COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	NOTE 14: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES a. Guarantees: As of June 30, 2026, contingent liabilities exist regarding guarantees in the amounts of $5,983, $5,044 and $4,561 for office rent lease agreements, custom transactions, and securing projects with customers and vendors and other transactions, respectively. b. Contractual purchase obligations: The Company has contractual obligations to purchase goods and raw materials. These contractual purchase obligations relate to inventories and other purchase orders, which cannot be canceled without penalty. In addition, the Company acquires raw materials or other goods and services, including product components, by issuing authorizations to its suppliers to purchase materials based on its projected demand and manufacturing needs. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had non-cancellable purchase obligations totaling approximately $339,980, out of which the Company recorded a provision for loss in the amount of $24,324. As of June 30, 2026, the Company had contractual obligations for capital expenditures totaling approximately $12,793. These commitments reflect purchases of automated assembly lines and other machinery related to the Company’s general manufacturing process and are primarily for its new manufacturing sites in the U.S. c. Legal claims: From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings. The Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. These accruals are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. As of June 30, 2026, the Company recorded an accrual of $68,749 for legal claims which was recorded under accrued expenses and other current liabilities and recognized a related insurance receivable of $55,000. On November 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company’s former CEO and the Company’s former CFO. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. On December 13, 2023, Javier Cascallar filed a similar proposed class action. On January 2, 2024, six purported lead plaintiffs filed motions in the Shen litigation seeking to consolidate the Cascallar and Shen litigations and appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On February 7, 2024, the Court consolidated the two actions (the “Consolidated Securities Litigation”), and appointed co-lead plaintiffs (the “Plaintiffs”) and lead counsel. On April 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two additional officers. The amended complaint made substantially similar allegations and claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2024 (the "Motion"), and the motion was fully briefed as of September 17, 2024. On December 4, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part the Motion, dismissing all allegations except those relating to two purported misstatements, characterizing inventory levels as low. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to again amend their complaint, and they filed a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) on January 3, 2025. On February 10, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint insofar as it attempts to resurrect any of the allegations dismissed in the Court’s December 4, 2024 order. On April 7, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part the second motion to dismiss, dismissing all allegations except those characterizing inventory levels as “low” and those relating to demand in Europe. Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 17, 2025, and Defendants filed their opposition on January 16, 2026. Plaintiffs’ reply was due on February 20, 2026. The parties held a mediation on February 5, 2026 but no resolution was reached at that time. On March 20, 2026, the mediator made a double-blind settlement recommendation of $55,000, which was accepted by both parties on March 26, 2026. On April 21, 2026, Lead Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 1, 2026, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a settlement hearing for August 24, 2026. The $55,000 settlement payment has already been paid into an escrow account by SolarEdge’s insurance carriers. The Company and the individual defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, and the settlement does not constitute any admission of liability. On March 15, 2024, Abdul Hirani filed a purported derivative complaint (the “Hirani Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain current and former SolarEdge executive officers and board members, including Zvi Lando, Ronen Faier, Nadav Zafrir, Betsy Atkins, Marcel Gani, Dana Gross, Dirk Hoke, Avery More, and Tal Payne. The Hirani Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. The Hirani Complaint brings claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) waste of corporate assets, and (v) securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. On June 10, 2024, Jonathan Blaufarb filed a second purported derivative complaint (the “Blaufarb Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same defendants as those named in the Hirani Complaint as well as Lior Danziger and J.B. Lowe. The Blaufarb Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and seeks declaratory relief, corporate governance reforms, damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. It also pleads the same counts as those in the Hirani Complaint, as well as additional counts for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. Defendants accepted service of the Hirani and Blaufarb complaints via stipulation that was so-ordered on July 12, 2024, and the two cases were consolidated with the Hirani matter designated as the lead case (together, the “Consolidated Derivative Actions”). On