Cenntro Inc.

The Company may be involved in various legal proceedings, claims and other disputes arising from the commercial operations, projects, employees and other matters which, in general, are subject to uncertainties and in which the outcomes are not predictable. The Company determines whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted, the Company does not believe these actions, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse impact on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Please refer to the description as contained in “Item 8 Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” on page F-1 of our Annual Report and the information described below.

In June 2022, Sevic Systems SE (“Sevic”) filed for injunctive relief in a corporate court in Brussels, Belgium, alleging that Cenntro Automotive Europe GmbH (“CAE”) infringed on Sevic’s intellectual property (“IP”) rights. The injunctive action was also directed against LEIE Center SRL (“LEIE”) and Cedar Europe GmbH (“Cedar”), two distribution partners of CAE. There, Sevic claims it acquired all IP rights to an electric vehicle, the so-called CITELEC model (“CITELEC”), fully and exclusively from the French company SH2M Sarl (“SH2M”) under Mr. Pierre Millet. Sevic claims these rights were acquired under a 2019 IP transfer agreement. According to Sevic, the METRO model(“METRO”) produced by Cenntro Electro Group Ltd. (“CEGL”) and distributed by CAE derives directly from the CITELEC. Sevic alleges the distribution of the METRO infringes on Sevic’s IP rights. In its action, Sevic relies on (Belgian) copyright law and unfair business practices. On February 2, 2023, the president of the commercial court of Brussels rendered a judgment, declaring i) the claim against Cedar was inadmissible and ii) The main claim against CAE and LEIE was founded. According to the president’s opinion the CITELEC-model can enjoy copyright protection and determined it was sufficiently proven that Sevic acquired the copyrights of the CITELEC-model. The president then concluded that the distribution of the METRO-model in Belgium constituted a violation of article XI. 165 §1 of the Belgian Code of Economic Law and thereby ordered the cessation of the distribution of the METRO-model, a penalty in the form of a fine of EUR20,000.00 per sold vehicle in Belgium and EUR5,000.00 for each other infringement in Belgium after the judgement was served with a maximum fine of EUR500,000.00 for LEIE and EUR1,000,000.00 fine for CAE. Because CAE has not sold any METRO-models in Belgium, the Company believes the judgement is incorrect but has accrued the related liability according to the judgement made. On April 17,2023 CAE filed a writ of appeal. The introductory hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2023. The judge did not give any legal assessment at the hearing. All parties had been granted deadlines for written pleadings. On January 29, 2025, CAE rejected the late delivered final writ by lawyers of Sevic, which should have been received by September 2, 2024. As of the date of this report, it is not possible to determine the outcome of these proceedings related to Sevic.

On July 22, 2022, Xiongjian Chen filed a complaint against Cenntro Electric Group Limited (“CENN”), Cenntro Automotive Group Limited (“CAG”), Cenntro Enterprise Limited (“CEL”) and Peter Z. Wang (“Wang,” together with CENN, CAG and CEL, the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges eleven causes of action sounding in contract and tort against the Defendants, all pertaining to stock options issued to Mr. Chen pursuant to his employment as Chief Operating Officer of CAG. With respect to the four contract claims, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract claims pertaining to an employment agreement between Plaintiff and CAG and a purported letter agreement between Plaintiff and CEL. With respect to the seven tort claims, Plaintiff alleges claims regarding purported misrepresentations and promises made concerning the treatment of Plaintiff’s stock options upon a corporate transaction, including claims for tortious interference, fraud, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and conversion. The complaint seeks, among other things, money damages (including compensatory and consequential damages) in the amount of $19 million, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint against all Defendants for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants CAG and CEL. On April 30, 2023, the District Court dismissed the claims against CAG and CEL for lack of personal jurisdiction. In addition, the District Court dismissed all the claims against Wang and CENN without prejudice and permitted the Plaintiff to amend his complaint within 30 days to address the deficiencies in his claims against Wang and CENN. On May 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion seeking the dismissal of that amended complaint. On September 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed to oppose our Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. The Defendants filed our reply briefs by the deadline on November 9, 2023. On January 25, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and denying our Motion to Strike as moot. On November 12, 2024, District Court issued an Order, dismissing Plaintiff’s all claims except with respect to the promissory estoppel claim against Peter Wang. On November 26, 2024, we filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Cenntro’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim against Peter Wang. Concurrently, on same date Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to dismiss the case as against CAG for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 30, 2024, the Defendant filed a Reply in Further Support of Peter Wang’s Motion for Reconsideration, which, in accordance with the Court’s practices, was filed as part of a Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief, against which the Plaintiff filed an Opposition on January 17, 2025.