PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1 — Legal Proceedings
On August 28, 2018, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of multiple individuals against the Company and five corporate co-
defendants in the 9th Judicial District Court, Rapides Parish, Louisiana. The lawsuit relates to the previously disclosed May 2018
accident involving a forklift powered by the Company’s fuel cell at a Procter & Gamble facility in Louisiana. The lawsuit alleges
claims against the Company and co-defendants, including Structural Composites Industries, Deep South Equipment Co., Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. for claims under the Louisiana Product Liability Act (“LPLA”)
including defect in construction and/or composition, design defect, inadequate warning, breach of express warranty and
negligence for wrongful death and personal injuries, among other damages. Procter & Gamble has intervened in that suit to
recover worker’s compensation benefits paid to or for the employees/dependents. Procter & Gamble has also filed suit for
property damage, business interruption, loss of revenue, expenses, and other damages. Procter & Gamble alleges theories under
the LPLA, breach of warranty and quasi-contractual claims under Louisiana law. Defendants include the Company and several of
the same co-defendants from the August 2018 lawsuit, including Structural Composites Industries, Deep South Equipment Co.,
and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc.
In March and May 2021, Company stockholders, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March 16, 2021 (the “Class”), filed complaints in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Plug
Chief Executive Officer Andrew Marsh, and Plug Chief Financial Officer Paul Middleton (together, the “Defendants”), captioned
Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004 (S.D.N.Y.), Smolícek v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-02402 (C.D. Cal.) and Tank v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03985 (S.D.N.Y.). The complaints include two
claims, for (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder (against all Defendants);
and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (against Mr. Marsh and Mr. Middleton). The complaints allege that
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company (i) “would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to
the review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases”; and (ii) “was
reasonably likely to report material weaknesses
Table of Contents
57
in its internal control over financial reporting[.]” The complaints allege that, a result, “positive statements about the Company’s
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis,” causing Class members losses
and damages. The complaints seek compensatory damages “in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon”;
“reasonable costs and expenses incurred in th[e] action”; and “[s]uch other and further relief as the [c]ourt may deem just and
proper.” On July 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the three cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 28, 2021, Tank v. Plug Power, et. al., was voluntarily dismissed.