COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 21 - 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 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, the defendants 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. On May 30, 2025, the Court issued the order denying both sides’ respective motions for reconsideration. On June 10, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel informed us that they do not intend to file a second amended complaint, which means that CAC, CAG, CEL and CENN will be dismissed from the case; and that the case will proceed to discovery solely on Plaintiff’s one claim against Wang for promissory estoppel. At the in-person conference on August 19, 2025, the Court ordered deadlines for completing various stages of discovery in the case, with May 15, 2026 being the deadline for all fact discovery. We anticipate remote financial consequences will incur to the company.

On July 3, 2025, Cenntro Electric Group (Europe) GmbH (“CEGE”) demanded the return of a EUR 180,000 rental deposit from its former landlord following the termination of a commercial lease on December 31, 2024. Without response from the landlord, CEGE initiated legal proceedings on July 22, 2025, by filing an online payment order (Mahnantrag) with the District Court of Hünfeld, claiming the full deposit amount, statutory interest, and legal fees. On August 4, 2025 the Landlord submitted objection to the default summons. CEGE is currently working on its further action.

On January 2, 2024, MHP Americas, Inc. (“MHP”), through counsel, sent a letter to Cenntro Electric Group Limited (“Cenntro”) demanding payment allegedly owed by Cenntro to MHP in the amount of $1,767,516.91 for unpaid invoices and $3,289,500 for total contract invoices and milestone payments for alleged breaches in connection with the parties’ August 8, 2022, Master Consulting Services Agreement and/or March 9, 2023, Statement of Work. On January 12, 2024, Cenntro, through counsel, responded to the letter denying any breach and disputing the amounts claimed.

On April 10, 2024, CEGL filed a lawsuit against MHP Americas, Inc. (“MHP”) for breach under the Master Consulting Services Agreement and SAP S/4HANA SOW by failure to properly implement the SAP S/4HANA globally as set forth in those contracts, and for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, causing Cenntro to suffer significant damages; and demanded a jury trial on all issues which are triable. Under this claim, CEGL is seeking for a remittance of $512,226 paid to date and a recission of the remaining contract with MHP. The litigation was removed to Federal Court on May 7, 2024 where it is pending. At the time of this report, discovery has been completed. Mediation is schedule on November 19, 2025. The mediation scheduled for November 19, 2025 proceeded with counsel representing the Company. No agreement was reached during the mediation session and the parties did not engage in substantive settlement discussions. As of the date of this Annual Report, no further mediation sessions have been scheduled and the parties have not yet agreed on the next procedural steps. The case remains pending before the Court.

On March 28, 2025 BAL Freeway Associates, LLC filed an Unlawful Detainer against Cenntro Automotive Corporation alleging non-payment of rents for commercial leased property in San Bernadino County, Ontario, CA. At the time of this report negotiations between parties have been culminated in a partial settlement with possession begin restored to BAL Freeway Associates on May 31, 2025, and the issue of damages remains outstanding. On June 18, 2025, BAL Freeway filed a First Amended Complaint for Damages for Breach of Contract, seeking full damages resulting from the alleged breach of the Lease, claiming total losses no lower than $4,400,000. Negotiations are ongoing at this stage of the reclassified Civil Matter.

On April 16, 2025, Shenzhen Jiangxin Automation Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jiangxin”) filed a lawsuit with the People’s Court of Yuhang District, Hangzhou, against Hangzhou Ronda Tech Co., Limited (“Ronda”), seeking payment of equipment purchase price totaling RMB 170,555 plus accrued interest. Jiangxin claims that Ronda has failed to pay the remaining balance due under three Equipment Purchase Agreements signed during 2021 and 2022. On September 26, 2025, Ronda submitted its defense and counterclaim, asserting that Jiangxin had not fulfilled its contractual obligations, including the delivery of complete technical documents, installation and test run, and therefore the conditions for payment had not been satisfied. Ronda also reserved the right to terminate the agreements and seek a full refund of all payments made. The case remains pending before the court.

On December 2 2025, Wuxi Hefu Metal Products Technology Co., Ltd. (“Hefu”) filed a lawsuit with the People’s Court of Yuhang District, Hangzhou, against Hangzhou Ronda Tech Co., Limited (“Ronda”), seeking payment of mold development fees totaling RMB 476,314.2 plus accrued interest. Hefu alleges that under the Automotive Parts Product Development Agreement and its supplementary agreement signed on September 20, 2022, it completed the development and delivery of the molds in accordance with the contractual requirements, but Ronda failed to pay the remaining balance of the mold development fees. Hefu further applied for property preservation, and on December 15, 2025, the court issued a ruling to freeze Ronda’s bank deposits in the amount of RMB 476,314.2 or seize other assets of equivalent value. On January 7, 2026, the court organized a pre-trial mediation between the parties. The parties are currently awaiting the mediation proposal from the court. If mediation is unsuccessful, the case will proceed to formal trial. The case remains pending before the court.