September 9, 2024 the parties agreed to stay the Hirani and Blaufarb actions pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. Following the decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation, the parties entered into a new stipulation on June 20, 2025, staying this consolidated derivative action through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. On August 7, 2024, Edwin Isaac filed a purported derivative complaint (the “Isaac Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the same defendants as those named in the Consolidated Derivative Actions. The Isaac Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. It also pleads the similar counts to those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) contribution, (iii) violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, (iv) unjust enrichment, (v) waste of corporate assets, and (vi) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, damages, interest, unspecified equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The parties filed a stipulation on June 30, 2025, agreeing to stay the Isaac matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. On May 22, 2025, Mike Maddox, a purported shareholder, filed a derivative complaint (the “Maddox Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same Defendants as those named in the earlier-filed derivative actions. The Maddox Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in the other derivative actions, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) waste of corporate assets, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The parties filed a stipulation on July 21, 2025, agreeing to stay the Maddox Complaint through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. On September 9, 2025, Jerald F. Chauncey, Jr. filed a complaint (the “Chauncey Complaint”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, against the same defendants as those named in the other derivative actions. The Chauncey Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in other derivative actions, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) waste of corporate assets. The parties filed a stipulation on October 7, 2025, agreeing to stay the Chauncey matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. On July 29, 2026, Sara Per (“Per”) filed a purported derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the same Defendants as those named in the Consolidated Derivative Action. The Per complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in the Consolidated Derivative Action, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) waste of corporate assets, and (iv) unjust enrichment. The parties intend to file a stipulation agreeing to stay the Per matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. On July 30, 2026, Andres Bolin Rivera (“Rivera”) filed a purported derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the same Defendants as those named in the Consolidated Derivative Action. The Rivera complaint, which is currently filed under seal, likely makes largely the same allegations as those in the Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. The parties intend to file a stipulation agreeing to stay the Rivera matter through the close of fact discovery in the Securities Litigation. On January 13, 2025, Stellantis Europe S.p.A. (“Stellantis”) submitted an application for injunctive relief, to the Court of Turin, Italy, claiming that SolarEdge e-Mobility was allegedly in breach of contract. The application for injunctive relief is aimed at obtaining the following interim measures: (i) to order the Company to resume supply of spare parts and technical assistance activities in favor of Stellantis; and (ii) to order the Company to pay a penalty of 100,000 EUR for each day of delay in fulfilling the order above. At a hearing on February 25, 2025 the parties discussed the case. On May 8, 2025, the court denied Stellantis’ request for injunction and on July 2, 2025 Stellantis appealed. A hearing on the appeal was held on March 13, 2026, and by an order issued on May 6, 2026, the Court of Turin rejected the appeal filed by Stellantis. On February 11, 2026, the Company completed the sale of SolarEdge e-Mobility. On September 15, 2025, Ampt, LLC (“Ampt”) filed a lawsuit in the District of Delaware seeking to enforce an agreement between Ampt and the Company. The Company had invoked a force majeure clause in relation to its performance of the agreement, valued at $54 million over a period of five years, in October 2023. The Company filed an answer on December 1, 2025, and the court ordered a disclosure schedule to begin in January 2026. The case is scheduled for trial on November 1, 2027. On January 5, 2026, the parties met for mediation, which has been inconclusive. Fact discovery commenced during the first half of 2026. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them. d. Tariff contingencies: On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). Following the decision and subsequent actions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), the Company became eligible to claim refunds of previously paid IEEPA-related duties. The Company accounts for refunds of previously paid IEEPA tariffs by applying a gain contingency model and recognizes such refunds only when the gain is realized or realizable. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, the Company received and recognized refunds and associated interest of $13,606 from CBP related to tariffs paid during fiscal 2025 and the first quarter of fiscal 2026, of which $13,282 was recognized as a reduction to cost of revenues and $324 was recognized as interest income in the three and six months ended June 30, 2026.

