Nikola Corporation

2. Trevor Milton Was Granted Presidential Pardon

Sources state that President Donald Trump pardoned Milton on March 28, 2025, following his fraud conviction and four-year sentence. One report said Milton had not served the sentence because of post-trial litigation.

On 28 March 2025, Reuters reported that a White House official had confirmed President Donald Trump’s pardon of Trevor Milton, Nikola Corporation’s founder and former executive chairman, following Milton’s fraud conviction arising from statements to investors about Nikola’s technology. Reuters reported that Milton had been convicted in October 2022 of one count of securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud, while being acquitted of an additional securities-fraud count; it also reported that he had received a four-year prison sentence in 2023 after a jury found that he had lied to investors about Nikola’s technology. The underlying criminal prosecution and sentence are addressed elsewhere in this report.

The Department of Justice’s Executive Grant of Clemency in United States v. Milton, No. 1:21-cr-478 records that Trump granted Milton a “full and unconditional pardon” and remitted all court-ordered fines, penalties, forfeitures and restitution. Although the DOJ document is dated 27 March 2025 in its source listing, the day of execution in the displayed instrument is illegible; it therefore does not independently establish the precise grant date. Land Line Media reported on 31 March 2025 that Milton had not served the prison term because of post-trial litigation. Our investigations did not yield further findings on the final status or disposition of Milton’s post-trial litigation.

3. Former CEO Ordered to Pay $167.7 Million Arbitration Award

An arbitration panel found that Milton breached fiduciary duties through a pattern of false and misleading public statements and awarded Nikola approximately $167.7 million, including 97% of the SEC fine and legal and professional expenses. A federal court confirmed the award in September 2024, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed confirmation in February 2026.

On 3 November 2021, Nikola Corporation initiated American Arbitration Association proceedings against its founder and former Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, Trevor R. Milton, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking damages. The proceedings arose under the parties’ 2020 Separation Agreement, which required disputes connected with the agreement or the relationship between Milton and Nikola to be resolved through binding arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona. The arbitration followed Nikola’s $125 million December 2021 settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), an event addressed separately in this report.

Following hearings from 24 July to 2 August 2023, a majority of the three-member panel issued its final award on 17 November 2023, finding that Milton had breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith through a pattern of false and misleading public statements about Nikola and by circumventing prior review and approval of his public statements. The majority concluded that Milton was not entitled to indemnification, but was entitled to contribution based on relative fault; it assigned him 97% of the SEC fine and certain legal and professional fees, while attributing 3% responsibility to Nikola for its delayed adoption of formal policies to prevent the statements after informal measures had failed. The resulting award totalled approximately $167.7 million, comprising $121.250 million relating to the SEC fine and approximately $46.477 million in legal and professional fees and expenses. Because Nikola had then paid $38 million of the $125 million SEC fine, the panel ordered Milton to pay $83.337 million immediately; payment of the remaining $84.363 million was contingent on Nikola paying the outstanding balance of that fine. One arbitrator dissented, principally on the contribution allocation and the relative fault of Milton and Nikola’s other directors, officers and employees.

On 9 September 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied Milton’s motion to vacate or modify the award, granted Nikola’s petition for confirmation, and directed entry of judgment. The court held that the panel’s allocation of 97% of the SEC fine to Milton represented a plausible interpretation of the contractual contribution provision and that its allocation of legal and professional fees did not disregard applicable rules or Delaware law. On 5 February 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the confirmation and judgment on the $167.727 million award, rejecting Milton’s challenges to fault allocation, causation, and the arbitration record. The Ninth Circuit stated that the SEC Consent Order repeatedly emphasized that Milton’s conduct caused Nikola’s violations and held that the arbitrators had complied with Delaware standards in finding that his breach caused Nikola’s legal and professional-representation fees and in awarding damages. A 24 October 2023 Fuel Cells Works article reported that Nikola had announced it had “successfully recouped” approximately $165 million plus interest from Milton, but that report predates the final award, refers to an unspecified company announcement, and provides no payment detail; it therefore conflicts with the later award’s contingent-payment structure. Our investigations did not yield an official Nikola or SEC filing establishing collection of the award, the amount paid, or whether the contingent portion became payable.

4. Technology and Product Misrepresentations Alleged and Partly Acknowledged

Hindenburg Research and other critics accused Nikola and Trevor Milton of misleading investors about functioning trucks, hydrogen and battery technology, in-house components, production, reservations and commercial prospects, including through a staged video of a truck rolling downhill. Nikola disputed the report, but an internal review later identified nine statements by Milton or Nikola as inaccurate in whole or in part; the allegations prompted government inquiries, Milton’s resignation and a sharp stock-price decline. The resulting criminal prosecution, SEC proceedings and private investor litigation are addressed separately.

