Flux Power Holdings, Inc.

ITEM 1 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, the Company may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and an adverse result in any legal proceedings that may arise from time to time may harm the Company’s business. To the best of its knowledge, except for the legal proceedings disclosed below, there are no other material legal proceedings pending against the Company.

Securities Class Action

On November 1, 2024, plaintiff Asfa Kassam filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, captionedKassam v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-02051), against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, Ronald F. Dutt, and our former Chief Financial Officer, Charles A. Scheiwe. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 11, 2022 and September 30, 2024, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On January 14, 2025, the court granted an unopposed motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California for all further proceedings (Case No. 3:25-cv-00113). On February 20, 2025, the court appointed Brandon Paulson to act as lead plaintiff for the putative class. The court set a schedule under which the lead plaintiff will file an amended complaint on or before April 21, 2025, and defendants will file their motion(s) to dismiss on or before May 12, 2025. The case is still in its early stages. Management believes these claims to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Shareholder Derivative Action

On January 7, 2025, plaintiff Ronald Pearl filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, captionedPearl v. Dutt, et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00042), against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally arises out of the same allegations contained in theKassam securities class action and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and related claims. The action purports to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Company and seeks damages and other various relief. On February 19, 2025, the court granted an unopposed motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California for all further proceedings (Case No. 3:25-cv-00373).

Employment Related Actions

On April 30, 2024, a former employee (the “Employee”) filed a class action complaint against the Company and Insperity, its third-party payroll service provider, in San Diego County Superior Court for claims including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay wages at separation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to produce employment records and unfair competition, which he has purported to assert on behalf of himself and all other individuals who worked for the Company or Insperity, as non-exempt employees in California between April 30, 2020 and the present (the “Employment Proceeding”). On July 1, 2024, the Company filed an answer to the complaint that none of the asserted claims possessed any merit, contended that many of the asserted claims were subject to immediate dismissal, and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to binding arbitration. On October 14, 2024, the Employee elected to dismiss Insperity from the action without prejudice.

On July 5, 2024, the Employee filed a representative action complaint against the Company and Insperity in San Diego County Superior Court for Violation of Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”), seeking an unspecified amount of penalties and attorneys’ fees based on allegations that the Company violated certain California employment laws (the “PAGA Proceeding”). On August 8, 2024, the Company filed an answer to the complaint in which the Company denied that any of the asserted claims possessed any merit and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to binding arbitration.

On December 10, 2024, the Company and the Employee stipulated to the consolidation of Employment Lawsuit and the PAGA Action. As of the date hereof, both proceedings are currently pending consolidation by the court. Upon consolidation, the Company intends to move to have the Employee’s action claims dismissed, the Employee’s individual claims compelled to binding arbitration and the Employee’s representative PAGA claims stayed pending the arbitration of his individual claims. On October 22, 2024, the Employee elected to dismiss Insperity from the action without prejudice.

Page 32

On January 25, 2024, a former CPM, LTD Inc. (“CPM”) employee filed a complaint against CPM, a third-party staffing service provider, Flux Power, Inc., and Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) in San Diego County Superior Court for claims including harassment, failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages at separation. CPM is a San Diego based staffing company that provided employees (including the plaintiff) to the Company. The plaintiff has alleged that the Company and CPM were “joint employers” to the plaintiff under California law and are jointly liable for the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees from Defendants. On June 21, 2024, the Company filed an answer to the complaint in which the Company denied that any of the asserted claims possessed any merit and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to binding arbitration.

It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the final outcomes of these proceedings or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.