Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	21. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to certain claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. The Company assesses liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal proceedings utilizing the latest information available. Where it is probable that the Company will incur a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements. These legal accruals may be increased or decreased to reflect any relevant developments on a quarterly basis. Where a loss is not probable or the amount of the loss is not estimable, the Company does not record an accrual, consistent with applicable accounting guidance. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, the Company believes that the established accruals are adequate and the liabilities arising from the legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. However, that in light of the inherent uncertainty in legal proceedings there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of a matter will not exceed established accruals. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter or a combination of matters may be material to the results of operations and cash flows for a particular period, depending upon the size of the loss or the income for that particular period. Pizzarotti Litigation On or about August 10, 2018, Pizzarotti, LLC (“Pizzarotti”) filed a complaint against the Company and Mahesh Shetty, the Company’s former President and CFO, and others, seeking unspecified damages for an alleged breach of contract by the Company and another entity named Phipps & Co. (“Phipps”). The lawsuit was filed as Pizzarotti, LLC. v. Phipps & Co., et al., Index No. 653996/2018 and commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York. On or about April 1, 2019, Phipps filed cross-claims against the Company and Mr. Shetty asserting claims for indemnification, contribution, fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. SG Blocks has likewise cross claimed against Phipps for indemnification and contribution, claiming that any damages to the Plaintiff were the result of the acts or omissions of Phipps and its principals. Pizzarotti’s suit arose from a contract dated April 3, 2018 that it executed with Phipps whereby Pizzarotti, a construction manager, engaged Phipps to perform stone procuring and tile work at a construction project located at 161 Maiden Lane, New York 10038. Pizzarotti’s claims against the Company arise from a purported assignment agreement dated August 10, 2018, whereby Pizzarotti claims that the Company agreed to assume certain obligations of Phipps under a certain trade contract between Pizzarotti and Phipps. Phipps claims against the Company arise from a purported Assignment Agreement, dated as of May 30, 2018, between Pizzarotti, Phipps and the Company (the “Assignment Agreement”), pursuant to which, it is alleged, that the Company agreed to provide a letter of credit in connection with the sub-contracted work to be provided by Phipps to Pizzarotti. The Company believes that the Assignment Agreement was void for lack of consideration and moved to dismiss the case on those and other grounds. On June 17, 2020, the New York Supreme Court entered an order dismissing certain claims against the Company brought by cross claimant Phipps. Specifically, the court dismissed Phipps claims for indemnification, contribution, fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. However, the court did not dismiss Phipps claim for breach of the Assignment Agreement. The issue of the validity of the Assignment Agreement, and the Company’s defences to the claims brought by the plaintiff Pizzarotti and cross claimant Phipps, are being litigated. The Company maintains that the Assignment Agreement, to the extent valid and enforceable, was properly terminated and/or there are no damages, and, consequently, that the claims brought against the Company are without merit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the litigation. The parties have engaged in written discovery but no depositions have been conducted as of yet. By motion dated February 24, 2021, Pizzarotti moved to stay the entire action pending the outcome of a separate litigation captioned Pizzarotti, LLC v. FPG Maiden Lane, LLC et. al., Index No. 651697/2019, involving some of the same parties (but excluding the Company). Phipps cross moved to consolidate the two actions. The Company opposed both motions. On April 26, 2021, the court denied both motions and directed the parties to meet and confer concerning the scheduling of depositions. On May 10, 2021, the parties jointly filed with the court a proposed order providing the completion of depositions of all parties and non-parties by September 30, 2021. On April 4, 2024, the court entered an order setting forth the following dates for the completion of the parties depositions: (1) deposition of plaintiff shall occur by May 31, 2024, (2) deposition of Phipps shall occur by June 30, 2024, (3) deposition of the Company shall occur by July 20, 2024, (4) deposition of Mr. Shetty shall occur by August 9, 2024, (5) deposition of FPG Maiden Lane, & J. Landau shall occur by August 30, 2024, and (6) depositions of non-parties shall occur by September 30, 2024. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of this action is not predicted with assurance. