9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

PURCHASE COMMITMENTS

As of September 30, 2024, the Company had purchase commitments of approximately $2,300 which will become payable upon the suppliers’ service of warranty contracts.

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 September 30, 2024, and the Company believes it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in the condensed 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.

In August 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 former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael Rama (Blink’s Chief Financial Officer) (the “Bush Lawsuit”). In September 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. Following consolidation of the two actions and the court appointing Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in February 2021. The Amended Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and functionality of the Blink Network and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In April 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In November 2023, the court dismissed Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ claims relating to the size of Blink’s charging network and denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. Following a mediation in April 2024, the parties agreed to the terms of a settlement in which the Defendants agreed to pay $3,750 (inclusive of attorneys’ fees and administrative costs) in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims. On October 21, 2024, the Court held a final settlement hearing, approved the settlement, dismissed the Bush Lawsuit with prejudice, and closed the case.  The full settlement amount has been paid by the Company’s Directors’ and Officers’ insurance policies.

In September 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 asserted that the Director defendants caused Blink to make the statements at issue in the securities class action and, as a result, the Company incurred costs defending against the Bush Lawsuit and other unidentified investigations. The Klein Lawsuit asserted 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 sought damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate governance changes, restitution, and disgorgement of profits from the defendants and attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses. In December 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 in the Klein Lawsuit and asserted 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”). In June 2022, the court consolidated the Klein and Bhatia actions under the caption In re Blink Charging Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2020-019815-CA-01. The action remains stayed. The Company wholly and completely disputes the allegations. The Company has retained legal counsel to defend the action vigorously. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2024, as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

In February 2022, a 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 Clark County, Nevada seeking to pursue claims belonging to the Company against Blink’s Board of Directors and Michael Rama (the “McCauley Lawsuit”). Blink is named as a nominal defendant. The McCauley Lawsuit asserted similar claims and sought similar damages as the Klein Lawsuit. The action remains stayed. The Company wholly and completely disputes the allegations. The Company has retained legal counsel to defend the action vigorously. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September 30, 2024, as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.