a. Guarantees:

As of June 30, 2026, contingent liabilities exist regarding guarantees in the amounts of $5,983, $5,044 and $4,561 for office rent lease agreements, custom transactions, and securing projects with customers and vendors and other transactions, respectively.

b. Contractual purchase obligations:

The Company has contractual obligations to purchase goods and raw materials. These contractual purchase obligations relate to inventories and other purchase orders, which cannot be canceled without penalty. In addition, the Company acquires raw materials or other goods and services, including product components, by issuing authorizations to its suppliers to purchase materials based on its projected demand and manufacturing needs.

As of June 30, 2026, the Company had non-cancellable purchase obligations totaling approximately $339,980, out of which the Company recorded a provision for loss in the amount of $24,324.

As of June 30, 2026, the Company had contractual obligations for capital expenditures totaling approximately $12,793. These commitments reflect purchases of automated assembly lines and other machinery related to the Company’s general manufacturing process and are primarily for its new manufacturing sites in the U.S.

c. Legal claims:

From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings. The Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. These accruals are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter.

As of June 30, 2026, the Company recorded an accrual of $68,749 for legal claims which was recorded under accrued expenses and other current liabilities and recognized a related insurance receivable of $55,000.

On November 3, 2023, Daphne Shen, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a proposed class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws, individually and putatively on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company’s former CEO and the Company’s former CFO. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. On December 13, 2023, Javier Cascallar filed a similar proposed class action. On January 2, 2024, six purported lead plaintiffs filed motions in the Shen litigation seeking to consolidate the Cascallar and Shen litigations and appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On February 7, 2024, the Court consolidated the two actions (the “Consolidated Securities Litigation”), and appointed co-lead plaintiffs (the “Plaintiffs”) and lead counsel. On April 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two additional officers. The amended complaint made substantially similar allegations and claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2024 (the "Motion"), and the motion was fully briefed as of September 17, 2024. On December 4, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part the Motion, dismissing all allegations except those relating to two purported misstatements, characterizing inventory levels as low. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to again amend their complaint, and they filed a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) on January 3, 2025. On February 10, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint insofar as it attempts to resurrect any of the allegations dismissed in the Court’s December 4, 2024 order. On April 7, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part the second motion to dismiss, dismissing all allegations except those characterizing inventory levels as “low” and those relating to demand in Europe. Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 17, 2025, and Defendants filed their opposition on January 16, 2026. Plaintiffs’ reply was due on February 20, 2026. The parties held a mediation on February 5, 2026 but no resolution was reached at that time. On March 20, 2026, the mediator made a double-blind settlement recommendation of $55,000, which was accepted by both parties on March 26, 2026. On April 21, 2026, Lead Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 1, 2026, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a settlement hearing for August 24, 2026. The $55,000 settlement payment has already been paid into an escrow account by SolarEdge’s insurance carriers. The Company and the individual defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, and the settlement does not constitute any admission of liability.

On March 15, 2024, Abdul Hirani filed a purported derivative complaint (the “Hirani Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain current and former SolarEdge executive officers and board members, including Zvi Lando, Ronen Faier, Nadav Zafrir, Betsy Atkins, Marcel Gani, Dana Gross, Dirk Hoke, Avery More, and Tal Payne. The Hirani Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. The Hirani Complaint brings claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) waste of corporate assets, and (v) securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.

On June 10, 2024, Jonathan Blaufarb filed a second purported derivative complaint (the “Blaufarb Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same defendants as those named in the Hirani Complaint as well as Lior Danziger and J.B. Lowe. The Blaufarb Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and seeks declaratory relief, corporate governance reforms, damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. It also pleads the same counts as those in the Hirani Complaint, as well as additional counts for abuse of control and gross mismanagement. Defendants accepted service of the Hirani and Blaufarb complaints via stipulation that was so-ordered on July 12, 2024, and the two cases were consolidated with the Hirani matter designated as the lead case (together, the “Consolidated Derivative Actions”). On September 9, 2024 the parties agreed to stay the Hirani and Blaufarb actions pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. Following the decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation, the parties entered into a new stipulation on June 20, 2025, staying this consolidated derivative action through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation.