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome or possible recovery or loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this litigation, and, accordingly, the Company has made no provision related to this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. CPF GP 2019-1, LLC Litigation In September 2023, a suit was filed in the form of a declaratory judgment to say CPF GP did not owe certain monies to the Company. The Company filed counterclaims for the amounts owed. The case settled in February 2024 in exchange for mutual dismissals and monthly payments of the balance due, which is $745,000 in total to the Company from CPF GP. To date, the Company has not received monthly payments and has not recorded this gain. Farnam Litigation In October 2023, Farnam Street Financial, Inc. (“Farnam”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 23-CV-3212) alleging breaches by the Company under a certain lease agreement between Farnam and the Company dated as of October 13, 2021. Farnam sought monies owed under such lease agreement. On August 1, 2024, the Company, SG Echo and SG Environmental Solutions Corp. (“SG Environmental”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) with Farnam to resolve the pending litigation. Simultaneously with the execution of the Settlement, (i) the Company, SG Environmental and Farnam entered into an assignment and assumption agreement, pursuant to which SG Environmental was substituted for the Company as the lessee under the lease agreement, and (ii) SG Environmental and Farnam executed a new Lease Schedule No. 001R (Schedule 1R), which replaced the prior schedule in its entirety. The terms of the Settlement included the following: (i) SG Environmental will be the signatory as the Lessee under the lease; (ii) the initial term (the Initial Term) of Schedule 1R is 18 months; (iii) the Commencement Date of Schedule 1R is August 1, 2024; (iv) the original cost of the equipment subject to Schedule 1R is $1,556,163.00; (v) so long as there has been no default under the lease and Schedule 1R, SG Environmental shall have the option to purchase the equipment at the end of the Initial Term for thirty-five percent (35%) of the original cost of the equipment, or $544,657.05, plus applicable taxes; (vi) the Monthly Lease Charge under Schedule 1R is $65,880.95, plus applicable taxes; and (vii) SG Environmental shall provide a new security deposit under Schedule 1R in the amount of $167,056.00, which shall be paid on or before August 1, 2024. Simultaneously with the execution of the Settlement, the Company and SG Echo executed a guaranty, whereby each of the Company and SG Echo jointly and severally guarantee SG Environmentals’ full and prompt payment and performance under the lease and Schedule 1R. Per the Settlement, Farnam shall retain as income all prior payments from the Company (or any Company affiliate) under the lease, the prior schedule, or any other agreement with the Company or its affiliates, including all monthly lease charges, interim rent, taxes, interest, fees, late charges, and any security deposits, including the deposit under the prior schedule. Under the terms of the Settlement, Farnam and the Company each agree to waive and release any and all claims against the other, except with respect to each party’s performance under the Settlement and each partys future obligations under the lease, Schedule 1R and guaranty agreements. The case remains ongoing as disputes have arisen post-Settlement between the Company and Farnam. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any potential loss, besides the original amounts of approximately $1.5 million which are included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets. American Express Litigation In December 2023, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (AMEX) filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Case No. 162231/2023) alleging breaches of a commercial credit card agreement between AMEX and the Company, dated as of November 8, 2022. AMEX sought monies owed under the commercial credit card agreement, with a balance of $232,218.94 as of the commencement of the action. In August 2024, AMEX filed a Motion for Default Judgment, which was granted by the court on or about September 19, 2024, for the amount of damages requested in AMEXs motion. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated potential loss to the Company is approximately $232,000 which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Choctaw Litigation In March 2024, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (“Choctaw Nation”) filed suit against SG Echo and the Company in the District Court of Bryan County, State of Oklahoma (Case No. CJ-2024-41) alleging: (a) breaches by SG Echo under a certain commercial lease agreement between SG Echo and the Choctaw Nation related to commercial property located at 2917 Big Lots Road, Durant, Oklahoma 74701; and (b) declaratory and injunctive relief relating to certain cranes, declaring the Choctaw Nation to be the owner of the cranes and not SG Echo. The Company disputes the Choctaw Nations allegations. As of December 31, 2025, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated potential loss to the Company is approximately $138,000 which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Durant Industrial Authority Litigation In November 2024, the filed suit against the Company, SG Echo, and among others, alleging breaches by the Company and SG Echo under a certain forgivable promissory note executed between SG Echo as the borrower and the Authority as the lender in the principal sum of $750,000, the Forgivable Note. The indebtedness under the Forgivable Note would be forgiven in three separate phases based upon the schedule set forth in the Forgivable Note. The Authority’s allegations include, among others, that due to SG Echos’ alleged breaches, the Forgivable Note is no longer forgivable and has been accelerated and is due in full. The Company and SG Echo dispute the Authoritys allegations. As of December 31, 2025, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any additional potential loss, however as of December 31, 2025, the $750,000 is included in short-term notes payable on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Rulien Litigation In March, 2024, Rulien Advisors, LLC (“Rulien”) filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Commercial Division, Kings County (Case No. 506426/2024) alleging breaches of a consulting agreement entered into by the Company and Rulien dated as of December 17, 2018 (the “Consulting Agreement”), whereby the Company engaged Rulien to act as a non-exclusive independent sales representative to promote the sale of, and to solicit orders for, products and services offered for sale by the Company. Rulien alleges that it has earned commissions of $1,373,750 for (a) the alleged sale of property located at 1900 American Drive, Lago Vista, Texas, and (b) the Company’s spin-off of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Safe and Green Development Corporation, into a separate publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The Company disputes Rulien’s claims. The case remains pending. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome or possible recovery or loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this litigation, and, accordingly, the Company has made no provision related to this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Caliber Litigation In June 2024, Caliber Corporate Advisers, LLC (“Caliber”) filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Case No. 652893/2024) alleging breaches of a Consulting Services Agreement between Caliber and the Company (the “Services Agreement”), alleging a balance owed of $46,350. The Company disputes Caliber’s claims, and claims that Caliber failed to provide meaningful services as set forth in the Services Agreement. As of December 31, 2025, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any potential loss. MDisrupt Litigation In August 2024, MDisrupt, Inc. (“MDisrupt”) filed suit against Safe and Green Medical Corporation (“SG Medco”) and the Company in the 353^rd District Court of Travis County, Texas (Case No. D-1-GN-24-003213) alleging breaches of a consulting services agreement between SG Medco and MDisrupt entered into on or about September 20, 2023 (the “MDisrupt Services Agreement”), alleging a balanced owed of $183,901. SG Medco and the Company dispute MDisrupt’s allegations. Further, the Company was not party to the MDisrupt Services Agreement. As of December 31, 2024, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2024, the estimated potential loss to the Company is $183,901 which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Prakash Chakravarthi Arbitration In April 2026, Prakash Chakravarthi (“Prakash”) filed a complaint and demand for arbitration against NAHD, Olenox, and the Company in Dallas, Texas alleging breaches of the Plan and Agreement of Reorganization (“PAR Agreement”), dated November 8, 2024, by and among NAHD and the shareholders of Machfu, alleging unpaid bank loans and a credit card of Machfu of approximately $513,000, of which Prakash is the personal guarantor. The Company disputes Prakash’s claims and claims that Prakash breached the applicable representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated potential loss to the Company is $513,000, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Machfu Employees Litigation In April 2026, Prakash Chakravarthi, Minakshisundaran Anand, Bharath Kishan, Ajinkya Wakhale, Karen Shariati, and Stanislav Bobovych (collectively, the “Machfu Employees”) filed suit against Machfu, NAHD, Olenox., and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 26-cv-01614-PX) alleging unpaid wages, retaliatory termination, among others. The Company disputes the claims made by the Machfu Employees. The Company believes that Machfu has suffered significant harm as a direct result of the actions of Machfu Employees, resulting in lost revenues. The Company is preparing its answer and counterclaims. The estimated potential loss to the Company is $107,783.57, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the accompanying balance sheets. Sara Garcia Litigation In March 2026, Sara Garcia (“Ms Garcia”) filed a Statement of Claim against Giant and the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court File No. CV-26-00005478-000) alleging wrongful dismissal in the amount of $186,666.67, breach of contract, accrued vacation pay, among others. The Company disputes Ms Garcia’s claims and shortly will be filing its statement of defence. The Company acquired Giant on or about December 18, 2025. Ms Garcia was an employee of Giant at the time of the acquisition. Ms. Garcia was terminated on February 3, 2026 due to Ms Garcia’s performance failures, failure to cooperate with superiors, failure to turn over access and control of Giant’s essential accounts to the Company, including Giant’s bank accounts, Giant’s internal software accounts, Giant’s external software accounts, Giant’s accounting software, among others. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any potential loss. SG Blocks, Inc. v HOLA Community Partners, et. al. On January 22, 2021, the Company filed a Third-Party Complaint in the HOLA Action against Third-Party Defendants Teton Buildings, LLC, Avesi Construction, LLC (Avesi Construction), and American Home Building and Masonry Corp for indemnity and contribution with respect to HOLAs claims. The Company has also notified its general liability carrier, Sompo International (“Sompo”), regarding coverage concerning HOLAs claims On February 25, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing the Company’s claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) default and judicial foreclosure under the Agreement as a security agreement; (4) misappropriation of trade secrets under California Civil Code section 3426; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. 1836; but denied dismissal of the Company’s claims for intentional interference with contractual relations. The Court also denied the Company’s motion to dismiss HOLAs claims. On March 12, 2021, the HOLA Defendants filed an answer to the Company’s complaint against it denying liability and asserting affirmative defences. On March 12, 2021, the Company filed an answer to the HOLA Defendants First Amended Consolidated Complaint against it, denying liability and asserting affirmative defences. On April 26, 2021, the Company and the HOLA Defendants filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss HOLA Community Partners Sixth Claim for Relief (violation of California Business and Professions Code 7031(b)), with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). On July 23, 2021, the Company filed a First Amended Third-Party Complaint adding the following additional third-party defendants seeking, inter alia, contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity; and contribution: American Home Building and Masonry Corp. (American Home), Anderson Air Conditioning, L.P. (Anderson), Broadway Glass and Mirror, Inc. (Broadway), Marne Construction, Inc. (Marne), The McIntyre Company (McIntyre), Dowell & Bradley Construction, Inc. dba J R Construction (JR Construction), Junior