On 10 September 2020, short-seller Hindenburg Research published a report alleging that Nikola Corporation and its founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, had made dozens of false statements concerning the company’s proprietary technology, products and capabilities; Hindenburg disclosed that it had taken a short position in Nikola shares and described the report as its opinion. Among other allegations, Hindenburg asserted that Nikola had presented the Nikola One as a functioning hydrogen-electric truck in 2016 although it was incomplete, used natural-gas components and required a cable under the stage to power its screens; that its later “Nikola One in Motion” footage showed the truck rolling downhill after being towed uphill; and that claims regarding battery technology, hydrogen production costs and volumes, in-house components, Tre-truck production, and the order book were misleading.

Nikola initially characterised the short-seller’s allegations as false and misleading; however, in its SEC-filed 2020 Form 10-K, it reported that its Internal Review had found nine identified statements—seven by Milton and two by the company—to have been inaccurate in whole or in part when made. The statements identified in the filing concerned claimed rights to natural-gas wells; assertions that Nikola had engineered a zero-emissions truck and that the Nikola One was fully functioning; the impression from a 2017 video that the Nikola One was driven; rooftop solar output; hydrogen-production capacity and costs; in-house components and inverter software; and the assertion that five trucks were coming off the assembly line in Ulm, Germany. Nikola nevertheless stated that other aspects of Hindenburg’s allegations were inaccurate and that its automotive experts’ findings were inconsistent with Hindenburg’s conclusion that the company was an “intricate” or “massive fraud.” As at that filing, Kirkland & Ellis LLP had reached no conclusion on whether inaccurate statements violated any statute, and analysis remained ongoing as to intent, materiality, whether statements had been corrected, and stockholder harm.

The allegations had immediate corporate and market consequences: Nikola’s shares fell approximately 24% by the close on 11 September 2020, according to Block & Leviton LLP’s account, and Milton stepped down as Executive Chairman later that month, according to Reuters. Nikola’s Form 10-K states that, in September 2020, Nikola, its officers and employees received SEC subpoenas regarding aspects of its business and matters in the Hindenburg article; Nikola and Milton also received grand-jury subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the New York County District Attorney’s Office. The resulting criminal, SEC and investor-litigation proceedings are addressed separately in this report.

5. Merger-Related Shareholder Claims Were Settled

Shareholders alleged that Milton conducted an ongoing fraud and that Nikola’s boards aided the conduct, failed to maintain adequate controls, engaged in improper insider trading and breached duties connected with the VectoIQ–Legacy Nikola merger. The Delaware Court of Chancery allowed most claims to proceed and later approved settlements totaling $33.7 million, including $27.45 million for derivative claims and $6.3 million for direct class claims.

In the consolidated Delaware Court of Chancery action In re Nikola Corporation Derivative Litigation, stockholders alleged that Nikola Corporation’s founder and former chief executive officer, Trevor Milton, made materially false and misleading statements about Nikola’s business, technology and expected financial performance from no later than November 2019 through at least September 20, 2020. They further alleged that Nikola’s pre- and post-merger boards, and VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.’s board, aided Milton’s conduct and breached fiduciary duties, including through deficient controls, ignored warning signs and improper insider trading. The merger-related direct class claims alleged that VectoIQ’s proxy contained false or misleading statements and omissions concerning the combined company’s prospects and operations, the alleged lack of certain Legacy Nikola technologies or products, allegedly inadequate due diligence, and the cash available for the transaction, which plaintiffs alleged was $7.66 per share rather than the represented $10.00. VectoIQ and Legacy Nikola entered their merger agreement on March 2, 2020, VectoIQ stockholders approved the transaction on June 2, and the merger closed on June 3, 2020, creating Nikola Corporation.

According to the August 2025 direct-class settlement stipulation, on April 9, 2024 the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ dismissal motions, sustaining specified direct fiduciary-duty claims against five VectoIQ board defendants and other claims except as to former defendant Steven Shindler, while dismissing the aiding-and-abetting claim against Cowen and certain claims against Shindler. The stipulation records that Nikola and certain current and former directors and officers sought dismissal only in part and did not seek dismissal of certain derivative claims concerning alleged disclosure violations and oversight failures. Plaintiffs and the VectoIQ defendants—Stephen Girsky, Robert Gendelman, Sarah W. Hallac, Richard J. Lynch, Victoria McInnis and former defendant Steven M. Shindler—then agreed to a $6.3 million cash settlement of the direct class claims; the settlement documents state that those defendants denied wrongdoing, fault, liability and damages. Plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel stated in February 2026 that Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick granted final approval on November 20, 2025 of the $6.3 million direct-class settlement and a separate $27.45 million derivative settlement, for a combined $33.75 million recovery; counsel also stated that the settlements were coordinated with Nikola’s bankruptcy estate. Our investigations did not yield a publicly readable final-approval order, a defendant-by-defendant allocation of the derivative settlement, court-awarded fees or expenses, or Nikola’s ultimate net proceeds.

6. Earlier-Venture Misrepresentations Were Alleged Against Founder

Hindenburg alleged that Milton overpromised and misled customers, partners and investors at earlier ventures about technical capabilities, contracts and business arrangements. The allegations included defective dHybrid systems that were concealed during repairs and claims that Bluegentech or Nikola possessed proprietary turbine technology while negotiating to buy turbines elsewhere.

