15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

PURCHASE COMMITMENTS

As of December 31, 2023, the Company had purchase commitments of approximately $21,672 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

The Company may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, intellectual property matters, claims and proceedings, including, but not limited to, contractual disputes with vendors and customers and liabilities related to employment, health and safety matters that may arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Loss contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex and subject to change.

The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such lawsuits, investigations, claims, and proceedings as of December 31, 2023, and the Company believes it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of the ongoing matters described herein cannot be predicted with certainty. While litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against it. However, future events or circumstances, currently unknown to management, may potentially have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations in any future reporting period.

BLINK CHARGING CO.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(in thousands, except for share and per share amounts)

LITIGATION, DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS – CONTINUED

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, 2023 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. 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, 2023 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, 2023 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)

LITIGATION, DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS – CONTINUED

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, 2023 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)

WARRANTY

The Company estimates an approximate cost of $600 to repair deployed chargers, which the Company owns as of December 31, 2023.

SEPARATION AGREEMENT

On June 21, 2023, the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Michael D. Farkas entered into a separation and general release agreement, dated as of June 20, 2023 (the “Separation Agreement”) pursuant to Mr. Farkas’ May 1, 2023 termination of employment and the terms of Mr. Farkas’ employment agreement, effective as of January 1, 2021 (the “Employment Agreement”). The Separation Agreement became effective on June 28, 2023, following a statutory revocation period. Under the terms of the Separation Agreement, the Company agreed to provide Mr. Farkas with (i) $6,028 in cash compensation, (ii) 383,738 shares of the Company’s common stock and (iii) reimbursement for medical benefits under COBRA for 24 months or until Mr. Farkas becomes eligible for coverage under another employer’s group plan. In addition, Mr. Farkas’ outstanding issued and unvested equity awards became vested and, as a result, the Company recognized approximately $2,900 of stock-based compensation expense during the year ended December 31, 2023 related to the accelerated awards. In return, Mr. Farkas agreed that he has received all compensation to which he is entitled with respect to his employment or termination thereof (except for any obligations under the parties’ Commission Agreement, dated as of November 17, 2009) and Mr. Farkas released the Company from all claims that he might have related to his employment. Further, Mr. Farkas acknowledged that the terms of his non-competition and non-solicitation covenants under his Employment Agreement remain in effect, except that Mr. Farkas will be permitted to continue to work with certain individuals with whom he has a current relationship outside of the Company. During the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company issued 383,738 shares of common stock with an issuance date fair value of $2,900 to Mr. Farkas in connection with the Separation Agreement.

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.