Steel Co. (Junior Steel), Saddleback Roofing, Inc. (Saddleback), Schindler Elevator Corporation (Schindler), U.S. Smoke & Fire Corp. (U.S. Smoke), and FirstForm, Inc. (FirstForm) (collectively the” Additional Third Party Defendants”). On September 2, 2021, Schindler filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On September 3, 2021, Junior Steel filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On September 7, 2021, Anderson filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On October 6, 2021, the McIntyre filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On February 7, 2022, the Company filed a request for entry of a clerks default against the following defendants: American Home, Avesi Construction, Marne, FirstForm, JR Construction, Saddleback, and US Smoke. On February 9, 2022, the court entered a clerks default pursuant to Federal Rule 55 against the following defendants: American Home, Avesi Construction, JR Construction, Saddleback and U.S. Smoke. The parties that have answered and appeared in the case are currently engaged in discovery. The dispute between SG Blocks, HCP, and others in the above-described lawsuit settled, and a formal settlement agreement was executed in December 2022. In accordance with the settlement agreement, all funds to be paid were, in fact, paid. On February 27, 2023, the settling parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss All Causes of Action Against All Parties Except Avesi Construction and Saddleback. The claims against the settling parties, pursuant to the settlement, were to be dismissed and have since been dismissed. SG Blocks had taken defaults against Avesi Construction and Saddleback, and is continuing to pursue default judgments against same. On February 17, 2025, the Company executed a Settlement Agreement and Release with Saddleback, to release all claims between the parties. As part of the settlement, Saddleback agreed to pay a settlement payment of $400,000. All of the settlement proceeds were refunded to the Company’s insurer Sompo, based on monies already paid out by Sompo in the underlying matter. As the matter is now settled, the parties will shortly move the court to dismiss the Saddleback matter. SG Blocks, Inc. v. EDI International, PC On June 21, 2019, SG Blocks filed a lawsuit against EDI International, PC (“EDI”), a New Jersey corporation, in connection with the parties consulting agreement dated June 29, 2016, pursuant to which EDI was to provide, for a fee, certain architectural and design services for the original project between the Company and the HOLA Project. The lawsuit is styled SG Blocks, Inc. v. EDI et al., and was filed in California Superior Court, for the County of Los Angeles, case no. 19STCV21725. SG Blocks claims that EDI, tortiously interfered with SG Blocks economic relationship with HCP and HOLA. The complaint seeks in excess of $1,275,754 in damages. EDI, filed a cross-complaint for alleged unpaid fees and tortious interference with EDI contractual relationship with HCP and HOLA. EDI cross-complaint seeks in excess of $30,428.71 in damages. On July 8, 2020, SG Blocks added PVE LLC as a defendant in the lawsuit, claiming PVE LLC is liable to the same extent as EDI. In May 2021, the parties settled EDI affirmative claims, and its cross-complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 23, 2021. On SG Blocks remaining claims, trial was set for October 2024. On or about November 15, 2024, the Company received a jury verdict in its favour in the amount of $1.274 million against EDI styled as SG Blocks, Inc. v EDI et al, case no. 19STCV21725, which has been secured to a judgment. The case is currently proceeding through post-judgment motions and filings. There remains uncertainty whether the Company will be able to collect on the judgment. John Williams Shaw and Leo Patrick Shaw On March 15, 2023, a complaint was filed against John Williams Shaw and Leo Patrick Shaw (collectively, the “March 2023 Defendants”) in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking damages to recover short swing profits from the March 2023 Defendants pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act of 1933. On September 26, 2023, the matter was settled and on, October 3, 2023, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed and so-ordered by the assigned judge. The matter is settled and closed. Concentrations of credit risk The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and generally requires no collateral other than normal lien rights. At December 31, 2025, three customers accounted for 19%, 36%, and 16% of the Company’s accounts receivable. At December 31, 2024, a single customer accounted for 100% of the Company’s accounts receivable. During the year ended December 31, 2025, three customers accounted for 35%, 23%, and 10% of revenue. During the year ended December 31, 2024, a single customer accounted for 83% of revenue For the year ending December 31, 2025 and 2024, there were no vendors that represented 10% or more of our cost of revenue. The Company believes it has access to alternative suppliers, with limited disruption to the business, should circumstances change with its existing suppliers. Employee retention credits In 2020, the World Health Organization publicly characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. The Company recognized a substantial amount of incremental costs during the pandemic, including costs to compensate employees who were not able to work due to facility closures, reduced work schedules or health related reasons. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was signed into law in March 2020, which provided, among other things, an employee retention credit to eligible employers who paid qualified wages to employees during the pandemic. The employee retention credit represents a government grant. The Company’s policy is to recognize government grants when they are reasonably assured of receipt. The Company recognized employee retention tax credits totalling $284,770 during the year ended December 31, 2025, after concluding the recognition threshold had been met. All such credits were classified within ‘other income’ on the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

21. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is subject to certain claims and lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. The Company assesses liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal proceedings utilizing the latest information available. Where it is probable that the Company will incur a loss and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements. These legal accruals may be increased or decreased to reflect any relevant developments on a quarterly basis. Where a loss is not probable or the amount of the loss is not estimable, the Company does not record an accrual, consistent with applicable accounting guidance. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, the Company believes that the established accruals are adequate and the liabilities arising from the legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. However, that in light of the inherent uncertainty in legal proceedings there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of a matter will not exceed established accruals. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter or a combination of matters may be material to the results of operations and cash flows for a particular period, depending upon the size of the loss or the income for that particular period.

Pizzarotti Litigation

On or about August 10, 2018, Pizzarotti, LLC (“Pizzarotti”) filed a complaint against the Company and Mahesh Shetty, the Company’s former President and CFO, and others, seeking unspecified damages for an alleged breach of contract by the Company and another entity named Phipps & Co. (“Phipps”). The lawsuit was filed as Pizzarotti, LLC. v. Phipps & Co., et al., Index No. 653996/2018 and commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York. On or about April 1, 2019, Phipps filed cross-claims against the Company and Mr. Shetty asserting claims for indemnification, contribution, fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. SG Blocks has likewise cross claimed against Phipps for indemnification and contribution, claiming that any damages to the Plaintiff were the result of the acts or omissions of Phipps and its principals.

Pizzarotti’s suit arose from a contract dated April 3, 2018 that it executed with Phipps whereby Pizzarotti, a construction manager, engaged Phipps to perform stone procuring and tile work at a construction project located at 161 Maiden Lane, New York 10038. Pizzarotti’s claims against the Company arise from a purported assignment agreement dated August 10, 2018, whereby Pizzarotti claims that the Company agreed to assume certain obligations of Phipps under a certain trade contract between Pizzarotti and Phipps. Phipps claims against the Company arise from a purported Assignment Agreement, dated as of May 30, 2018, between Pizzarotti, Phipps and the Company (the “Assignment Agreement”), pursuant to which, it is alleged, that the Company agreed to provide a letter of credit in connection with the sub-contracted work to be provided by Phipps to Pizzarotti.

The Company believes that the Assignment Agreement was void for lack of consideration and moved to dismiss the case on those and other grounds. On June 17, 2020, the New York Supreme Court entered an order dismissing certain claims against the Company brought by cross claimant Phipps. Specifically, the court dismissed Phipps claims for indemnification, contribution, fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. However, the court did not dismiss Phipps claim for breach of the Assignment Agreement. The issue of the validity of the Assignment Agreement, and the Company’s defences to the claims brought by the plaintiff Pizzarotti and cross claimant Phipps, are being litigated. The Company maintains that the Assignment Agreement, to the extent valid and enforceable, was properly terminated and/or there are no damages, and, consequently, that the claims brought against the Company are without merit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the litigation. The parties have engaged in written discovery but no depositions have been conducted as of yet. By motion dated February 24, 2021, Pizzarotti moved to stay the entire action pending the outcome of a separate litigation captioned Pizzarotti, LLC v. FPG Maiden Lane, LLC et. al., Index No. 651697/2019, involving some of the same parties (but excluding the Company). Phipps cross moved to consolidate the two actions. The Company opposed both motions. On April 26, 2021, the court denied both motions and directed the parties to meet and confer concerning the scheduling of depositions. On May 10, 2021, the parties jointly filed with the court a proposed order providing the completion of depositions of all parties and non-parties by September 30, 2021. On April 4, 2024, the court entered an order setting forth the following dates for the completion of the parties depositions: (1) deposition of plaintiff shall occur by May 31, 2024, (2) deposition of Phipps shall occur by June 30, 2024, (3) deposition of the Company shall occur by July 20, 2024, (4) deposition of Mr. Shetty shall occur by August 9, 2024, (5) deposition of FPG Maiden Lane, & J. Landau shall occur by August 30, 2024, and (6) depositions of non-parties shall occur by September 30, 2024. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of this action is not predicted with assurance. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome or possible recovery or loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this litigation, and, accordingly, the Company has made no provision related to this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

CPF GP 2019-1, LLC Litigation

In September 2023, a suit was filed in the form of a declaratory judgment to say CPF GP did not owe certain monies to the Company. The Company filed counterclaims for the amounts owed. The case settled in February 2024 in exchange for mutual dismissals and monthly payments of the balance due, which is $745,000 in total to the Company from CPF GP. To date, the Company has not received monthly payments and has not recorded this gain.