On August 7, 2024, Edwin Isaac filed a purported derivative complaint (the “Isaac Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the same defendants as those named in the Consolidated Derivative Actions. The Isaac Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation. It also pleads the similar counts to those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) contribution, (iii) violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, (iv) unjust enrichment, (v) waste of corporate assets, and (vi) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, damages, interest, unspecified equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The parties filed a stipulation on June 30, 2025, agreeing to stay the Isaac matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation.

On May 22, 2025, Mike Maddox, a purported shareholder, filed a derivative complaint (the “Maddox Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the same Defendants as those named in the earlier-filed derivative actions. The Maddox Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in the other derivative actions, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) waste of corporate assets, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The parties filed a stipulation on July 21, 2025, agreeing to stay the Maddox Complaint through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation.

On September 9, 2025, Jerald F. Chauncey, Jr. filed a complaint (the “Chauncey Complaint”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, against the same defendants as those named in the other derivative actions. The Chauncey Complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Consolidated Securities Litigation and other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in other derivative actions, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) waste of corporate assets. The parties filed a stipulation on October 7, 2025, agreeing to stay the Chauncey matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation.

On July 29, 2026, Sara Per (“Per”) filed a purported derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the same Defendants as those named in the Consolidated Derivative Action. The Per complaint makes largely the same allegations as those in the Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. It also pleads similar counts to those in the Consolidated Derivative Action, including (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) waste of corporate assets, and (iv) unjust enrichment. The parties intend to file a stipulation agreeing to stay the Per matter through the close of fact discovery in the Consolidated Securities Litigation.

On July 30, 2026, Andres Bolin Rivera (“Rivera”) filed a purported derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the same Defendants as those named in the Consolidated Derivative Action. The Rivera complaint, which is currently filed under seal, likely makes largely the same allegations as those in the Securities Litigation and the other derivative actions. The parties intend to file a stipulation agreeing to stay the Rivera matter through the close of fact discovery in the Securities Litigation.

On January 13, 2025, Stellantis Europe S.p.A. (“Stellantis”) submitted an application for injunctive relief, to the Court of Turin, Italy, claiming that SolarEdge e-Mobility was allegedly in breach of contract. The application for injunctive relief is aimed at obtaining the following interim measures: (i) to order the Company to resume supply of spare parts and technical assistance activities in favor of Stellantis; and (ii) to order the Company to pay a penalty of 100,000 EUR for each day of delay in fulfilling the order above. At a hearing on February 25, 2025 the parties discussed the case. On May 8, 2025, the court denied Stellantis’ request for injunction and on July 2, 2025 Stellantis appealed. A hearing on the appeal was held on March 13, 2026, and by an order issued on May 6, 2026, the Court of Turin rejected the appeal filed by Stellantis. On February 11, 2026, the Company completed the sale of SolarEdge e-Mobility.

On September 15, 2025, Ampt, LLC (“Ampt”) filed a lawsuit in the District of Delaware seeking to enforce an agreement between Ampt and the Company. The Company had invoked a force majeure clause in relation to its performance of the agreement, valued at $54 million over a period of five years, in October 2023. The Company filed an answer on December 1, 2025, and the court ordered a disclosure schedule to begin in January 2026. The case is scheduled for trial on November 1, 2027. On January 5, 2026, the parties met for mediation, which has been inconclusive. Fact discovery commenced during the first half of 2026. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them.

d. Tariff contingencies:

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). Following the decision and subsequent actions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), the Company became eligible to claim refunds of previously paid IEEPA-related duties. The Company accounts for refunds of previously paid IEEPA tariffs by applying a gain contingency model and recognizes such refunds only when the gain is realized or realizable. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, the Company received and recognized refunds and associated interest of $13,606 from CBP related to tariffs paid during fiscal 2025 and the first quarter of fiscal 2026, of which $13,282 was recognized as a reduction to cost of revenues and $324 was recognized as interest income in the three and six months ended June 30, 2026.