From time to time, we might be subject to various legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against us in a reporting period for amounts above management’s expectations, our business, results of operations, financial position and cash flows for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. Except as described in this Item 1, we are not currently involved in any material legal proceedings, the ultimate disposition of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial condition or cash flows. Securities Class Action Lawsuits On July 15, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against us, our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer (collectively, the “Initial Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04249 (the “Securities Class Action”), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023. The Securities Class Action alleges that Initial Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On or about July 29, 2024, six additional stockholders filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have their selection of counsel appointed as lead counsel in the Securities Class Action. The Court held a hearing on the lead plaintiff motions on September 5, 2024, and appointed Lon D. Praytor as lead plaintiff on March 31, 2025. On April 17, 2025, movant Andrey Ponomarchuk filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order appointing Praytor as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Praytor filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by Enphase and our chief executive officer, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023 and removing our chief financial officer as a defendant (the remaining defendants referred herein as “Hayes Defendants”). Hayes Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2025. Lead plaintiff filed his opposition on August 15, 2025, and Hayes Defendants filed their reply on September 15, 2025. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for September 17, 2026. On December 13, 2024, another putative class action complaint was filed naming us, our chief executive officer and our chief products officer (collectively, “Trustees Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Trustees of the Welfare and Pension Funds of Local 464A v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-09038 (the “Pension Fund Action”), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 25, 2023 and October 22, 2024. The Pension Fund Action alleges that Trustees Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On or about February 11, 2025, several additional stockholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Pension Fund Action and have their selection of counsel appointed as lead counsel. On August 20, 2025, the Court appointed HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment-GMBH as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on October 20, 2025. Trustees Defendants’ filed their motion to dismiss on December 12, 2025. Lead plaintiff filed its opposition on February 10, 2026, and Trustees Defendants filed their reply on March 27, 2026. The Court vacated the previously scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss, but has not yet issued a decision. We dispute the allegations in each of the above-referenced lawsuits and intend to defend the matters vigorously. On February 17, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed naming us, our chief executive officer, and our chief financial officer (together “Tripathi Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Tripathi v. Enphase Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-01380 (the “Tripathi Action”), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 22, 2025 and October 28, 2025. The Tripathi Action alleges that Tripathi Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 7, 2026, the Court appointed Heather Stith as lead plaintiff and approved her selection of lead counsel in the Tripathi Action. The plaintiff’s amended complaint is due on September 8, 2026, and our motion to dismiss is due on November 9, 2026. Enphase Energy, Inc. | 2026 Form 10-Q | 45 Table of Contents We dispute the allegations in each of the above-referenced lawsuits and intend to defend the matters vigorously. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits On July 16, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on our behalf against the Initial Defendants, our non-employee directors and us (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ibarra v. Kothandaraman, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-04278 (the “Ibarra Action”). The Ibarra Action asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based on the purported dissemination of substantially the same allegedly false and misleading statements asserted in the Securities Class Action. The Ibarra Action is seeking unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. On September 5, 2024, another shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on our behalf against the Initial Defendants, our non-employee directors and us (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Isaac v. Kothandaraman, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-06257 (the “Isaac Action”), containing substantially the same allegations as those in the Ibarra Action. On September 20, 2024, the Court consolidated the Isaac and Ibarra Actions for all purposes into one action under the title In re Enphase Energy, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (the “Derivative Action”). On October 11, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the Derivative Action until all motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action are decided. On December 31, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on our behalf against Trustees Defendants, our non-employee directors and us (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hirani v. Kothandaraman, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-09532 (the “Hirani Action”). The Hirani Action asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based on the purported dissemination of substantially the same allegedly false and misleading statements asserted in the Pension Fund Action. The Hirani Action is seeking unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. On January 17, 2025, another shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on our behalf against Defendants II, our non-employee directors and us (as nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hanowski v. Kothandaraman, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-000652 (the “Hanowski Action”). The Hanowski Action asserts claims substantially similar to those asserted in the Hirani Action, also based on the same allegedly false and misleading statements asserted in the Pension Fund Action. The Hanowski Action is seeking unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. On January 31, 2025, the plaintiffs in the Hirani and Hanowski Actions filed a motion to relate their actions to the Pension Fund Action, which the Court approved on February 18, 2025. On March 7, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the Hirani and Hanowski Actions for all purposes into one action under the title In re Enphase Energy, Inc. 2025 Shareholder Derivative Litigation (the “Derivative II Action”). On May 8, 2025, the Court stayed the Derivative II Action pending resolution of all motion(s) to dismiss in the Pension Fund Action. On January 28, 2026, purported shareholder Ahmed Ibrahim filed a motion to intervene in the Derivative II Action. On February 25, 2026, Trustees Defendants and Plaintiff Hanowski filed responses to Ibrahim’s intervention motion. Ibrahim filed his reply on March 6, 2026. On March 12, 2026, proposed intervenors Edwin Isaac and Edna Martin filed a separate motion to intervene. On March 13, 2026, Hanowski filed an administrative motion seeking permission to file a sur-reply to Ibrahim’s reply brief. Ibrahim opposed the sur-reply motion on March 16, 2026. On March 26, 2026, Ibrahim and Trustees Defendants filed responses to the Isaac and Martin motion to intervene. The following day, the Court granted Hanowski’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. On April 2, 2026, Isaac and Martin filed their reply in support of their motion to intervene. On April 9, 2026, the Court denied both motions to intervene, and the case remains stayed. On April 23, 2026, purported shareholder Terrence Collins filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware against our non-employee directors and certain of our executives captioned Collins v. Kothandaraman, et al., Case No. 2026-0519 (the “Collins Action”). The Collins Action alleges that the defendants Enphase Energy, Inc. | 2026 Form 10-Q | 46 Table of Contents purportedly breached their fiduciary duties in connection with allowing the issuance of the statements challenged in the Securities Class Action, the Pension Fund Action, and the Tripathi Action, as well as in connection with purported sales of stock. The Collins Action seeks unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures. We dispute the allegations in each of the above-referenced lawsuits and intend to defend the matters vigorously. The pending lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. We could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of the pending lawsuits and any additional lawsuits, and we may not prevail. In addition, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with such lawsuits.