Farnam Litigation

In October 2023, Farnam Street Financial, Inc. (“Farnam”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 23-CV-3212) alleging breaches by the Company under a certain lease agreement between Farnam and the Company dated as of October 13, 2021. Farnam sought monies owed under such lease agreement. On August 1, 2024, the Company, SG Echo and SG Environmental Solutions Corp. (“SG Environmental”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) with Farnam to resolve the pending litigation. Simultaneously with the execution of the Settlement, (i) the Company, SG Environmental and Farnam entered into an assignment and assumption agreement, pursuant to which SG Environmental was substituted for the Company as the lessee under the lease agreement, and (ii) SG Environmental and Farnam executed a new Lease Schedule No. 001R (Schedule 1R), which replaced the prior schedule in its entirety. The terms of the Settlement included the following: (i) SG Environmental will be the signatory as the Lessee under the lease; (ii) the initial term (the Initial Term) of Schedule 1R is 18 months; (iii) the Commencement Date of Schedule 1R is August 1, 2024; (iv) the original cost of the equipment subject to Schedule 1R is $1,556,163.00; (v) so long as there has been no default under the lease and Schedule 1R, SG Environmental shall have the option to purchase the equipment at the end of the Initial Term for thirty-five percent (35%) of the original cost of the equipment, or $544,657.05, plus applicable taxes; (vi) the Monthly Lease Charge under Schedule 1R is $65,880.95, plus applicable taxes; and (vii) SG Environmental shall provide a new security deposit under Schedule 1R in the amount of $167,056.00, which shall be paid on or before August 1, 2024. Simultaneously with the execution of the Settlement, the Company and SG Echo executed a guaranty, whereby each of the Company and SG Echo jointly and severally guarantee SG Environmentals’ full and prompt payment and performance under the lease and Schedule 1R. Per the Settlement, Farnam shall retain as income all prior payments from the Company (or any Company affiliate) under the lease, the prior schedule, or any other agreement with the Company or its affiliates, including all monthly lease charges, interim rent, taxes, interest, fees, late charges, and any security deposits, including the deposit under the prior schedule. Under the terms of the Settlement, Farnam and the Company each agree to waive and release any and all claims against the other, except with respect to each party’s performance under the Settlement and each partys future obligations under the lease, Schedule 1R and guaranty agreements. The case remains ongoing as disputes have arisen post-Settlement between the Company and Farnam. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any potential loss, besides the original amounts of approximately $1.5 million which are included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

American Express Litigation

In December 2023, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (AMEX) filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Case No. 162231/2023) alleging breaches of a commercial credit card agreement between AMEX and the Company, dated as of November 8, 2022. AMEX sought monies owed under the commercial credit card agreement, with a balance of $232,218.94 as of the commencement of the action. In August 2024, AMEX filed a Motion for Default Judgment, which was granted by the court on or about September 19, 2024, for the amount of damages requested in AMEXs motion. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated potential loss to the Company is approximately $232,000 which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Choctaw Litigation

In March 2024, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (“Choctaw Nation”) filed suit against SG Echo and the Company in the District Court of Bryan County, State of Oklahoma (Case No. CJ-2024-41) alleging: (a) breaches by SG Echo under a certain commercial lease agreement between SG Echo and the Choctaw Nation related to commercial property located at 2917 Big Lots Road, Durant, Oklahoma 74701; and (b) declaratory and injunctive relief relating to certain cranes, declaring the Choctaw Nation to be the owner of the cranes and not SG Echo. The Company disputes the Choctaw Nations allegations. As of December 31, 2025, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated potential loss to the Company is approximately $138,000 which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Durant Industrial Authority Litigation

In November 2024, the filed suit against the Company, SG Echo, and among others, alleging breaches by the Company and SG Echo under a certain forgivable promissory note executed between SG Echo as the borrower and the Authority as the lender in the principal sum of $750,000, the Forgivable Note. The indebtedness under the Forgivable Note would be forgiven in three separate phases based upon the schedule set forth in the Forgivable Note. The Authority’s allegations include, among others, that due to SG Echos’ alleged breaches, the Forgivable Note is no longer forgivable and has been accelerated and is due in full. The Company and SG Echo dispute the Authoritys allegations. As of December 31, 2025, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any additional potential loss, however as of December 31, 2025, the $750,000 is included in short-term notes payable on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Rulien Litigation

In March, 2024, Rulien Advisors, LLC (“Rulien”) filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Commercial Division, Kings County (Case No. 506426/2024) alleging breaches of a consulting agreement entered into by the Company and Rulien dated as of December 17, 2018 (the “Consulting Agreement”), whereby the Company engaged Rulien to act as a non-exclusive independent sales representative to promote the sale of, and to solicit orders for, products and services offered for sale by the Company. Rulien alleges that it has earned commissions of $1,373,750 for (a) the alleged sale of property located at 1900 American Drive, Lago Vista, Texas, and (b) the Company’s spin-off of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Safe and Green Development Corporation, into a separate publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The Company disputes Rulien’s claims. The case remains pending. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome or possible recovery or loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of this litigation, and, accordingly, the Company has made no provision related to this matter in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Caliber Litigation

In June 2024, Caliber Corporate Advisers, LLC (“Caliber”) filed suit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Case No. 652893/2024) alleging breaches of a Consulting Services Agreement between Caliber and the Company (the “Services Agreement”), alleging a balance owed of $46,350. The Company disputes Caliber’s claims, and claims that Caliber failed to provide meaningful services as set forth in the Services Agreement. As of December 31, 2025, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any potential loss.

