Company: CENN
Filing Date: 2025-08-12
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001140361-25-030576
Chunk: 24

Company: Cenntro Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-12
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part II, Item 8
Chunk 24
---
 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 have 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 now, it is not possible to determine what the outcome of these proceedings will be.

        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 $