Blink Charging Co. 10-K

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. We have been party to certain legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of our business and have been incidental to our business. Certain of the claims that have been made against us allege, among other things, breach of contract or breach of express and implied warranties with regard to our products. Although litigation is inherently uncertain, and we believe we are insured against many such instances, based on past experience and the information currently available, management does not believe that any currently pending and threatened litigation or claims will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, future events or circumstances, currently unknown to management, will determine whether the resolution of pending or threatened litigation or claims will ultimately have a material effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations in any future reporting periods. 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. 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. 23 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 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. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES. Not applicable. 24 PART II