MDisrupt Litigation

In August 2024, MDisrupt, Inc. (“MDisrupt”) filed suit against Safe and Green Medical Corporation (“SG Medco”) and the Company in the 353^rd District Court of Travis County, Texas (Case No. D-1-GN-24-003213) alleging breaches of a consulting services agreement between SG Medco and MDisrupt entered into on or about September 20, 2023 (the “MDisrupt Services Agreement”), alleging a balanced owed of $183,901. SG Medco and the Company dispute MDisrupt’s allegations. Further, the Company was not party to the MDisrupt Services Agreement. As of December 31, 2024, the case remains pending. As of December 31, 2024, the estimated potential loss to the Company is $183,901 which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Prakash Chakravarthi Arbitration

In April 2026, Prakash Chakravarthi (“Prakash”) filed a complaint and demand for arbitration against NAHD, Olenox, and the Company in Dallas, Texas alleging breaches of the Plan and Agreement of Reorganization (“PAR Agreement”), dated November 8, 2024, by and among NAHD and the shareholders of Machfu, alleging unpaid bank loans and a credit card of Machfu of approximately $513,000, of which Prakash is the personal guarantor. The Company disputes Prakash’s claims and claims that Prakash breached the applicable representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement. As of December 31, 2025, the estimated potential loss to the Company is $513,000, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Machfu Employees Litigation

In April 2026, Prakash Chakravarthi, Minakshisundaran Anand, Bharath Kishan, Ajinkya Wakhale, Karen Shariati, and Stanislav Bobovych (collectively, the “Machfu Employees”) filed suit against Machfu, NAHD, Olenox., and the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 26-cv-01614-PX) alleging unpaid wages, retaliatory termination, among others. The Company disputes the claims made by the Machfu Employees. The Company believes that Machfu has suffered significant harm as a direct result of the actions of Machfu Employees, resulting in lost revenues. The Company is preparing its answer and counterclaims. The estimated potential loss to the Company is $107,783.57, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the accompanying balance sheets.

Sara Garcia Litigation

In March 2026, Sara Garcia (“Ms Garcia”) filed a Statement of Claim against Giant and the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court File No. CV-26-00005478-000) alleging wrongful dismissal in the amount of $186,666.67, breach of contract, accrued vacation pay, among others. The Company disputes Ms Garcia’s claims and shortly will be filing its statement of defence. The Company acquired Giant on or about December 18, 2025. Ms Garcia was an employee of Giant at the time of the acquisition. Ms. Garcia was terminated on February 3, 2026 due to Ms Garcia’s performance failures, failure to cooperate with superiors, failure to turn over access and control of Giant’s essential accounts to the Company, including Giant’s bank accounts, Giant’s internal software accounts, Giant’s external software accounts, Giant’s accounting software, among others. As of December 31, 2025, the Company cannot estimate any potential loss.

SG Blocks, Inc. v HOLA Community Partners, et. al.

On January 22, 2021, the Company filed a Third-Party Complaint in the HOLA Action against Third-Party Defendants Teton Buildings, LLC, Avesi Construction, LLC (Avesi Construction), and American Home Building and Masonry Corp for indemnity and contribution with respect to HOLAs claims. The Company has also notified its general liability carrier, Sompo International (“Sompo”), regarding coverage concerning HOLAs claims On February 25, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing the Company’s claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) default and judicial foreclosure under the Agreement as a security agreement; (4) misappropriation of trade secrets under California Civil Code section 3426; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. 1836; but denied dismissal of the Company’s claims for intentional interference with contractual relations. The Court also denied the Company’s motion to dismiss HOLAs claims.

On March 12, 2021, the HOLA Defendants filed an answer to the Company’s complaint against it denying liability and asserting affirmative defences. On March 12, 2021, the Company filed an answer to the HOLA Defendants First Amended Consolidated Complaint against it, denying liability and asserting affirmative defences.

On April 26, 2021, the Company and the HOLA Defendants filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss HOLA Community Partners Sixth Claim for Relief (violation of California Business and Professions Code 7031(b)), with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

On July 23, 2021, the Company filed a First Amended Third-Party Complaint adding the following additional third-party defendants seeking, inter alia, contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity; and contribution: American Home Building and Masonry Corp. (American Home), Anderson Air Conditioning, L.P. (Anderson), Broadway Glass and Mirror, Inc. (Broadway), Marne Construction, Inc. (Marne), The McIntyre Company (McIntyre), Dowell & Bradley Construction, Inc. dba J R Construction (JR Construction), Junior Steel Co. (Junior Steel), Saddleback Roofing, Inc. (Saddleback), Schindler Elevator Corporation (Schindler), U.S. Smoke & Fire Corp. (U.S. Smoke), and FirstForm, Inc. (FirstForm) (collectively the” Additional Third Party Defendants”).

