What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-03-31 compared with 2025-04-09 · 41 added, 25 removed, 70 unchanged (49% of the section changed)

57 unchanged sentences

2020-019815-CA-01.

The action remains stayed.

The Company wholly and completely disputes the allegations.

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, 2024, as it determined that any such loss contingency was either not probable or estimable.

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

Farkas et al.,

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 December 31, 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

The McCauley Lawsuit asserted similar claims and sought similar damages as the Klein Lawsuit.

Following a mediation in April

2024, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Settlement”) dated June 26, 2025.

The Settlement

resolves the Derivative Actions in exchange for the Company undertaking certain corporate governance reforms, but does not require the

director defendants to make any monetary payment as part of the Settlement.

The Settlement includes a fee and expense award to plaintiffs’

counsel in the amount of $533 (the “Fee and Expense Award”), which the Company’s insurance carriers have paid.

On September 29, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Derivative Actions filed a motion asking the Nevada court to grant final approval

of the Settlement.

On October 24, 2025, the Nevada court granted the motion.

On October 29, 2025, the Nevada court issued an order and

final judgment, approving the settlement and closing the case.

On December 4, 2025, plaintiffs in the Florida Action filed a notice of

voluntary dismissal with prejudice and the case was closed.

Farkas Group, Inc.

9 unchanged sentences

The Florida Court denied NEXT’s petition,

and the arbitration is scheduled to resume in March 2025.

While the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, it is not

currently expected to have a material adverse impact on our business.

In July 2023, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting the

production of documentation and other information since January 1, 2020, relating to various subjects, including discrete disclosure matters.

On January 15, 2025, the Company received a termination letter from the Staff of the SEC that concluded the investigation without recommending

an enforcement action against Blink Charging with the proviso that the Staff could re-open the investigation.

and the arbitration resumed in March 2025.

The arbitration hearing occurred in August 2025.

In October 2025, the Arbitrator issued an

interim award which requires the Company to provide an accounting within 90 days applying the Arbitrator’s determinations regarding

the Commission Agreement.

The Company anticipates that the accounting will result in a final award of less than $100 with an ongoing

obligation to pay a de minimis monthly amount that is expected to decline to zero over time.

The Arbitrator denied the Company’s

claim for injunctive relief.

The Arbitrator declined to award attorneys’ fees to either party.

January 2026, the Company received a letter from the law firm Kaliel Gold PLLC dated November 19, 2025 notifying that the law firm

intended to initiate consumer arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association on behalf of approximately 230 people.

According to Kaliel Gold PLLC’s letter, the Company allegedly fails to disclose certain third-party fees and the price of its

charging services.

The Company has recently commenced an investigation and has not yet made any assessment as to whether the Company

has engaged in any of the challenged activities.

The Company is unaware of any proceedings, arbitration or otherwise, that have

actually been commenced.

As the Company has only recently learned of these potential claims, the Company cannot yet determine the

potential exposure of the Company, the validity of the allegations or whether the allegations rise to the level of

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