022.

CHARGING NETWORK UPGRADES

As electric vehicle charging requirements and technologies change, driven by federal, state or local regulatory authorities or by electric vehicle manufacturers or other technology or services providers for the charging station industry, in particular cellular connectivity technology, the Company may need to upgrade or adapt its charging station products or introduce new products in order to serve new vehicles, conform to new standards, or adapt new technologies to serve existing customers or new customers at substantial research, development, and network upgrades costs. During 2021, many cellular technology providers announced they will require the upgrade from 2G/3G connectivity to 4G LTE during 2022 (the “Upgrade”). During the year ended December 31, 2022, we incurred $3,809 related to these upgrades. As of December 31, 2022, the charger upgrades were substantially complete.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

MICHAEL D. FARKAS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

On May 28, 2021, the Company entered into a new employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with the Company’s Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”). The term of the Employment Agreement is January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 (the “Term”).

Under the Employment Agreement, the CEO will receive a base salary of $800 for 2021 and $850 and $900 for 2022 and 2023, respectively. The CEO will be eligible to receive an annual performance bonus (payable in cash and securities), with a target bonus of 100% of the base salary, with the CEO eligible to receive up to 200% of the base salary based on the achievement of key performance indicators established by the Board of Directors and the CEO (“KPIs”). The CEO will receive equity awards (one-half in restricted stock and one-half in stock options) with a target aggregate value of $1,000, the CEO is eligible to receive up to 200% of the target aggregate value based on the achievement of KPIs during each year of the Term. The CEO also received a special four-year performance option to purchase 475,285 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $37.40 per share, which will vest if the Company’s stock price on the NASDAQ exchange reaches and remains on average for a period of 20 consecutive market days at a closing price of $90 per share during the four-year term of the option. The performance option had a grant date fair value of approximately $13,500, which was estimated using a third-party specialist who utilized a Monte Carlo simulation model. The assumptions used in the Monte Carlo simulation model were as follows: the closing stock price on the valuation date of $34.00, exercise price of $37.40, the contractual term of four years, expected volatility of the Company’s stock of 143.98%, and the risk free rate of interest of 0.54%. The Company is recognizing the fair value over the derived service period of the award, which was determined to be 0.64 years.

Additionally, the CEO received one-time awards and payments in satisfaction of his 2020 bonuses, equity awards, and a salary catch-up since the expiration of his prior agreement in September 2020. The Employment Agreement provides that, if the CEO is terminated without cause, resigns for good reason, dies or becomes disabled during the Term, he will receive his base salary for the remainder of the Term and payment of 2.6 times his target performance bonus/equity awards and base salary. In the event of a termination without cause or resignation for good reason within nine months prior to or 18 months following a change in control, the multiple in the previous sentence will be 3.5 times. The Employment Agreement also contains covenants (a) restricting Mr. Farkas from engaging in any activities competitive with the Company’s business during the Term and one year thereafter, (b) prohibiting Mr. Farkas from disclosure of confidential information regarding the Company at any time and (c) confirming that all intellectual property developed by Mr. Farkas during the term of the employment agreement which specifically relates to the EV charging business constitutes the Company’s sole and exclusive property. Mr. Farkas may be entitled to additional bonuses should his developments be commercialized by the Company.

The Employment Agreement provides that a commission sales agreement entered into on November 17, 2009 between an entity controlled by the CEO and a predecessor to the Company will remain suspended and no payments will be due thereunder for as long as the CEO is a full-time employee of the Company and is paid a monthly salary of at least $30. Finally, the Company and the CEO agreed to resolve a dispute over the CEO’s transfer of 260,000 shares of the Company’s common stock to a prior institutional investor through a settlement agreement and payment of $1,000 from the Company to the CEO. The payment of $1,000 was recognized as a part of other operating expenses in the statements of operations during the year ended December 31, 2021.

MATERIAL AGREEMENT

In October 2021, the Company negotiated and executed an amendment and extension to its agreement with a contract manufacturer of the Company. The amendment extends the term of the agreement for an additional five (5) years. Accordingly, the Company could potentially incur additional costs related to units ordered that were subsequently canceled or otherwise not fulfilled.