Two separate putative class actions lawsuits have been filed against the Company, one of the Company’s current officers and one of the Company’s former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The actions are: Karoline Kampe v. Volta Inc., Scott Mercer, and Francois P. Chadwick (Case No. 4:22-cv-02055-JST) (the “Kampe Action”), filed on March 30, 2022, and Victor Paul Alvarez v. Volta Inc., Scott Mercer, and Francois P. Chadwick (Case No. 3:22-cv-02730-JSC) (the “Alvarez Action”), filed on May 6, 2022.

The complaints in the Kampe Action and the Alvarez Action (collectively, the “Shareholder Securities Lawsuits”) assert similar allegations and, in general, allege that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. The Kampe Action and the Alvarez Action have been transferred to the same judge, who is considering pending motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff and for consolidation. The plaintiff in each Shareholder Securities Lawsuit seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that purchased Volta securities between August 2, 2021 and March 28, 2022 and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the Shareholder Securities Lawsuits, which could materially and adversely impact its business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and prospects.

Five purported shareholders have filed, on behalf of the Company, separate shareholder derivative actions against the Company’s current directors and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California or, in the case of the Edwards Derivative Action (as defined below), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant in each action. The purported shareholder derivative actions are: Hugues Gervat v. Scott Mercer, Francois P. Chadwick, Christopher Wendel, Eli Aheto, Vincent T. Cubbage, Martin Lauber, Katherine J. Savitt, Bonita C. Stewart, and John J. Tough (Case No. 3:22-cv-04036) (the “Gervat Derivative Action”), filed on July 9, 2022; Tom Heil v. Eli Aheto, Christopher Wendel, Vincent T. Cubbage, Martin Lauber, Katherine J. Savitt, Bonita C. Stewart, John J. Tough, Scott Mercer and Francois P. Chadwick (Case No. 3:22-cv-04239) (the “Heil Derivative Action”), filed on July 21, 2022; Todd Eddy v. Scott Mercer, Francois P. Chadwick, Christopher Wendel, Eli Aheto, Vincent T. Cubbage, Martin Lauber, Katherine J. Savitt, Bonita C. Stewart, and John J. Tough (Case No. 3:22-cv-04342) (the “Eddy Derivative Action”), filed on July 27, 2022; Robert Gennett v. Scott Mercer, Francois P. Chadwick, Christopher Wendel, Eli Aheto, Vincent T. Cubbage, Martin Lauber, Katherine J. Savitt, Bonita C. Stewart, and John J. Tough (Case No. 4:22-cv-04450) (the “Gennett Derivative Action”), filed on August 1, 2022; and LaDreana Edwards v. Scott Mercer, Francois P. Chadwick, Christopher Wendel, Eli Aheto, Vincent T. Cubbage, Martin Lauber, Katherine J. Savitt, Bonita C. Stewart, and John J. Tough (Case No. 1:22-cv-01021-UNA)

The complaints in the Derivative Actions assert similar claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and, except in the Gennett Derivative Action, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and waste of corporate assets (except that the complaint in the Edwards Derivative Action asserts no claim of abuse of control against any individual defendant and the claim of unjust enrichment asserted therein is solely against Messrs. Mercer and Wendel) in connection with the alleged materially false and misleading statements at issue in the Shareholder Securities Lawsuits. In addition, the Gervat, Heil, Gennett and Edwards Derivative Actions assert claims against individual defendants Scott Mercer and Francois Chadwick for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Eddy Derivative Action asserts a claim against the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints in the Gervat and Gennett Derivative Actions also seek to require the individual defendants and the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. The Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the Derivative Actions, which could materially and adversely impact its business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and prospects.

In the ordinary course of business, Volta enters into contractual purchase agreements for goods and services to ensure availability and timely delivery. Current purchase commitments reflect Volta’s mission and vision to expand its charging network. As of September 30, 2022, Volta had purchase commitments of $0.9 million from key suppliers for capital assets, inventory, and services, for the remainder of 2022.

For the three months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, the Company contributed $0.4 million and $0.2 million, respectively, to the employee defined contribution plan. For the nine months ended September 30, 2022 and 2021, the Company contributed $0.9 million and $0.7 million, respectively, to the employee defined contribution plan. As of September 30, 2022, Volta expects to contribute $0.3 million for the remainder of 2022.