What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2024-03-18 compared with 2023-03-14 · 43 added, 43 removed, 46 unchanged (65% of the section changed)

12 unchanged sentences

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

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.

1 unchanged sentence

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On November 27, 2023, the court granted in part and denied

in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

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.

On December 15, 2023, the court entered a scheduling order, setting

the case for trial starting on February 24, 2025, among other things.

Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on December 18, 2023.

The parties are engaged in discovery and have scheduled a mediation for April 3, 2024.

The Company wholly and completely disputes the

allegations therein.

The Company has retained legal counsel 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.

September 15, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Klein (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v.

11 unchanged sentences

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.

December 23, 2020, another shareholder derivative action, captioned Bhatia (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v.

3 unchanged sentences

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.

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 April 11, 2023, the court consolidated

the Bhatia action with the Klein action and dismissed the Bhatia action with prejudice.

At the parties’ request, the court has

stayed all proceedings until the completion of fact discovery in the Bush Lawsuit or any of the parties gives a 10-day notice that they

no longer consent to the voluntary stay.

The Company wholly and completely disputes the allegations therein.

The Company has retained

legal counsel 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.

February 7, 2022, another shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned McCauley (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v.

7 unchanged sentences

both injunctive and monetary relief from the individual defendants, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

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.

29, 2022, the Nevada court approved the parties’ stipulation to temporarily stay the McCauley Lawsuit, which expired automatically

upon the ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Bush Lawsuit.

On December 13, 2023, the Nevada court approved the parties’ stipulation

to continue the stay until the close of fact discovery in the Bush Lawsuit or any of the parties gives a 10-day notice that they no longer

consent to the voluntary stay.

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.

SAFETY DISCLOSURES.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings