CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS
CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS	NOTE 19 – CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS ASC 450.20 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulation, tax and other matters. The accounting standard defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Under this standard an event is probable when it is likely to occur. From time to time, we are subject to asserted and actual claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Company management reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We recognize accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and disclose the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our consolidated condensed financial statements to not be misleading. As required by ASC 450 we do not record liabilities when the likelihood is not probable, or when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, management evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. The outcomes of our legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular period. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal proceedings and other contingencies that could affect the amount of liability, including amounts in excess of any previous accruals and reasonably possible losses disclosed, and make adjustments and changes to our accruals and disclosures as appropriate. For the matters we disclose that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible or is immaterial, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies. Until the final resolution of such matters, if any of our estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, we may experience losses in excess of the amounts recorded, which could have a material effect on our business, consolidated condensed financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Information with respect to our legal proceedings is contained in Note 19 – Contingencies and Claims of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2023. Other than as set forth herein, there are no additional updates to the legal proceedings involving the Company and/or its subsidiaries. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. On October 11, 2019, Mullen Technologies, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-01979-W-DEB) on October 11, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. (“Qiantu”) related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen. On July 1, 2020, the court ordered this matter to arbitration. It was submitted to the American Arbitration Association on February 9, 2021, for arbitration in Denver, Colorado. On March 14, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement providing for full settlement of all pending litigation between Mullen and Qiantu. Mullen continues its analysis of the homologation costs and the parties continue to negotiate licensing rights to the European territories. No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, other than those paid, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of additional losses, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. International Business Machines (“IBM”) On May 7, 2019, International Business Machines (‘IBM”) filed a claim against Mullen Technologies, Inc, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and IBM related to a joint development and technology license agreement, patent license agreement, and a logo trademark agreement. The Company has recognized the amounts paid ($5.9 million) as losses on settlement in the year ended September 30, 2022 and does not expect any additional losses to be reasonably possible. TOA Trading LLC Litigation On April 11, 2022, TOA Trading LLC and Munshibari LLC (“Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Mullen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This claim arises out of an alleged breach of contract related to an unpaid finder’s fee. On January 8, 2024, the court, sua sponte reset the February 12, 2024 trial to April 30, 2024. Based on the early stage of the litigation, no loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023 as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC, Drawbridge Investments LLC On March 2, 2023, DBI and Drawbridge Investments LLC (collectively, “Drawbridge”) filed a complaint in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Mullen. The complaint arises out of a letter agreement providing DBI with a right to purchase up to $25 million worth of a to be issued Series E Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants and asserts claims for: (1) specific performance of the alleged agreement; (2) money damages (in an amount exceeding $100 million) arising out of Mullen’s alleged breach of the alleged agreement; and (3) declaratory judgment setting forth Drawbridge’s rights and Mullen’s obligations under the alleged agreement. On December 5, 2023, as part of the settlement, Drawbridge withdrew its appeal to Mullen’s Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the court on August 25, 2023, with prejudice. Based on the contract signed by the parties, the Company accrued $1.95 million as of December 31, 2023 in full and complete satisfaction of the claims. The GEM Group On September 21, 2021, the GEM Group filed an arbitration demand and statement of claim with the American Arbitration Association against Mullen seeking declaratory relief and damages. This matter arises out of an alleged breach of a securities purchase agreement dated November 13, 2020. On January 24, 2024, the arbitrator ordered Mullen to deposit an additional $24,114,921 into escrow on or before March 9, 2024. The Company is immediately filing an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California contesting the arbitrator’s decision. The Company has also filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to void the GEM Group agreements made in violation of the Securities Act dealer registration requirements as GEM Group is not a registered FINRA dealer. Mullen Stockholder Litigation In re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Securities Litigation On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against the “Company”, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the “Schaub Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. An amended complaint was filed on September 23, 2022. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. Trinon Coleman v. David Michery et al. On December 8, 2023, Trinon Coleman, a purported stockholder, filed a shareholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, purportedly in the right and for the benefit of the Company as a nominal defendant, against Mr. Michery, and Company directors Mr. Puckett, Ms. Winter, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Coleman Lawsuit”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading, and unjust enrichment primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Coleman Lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and seeks monetary damages and an award of reasonable fees and expenses. No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. David Gru v. Mullen Automotive Inc. On May 12, 2022, David Gru, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Mr. Michery, and Mr. Firer (the “Gru Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Gru both individually and on behalf of a putative class of Mullen’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding Mullen’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Gru Lawsuit sought to declare the action to be a class action, and sought monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On August 4, 2022, the Court consolidated this action into the Schaub Lawsuit, and ordered this action administratively closed. In re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Derivative Litigation On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly in the right and for the benefit of the Company as a nominal defendant, and Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and current or former Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Lawsuit”). The Witt lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Witt Lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al. On September 30, 2022, Hany Morsy, a purported stockholder, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly in the right and for the benefit of the Company as a nominal defendant, against Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, former Company officer and director, Jerry Alban, and Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Morsy Lawsuit”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Morsy Lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and also seeks monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On November 8, 2022, the Court consolidated this matter and the Witt Lawsuit. Chosten Caris v. David Michery On April 27, 2023, Chosten Caris, a purported stockholder, filed a complaint against Mr. Michery in the Eighth Judicial Circuit In and For Alachua County, Florida (the “Caris Lawsuit”). This lawsuit purports to seek damages for claims arising under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Caris Lawsuit also seeks punitive damages. On May 17, 2023, Mr. Michery removed the Caris Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management. Other contingencies Accrued debt settlement As discussed in the Note 7 - Debt, on December 18, 2023, Mullen entered into a Debt Agreement to issue a non-convertible secured promissory note with a principal amount of $50 million, purchased for $32 million, reflecting an $18 million original issue discount. The $18 million original issue discount was considered a settlement cost related to a dispute over financings that occurred during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The $18 million settlement cost has been accrued as of September 30, 2023 and is included as accrued expenses and other liabilities at December 31, 2023 and September 30, 2023. When the debt is issued, the $18 million liabilities will be reclassified to note payable. Refund liabilities As discussed in the Note 3 – Summary of significant accounting policies, the Company’s contract with a certain dealer contains return provision, stating that they may return unsold vehicles after 1 year. Since the Company does not have sufficient relevant statistics of returns yet, we defer revenue recognition until the vehicles have been sold by such dealer or until there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable estimate for the amount of consideration to which the Company expects to be entitled. For any amounts received (or receivable) for which the Company does not recognize revenue when it transfers products to customers, a refund liability is recognized. These liabilities are disclosed in the Note 12 – Accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS

3 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

NOTE 19 – CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS

ASC 450.20 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulation, tax and other matters. The accounting standard defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Under this standard an event is probable when it is likely to occur.

From time to time, we are subject to asserted and actual claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Company management reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We recognize accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and disclose the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our consolidated condensed financial statements to not be misleading. As required by ASC 450 we do not record liabilities when the likelihood is not probable, or when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, management evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss.

The outcomes of our legal proceedings and other contingencies are inherently unpredictable, subject to significant uncertainties, and could be material to our operating results and cash flows for a particular period. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal proceedings and other contingencies that could affect the amount of liability, including amounts in excess of any previous accruals and reasonably possible losses disclosed, and make adjustments and changes to our accruals and disclosures as appropriate. For the matters we disclose that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible or is immaterial, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies. Until the final resolution of such matters, if any of our estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, we may experience losses in excess of the amounts recorded, which could have a material effect on our business, consolidated condensed financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Information with respect to our legal proceedings is contained in Note 19 – Contingencies and Claims of the Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2023. Other than as set forth herein, there are no additional updates to the legal proceedings involving the Company and/or its subsidiaries.

Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd.

On October 11, 2019, Mullen Technologies, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-01979-W-DEB) on October 11, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. (“Qiantu”) related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen. On July 1, 2020, the court ordered this matter to arbitration. It was submitted to the American Arbitration Association on February 9, 2021, for arbitration in Denver, Colorado. On March 14, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement providing for full settlement of all pending litigation between Mullen and Qiantu. Mullen continues its analysis of the homologation costs and the parties continue to negotiate licensing rights to the European territories.

No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, other than those paid, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of additional losses, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management.

International Business Machines (“IBM”)

On May 7, 2019, International Business Machines (‘IBM”) filed a claim against Mullen Technologies, Inc, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and IBM related to a joint development and technology license agreement, patent license agreement, and a logo trademark agreement.

The Company has recognized the amounts paid ($5.9 million) as losses on settlement in the year ended September 30, 2022 and does not expect any additional losses to be reasonably possible.

TOA Trading LLC Litigation

On April 11, 2022, TOA Trading LLC and Munshibari LLC (“Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Mullen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This claim arises out of an alleged breach of contract related to an unpaid finder’s fee. On January 8, 2024, the court, sua sponte reset the February 12, 2024 trial to April 30, 2024.

Based on the early stage of the litigation, no loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023 as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management.

DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC, Drawbridge Investments LLC

On March 2, 2023, DBI and Drawbridge Investments LLC (collectively, “Drawbridge”) filed a complaint in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Mullen. The complaint arises out of a letter agreement providing DBI with a right to purchase up to $25 million worth of a to be issued Series E Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants and asserts claims for: (1) specific performance of the alleged agreement; (2) money damages (in an amount exceeding $100 million) arising out of Mullen’s alleged breach of the alleged agreement; and (3) declaratory judgment setting forth Drawbridge’s rights and Mullen’s obligations under the alleged agreement.

On December 5, 2023, as part of the settlement, Drawbridge withdrew its appeal to Mullen’s Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the court on August 25, 2023, with prejudice. Based on the contract signed by the parties, the Company accrued $1.95 million as of December 31, 2023 in full and complete satisfaction of the claims.

The GEM Group

On September 21, 2021, the GEM Group filed an arbitration demand and statement of claim with the American Arbitration Association against Mullen seeking declaratory relief and damages. This matter arises out of an alleged breach of a securities purchase agreement dated November 13, 2020. On January 24, 2024, the arbitrator ordered Mullen to deposit an additional $24,114,921 into escrow on or before March 9, 2024. The Company is immediately filing an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California contesting the arbitrator’s decision. The Company has also filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to void the GEM Group agreements made in violation of the Securities Act dealer registration requirements as GEM Group is not a registered FINRA dealer.

Mullen Stockholder Litigation

In re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Securities Litigation

On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against the “Company”, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the “Schaub Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. An amended complaint was filed on September 23, 2022. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

No loss contingencies have been accrued in respect of this matter as at December 31, 2023, as the Company can reasonably estimate neither probability of the loss, nor their magnitude (if any), based on all available information presently known to management.

Trinon Coleman v. David Michery et al.

On December 8, 2023, Trinon Coleman, a purported stockholder, filed a shareholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, purportedly in the right and for the benefit of the Company as a nominal defendant, against Mr. Michery, and Company directors Mr. Puckett, Ms. Winter, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Coleman Lawsuit”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading, and unjust enrichment primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Coleman Lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and seeks monetary damages and an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

David Gru v. Mullen Automotive Inc.

On May 12, 2022, David Gru, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Mr. Michery, and Mr. Firer (the “Gru Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Gru both individually and on behalf of a putative class of Mullen’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding Mullen’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Gru Lawsuit sought to declare the action to be a class action, and sought monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On August 4, 2022, the Court consolidated this action into the Schaub Lawsuit, and ordered this action administratively closed.

In re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Derivative Litigation

On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly in the right and for the benefit of the Company as a nominal defendant, and Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and current or former Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Lawsuit”). The Witt lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section

14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Witt Lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al.

On September 30, 2022, Hany Morsy, a purported stockholder, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly in the right and for the benefit of the Company as a nominal defendant, against Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, former Company officer and director, Jerry Alban, and Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Morsy Lawsuit”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Morsy Lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and also seeks monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

On November 8, 2022, the Court consolidated this matter and the Witt Lawsuit.

Chosten Caris v. David Michery

On April 27, 2023, Chosten Caris, a purported stockholder, filed a complaint against Mr. Michery in the Eighth Judicial Circuit In and For Alachua County, Florida (the “Caris Lawsuit”). This lawsuit purports to seek damages for claims arising under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Caris Lawsuit also seeks punitive damages. On May 17, 2023, Mr. Michery removed the Caris Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Other contingencies

Accrued debt settlement

As discussed in the Note 7 - Debt, on December 18, 2023, Mullen entered into a Debt Agreement to issue a non-convertible secured promissory note with a principal amount of $50 million, purchased for $32 million, reflecting an $18 million original issue discount. The $18 million original issue discount was considered a settlement cost related to a dispute over financings that occurred during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The $18 million settlement cost has been accrued as of September 30, 2023 and is included as accrued expenses and other liabilities at December 31, 2023 and September 30, 2023. When the debt is issued, the $18 million liabilities will be reclassified to note payable.

Refund liabilities

As discussed in the Note 3 – Summary of significant accounting policies, the Company’s contract with a certain dealer contains return provision, stating that they may return unsold vehicles after 1 year. Since the Company does not have sufficient relevant statistics of returns yet, we defer revenue recognition until the vehicles have been sold by such dealer or until there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable estimate for the amount of consideration to which the Company

expects to be entitled. For any amounts received (or receivable) for which the Company does not recognize revenue when it transfers products to customers, a refund liability is recognized. These liabilities are disclosed in the Note 12 – Accrued expenses and other current liabilities.