7.Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation – In 2008, a judgment was rendered in the Philippines against a Philippine subsidiary of the Company that is no longer active and purportedly also against Innodata Inc., in favor of certain former employees of the Philippine subsidiary. The potential payment amount aggregates to approximately $5.8 million, plus legal interest that accrued at 12% per annum from August 13, 2008 to June 30, 2013, and thereafter accrued and continues to accrue legal interest at 6% per annum. The potential payment amount as expressed in U.S. dollars varies with the Philippine peso to U.S. dollar exchange rate. In December 2017, a group of 97 of the former employees of the Philippine subsidiary indicated that they proposed to record the judgment as to themselves in New Jersey. In January 2018, in response to an action initiated by Innodata Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“USDC”) entered a preliminary injunction that enjoins these former employees from pursuing or seeking recognition or enforcement of the judgment against Innodata Inc. in the United States during the pendency of the action and until further order of the USDC. In June 2018, the USDC entered a consent order administratively closing the action subject to return of the action to the active docket upon the written request of Innodata Inc. or the former employees, with the USDC retaining jurisdiction over the matter and the preliminary injunction remaining in full force and effect.

In February 2024, David D’Agostino filed a putative class action captioned D’Agostino v. Innodata Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the “Securities Class Action”). In October 2024, the presiding judge in the Securities Class Action appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff’s choice of counsel. The Securities Class Action complaint, as amended, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology and services. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. On March 7, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action complaint. On April 10, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint to the Securities Class Action complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) to correct purported typographical errors in the Securities Class Action complaint. On April 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending with the USDC. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the action at this time and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Subsequently, in March 2024, the Company received a letter from the staff of the SEC, requesting the Company preserve certain documents and data; in August 2024 the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting the Company to produce certain documents; and in September 2024 the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting certain information. The Company believes that the SEC and DOJ requests were related to the conduct alleged in the Securities Class Action. On June 12, 2025, the DOJ notified the Company that it has closed its investigation into the Company. Separately, the SEC has likewise notified the Company that it has concluded its investigation and does not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company.

The Company is also subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. While the Company believes that it has adequate reserves for those losses that it believes are probable and can be reasonably estimated, the ultimate results of legal proceedings and claims cannot be predicted with certainty.

While management currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or overall trends in consolidated results of operations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties. Substantial recovery against the Company in the above-referenced Philippine action could have a material adverse impact on the Company, and unfavorable rulings or recoveries in the other proceedings described above could have a material adverse impact on the consolidated operating results in the period in which the ruling or recovery occurs. In addition, the Company’s estimate of the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or overall consolidated results of operations for the above referenced legal proceedings could change in the future.

The Company’s legal accruals related to legal proceedings and claims are based on the Company’s determination of whether or not a loss is probable. The Company reviews outstanding proceedings and claims with external counsel to assess probability and estimates of loss. The accruals are adjusted if necessary. While the Company intends to defend these matters vigorously, adverse outcomes that it estimates could reach approximately $450,000 in the aggregate beyond recorded amounts are reasonably possible. If circumstances change, the Company may be required to record adjustments that could be material to its reported consolidated financial condition and results of operations.