On September 2, 2021, Schindler filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On September 3, 2021, Junior Steel filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On September 7, 2021, Anderson filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint. On October 6, 2021, the McIntyre filed its answer to the First Amended Third-Party Complaint.

On February 7, 2022, the Company filed a request for entry of a clerks default against the following defendants: American Home, Avesi Construction, Marne, FirstForm, JR Construction, Saddleback, and US Smoke. On February 9, 2022, the court entered a clerks default pursuant to Federal Rule 55 against the following defendants: American Home, Avesi Construction, JR Construction, Saddleback and U.S. Smoke. The parties that have answered and appeared in the case are currently engaged in discovery.

The dispute between SG Blocks, HCP, and others in the above-described lawsuit settled, and a formal settlement agreement was executed in December 2022. In accordance with the settlement agreement, all funds to be paid were, in fact, paid. On February 27, 2023, the settling parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss All Causes of Action Against All Parties Except Avesi Construction and Saddleback. The claims against the settling parties, pursuant to the settlement, were to be dismissed and have since been dismissed. SG Blocks had taken defaults against Avesi Construction and Saddleback, and is continuing to pursue default judgments against same.

On February 17, 2025, the Company executed a Settlement Agreement and Release with Saddleback, to release all claims between the parties. As part of the settlement, Saddleback agreed to pay a settlement payment of $400,000. All of the settlement proceeds were refunded to the Company’s insurer Sompo, based on monies already paid out by Sompo in the underlying matter. As the matter is now settled, the parties will shortly move the court to dismiss the Saddleback matter.

SG Blocks, Inc. v. EDI International, PC

On June 21, 2019, SG Blocks filed a lawsuit against EDI International, PC (“EDI”), a New Jersey corporation, in connection with the parties consulting agreement dated June 29, 2016, pursuant to which EDI was to provide, for a fee, certain architectural and design services for the original project between the Company and the HOLA Project. The lawsuit is styled SG Blocks, Inc. v. EDI et al., and was filed in California Superior Court, for the County of Los Angeles, case no. 19STCV21725. SG Blocks claims that EDI, tortiously interfered with SG Blocks economic relationship with HCP and HOLA. The complaint seeks in excess of $1,275,754 in damages. EDI, filed a cross-complaint for alleged unpaid fees and tortious interference with EDI contractual relationship with HCP and HOLA. EDI cross-complaint seeks in excess of $30,428.71 in damages. On July 8, 2020, SG Blocks added PVE LLC as a defendant in the lawsuit, claiming PVE LLC is liable to the same extent as EDI. In May 2021, the parties settled EDI affirmative claims, and its cross-complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 23, 2021. On SG Blocks remaining claims, trial was set for October 2024. On or about November 15, 2024, the Company received a jury verdict in its favour in the amount of $1.274 million against EDI styled as SG Blocks, Inc. v EDI et al, case no. 19STCV21725, which has been secured to a judgment. The case is currently proceeding through post-judgment motions and filings. There remains uncertainty whether the Company will be able to collect on the judgment.

John Williams Shaw and Leo Patrick Shaw

On March 15, 2023, a complaint was filed against John Williams Shaw and Leo Patrick Shaw (collectively, the “March 2023 Defendants”) in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking damages to recover short swing profits from the March 2023 Defendants pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act of 1933. On September 26, 2023, the matter was settled and on, October 3, 2023, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed and so-ordered by the assigned judge. The matter is settled and closed.

Concentrations of credit risk

The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and generally requires no collateral other than normal lien rights. At December 31, 2025, three customers accounted for 19%, 36%, and 16% of the Company’s accounts receivable. At December 31, 2024, a single customer accounted for 100% of the Company’s accounts receivable.

During the year ended December 31, 2025, three customers accounted for 35%, 23%, and 10% of revenue. During the year ended December 31, 2024, a single customer accounted for 83% of revenue

For the year ending December 31, 2025 and 2024, there were no vendors that represented 10% or more of our cost of revenue. The Company believes it has access to alternative suppliers, with limited disruption to the business, should circumstances change with its existing suppliers.

Employee retention credits

In 2020, the World Health Organization publicly characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. The Company recognized a substantial amount of incremental costs during the pandemic, including costs to compensate employees who were not able to work due to facility closures, reduced work schedules or health related reasons. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was signed into law in March 2020, which provided, among other things, an employee retention credit to eligible employers who paid qualified wages to employees during the pandemic. The employee retention credit represents a government grant. The Company’s policy is to recognize government grants when they are reasonably assured of receipt. The Company recognized employee retention tax credits totalling $284,770 during the year ended December 31, 2025, after concluding the recognition threshold had been met. All such credits were classified within ‘other income’ on the accompanying consolidated statement of operations.