COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 20 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

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.

On July 12, 2020, Didier Verriest (“Didier”) filed a four-count complaint with the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking over $500,000 for alleged unpaid compensation expenses related to a breach of contract under the Magnum Agreement (the “Magnum Agreement”) Didier entered with Cenntro, and Magnum Korea Ltd. (“Magnum”). On March 5, 2021, Cenntro filed a motion to dismiss as to Didier’s breach of contract claim. Within its motion, Cenntro put before the Court a true and accurate copy of the Magnum Agreement, which revealed the payment obligation underlying Didier’s breach of contract claim against Cenntro, did not exist. Instead, the express terms of the Magnum Agreement confirmed that the payment obligation rested solely on Magnum. After briefing and oral argument, by court order dated April 30, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against Cenntro, without prejudice. However, The Court is allowing a separate quantum meruit claim to proceed. Cenntro filed an answer to Didier’s amended complaint on August 11, 2021. After filing an answer, the parties conducted discovery, which included interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and depositions. On March 17, 2023, Cenntro filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining quantum meruit claim. On May 12, 2023, the Judge granted Cenntro’s motion in its entirety, dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Mr. Verriest will have until June 26, 2023 to file a Notice of Appeal, failing which the case will be over.

In October 2021, Sevic Systems SE (“Sevic”), a former channel partner, commenced a lawsuit against Shengzhou Machinery, one of Cenntro’s wholly owned subsidiaries, relating to a breach of contract for the sale of goods (the “Sevic Lawsuit”). Sevic filed its complaint with the People’s Court of Keqiao District, Shaoxing City, Light Textile City (the “People’s Court”). In the Sevic Lawsuit, Sevic alleges that the Shengzhou Machinery provided it with certain unmarketable goods and requests that the People’s Court (i) terminate two signed purchase orders under its contract with Shengzhou Machinery and (ii) award Sevic money damages for the cost of goods of $465,400, as well as interest and incidental losses, including freight and storage costs, for total damages of approximately $628,109. The Company does not believe that Sevic’s claims have any merit and intends to vigorously defend against such claims.

On March 25, 2022, Shengzhou Hengzhong Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Shengzhou”), an affiliate of Cenntro Automotive Corporation, filed a demand for arbitration against Tropos Technologies, Inc. with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), asserting claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Shengzhou is seeking payment of $1,126,640 (exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees) for outstanding invoices owed by Tropos Technologies, Inc. to Shengzhou. As of the date of, Tropos Technologies, Inc. has not yet formally responded to the demand. On February 16, 2023, AAA appointed an arbitrator and both parties are waiting for further proceedings under the arbitration process. On April 25, 2023, Tropos Technologies, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the arbitration demand and claimant intends to file a response in opposition to it by the current deadline of May 23, 2023.

In June 2022, Sevic Systems SE (“Sevic”) filed for injunctive relief in a corporate court in Brussels, Belgium, alleging CAE infringement of 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. (“Cenntro”) and distributed by CAE derives directly from the CITELEC. The distribution of the METRO, therefore, allegedly 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 and intends to appeal it, however, the Company has accrued the related liability according to the judgement made.

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. The Defendants intend to file a motion directed to the dismissal of that amended complaint.