In its 10 September 2020 report, Hindenburg Research, which disclosed that it held a short position in Nikola Corporation ("Nikola"), alleged that founder Trevor Milton had, for more than a decade, misled customers, partners and investors concerning the capabilities, contracts and business arrangements of ventures preceding Nikola. The report stated that its assertions were based on interviews with whistleblowers, business partners and former employees, and on internal materials including emails, texts, recorded conversations and photographs; these were Hindenburg's allegations and characterisations, rather than findings by a court or regulator.

Hindenburg reported that dHybrid, launched by Milton in November 2009, entered a Swift Transportation agreement involving an initial 10 truck conversions and a subsequent commitment to convert 800 trucks, which Hindenburg valued at $16 million. According to Hindenburg, Swift sued dHybrid in mid-2012, alleging that only five trucks were delivered, that they did not perform as promised, and that dHybrid officers misappropriated capital; Hindenburg further alleged that Milton subsequently represented the contract to prospective investors as worth $250 million to $300 million. The same report stated that prospective buyer Sustainable Power Group LLC ("sPower") withdrew from negotiations and sued after alleging material misrepresentations in due diligence, including incomplete system development, no EPA-certification process, and misstated Swift fuel-blend and fuel-cost-savings results. An undated Springer Nature chapter reports that both the Swift and sPower cases ended inconclusively through withdrawal or dismissal, without identifying which outcome applied to each case. Our investigations did not yield a public official court record or other source identifying a case-specific final disposition, merits ruling or authority determination for either the Swift or sPower litigation.

Hindenburg also reported recorded statements by former dHybrid Systems employees that they repaired defective units without Worthington's knowledge during an acquisition-related deal, including units said to have separated from trucks and nearly caused deaths. Hindenburg stated that Worthington subsequently recorded a $2.3 million dHybrid acquisition impairment in the fourth quarter of 2015 and a further $1.5 million warranty-related expense in 2016.

Hindenburg alleged that Milton represented in a May 2015 agreement with EVDrive that Bluegentech, Nikola's then name, possessed a proprietary turbine system, and that former EVDrive employees said this claimed technology contributed to their decision to sign with him. Hindenburg further reported that, two months later, Milton's entity was negotiating to purchase turbines from another company, with the proposed purchases stated to be on behalf of Worthington, and characterised this as inconsistent with the proprietary-technology representation. The provided sources do not state any adjudication or other authority finding resolving the alleged turbine representation.

7. Investor Securities-Fraud Claims Sustained and Stayed

Investors alleged that Nikola and its officers made misleading statements about the company’s technology and business prospects. Courts allowed some claims to proceed and certified a class without deciding liability. A September 2026 court order records that the action against Nikola remained stayed during its bankruptcy proceedings.

In Borteanu v. Nikola Corp., investors filed the initial complaint on September 15, 2020, alleging that Nikola Corporation, former Executive Chairman Trevor Milton, and certain officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 through material misstatements or omissions that inflated Nikola’s stock price. The operative complaint concerns purchasers or acquirers of Nikola securities from June 4, 2020 through February 25, 2021, and alleges that the disclosures concerned, among other matters, the operational status and zero-emissions capability of the Nikola One, more than 14,000 purported truck orders, hydrogen production and refuelling, the Badger pickup, in-house components and batteries, production of the Tre BEV, solar panels and natural-gas wells. The plaintiffs allege that, when the asserted falsity became public, Nikola’s stock price fell dramatically, causing losses to class members; those allegations remain contested rather than findings against Nikola.

The District of Arizona dismissed an earlier consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim on February 2, 2023, but the December 8, 2023 motion-to-dismiss ruling permitted claims to proceed in part, finding the allegations sufficient as to material misstatements, scienter and loss causation for maker liability against the company and certain individuals, and as to scheme liability against the company and three individuals. On January 6, 2025, the court certified a Rule 23(b) class of persons who purchased or acquired Nikola securities during the June 4, 2020-February 25, 2021 period and were damaged upon revelation of alleged corrective disclosures, appointing Vincent Chau and George Mersho as class representatives; certification did not decide liability. The class notice states that defendants deny all allegations and wrongdoing, and that at the time of that notice there was no judgment, settlement or monetary recovery.

According to a later District of Delaware bankruptcy opinion, the class and Nikola reached a mediated settlement documented in a January 28, 2025 term sheet, under which the class was to receive $13 million in cash and other consideration, with Nikola to seek Bankruptcy Court approval if it filed for bankruptcy. Nikola and affiliates filed Chapter 11 petitions on February 19, 2025, and a September 2026 District of Arizona order states that the securities action has been stayed as against Nikola pending completion of those bankruptcy proceedings; it records that summary-judgment motions by the remaining parties were filed in November 2025. Our investigations did not yield a final settlement-approval order, a final distribution or recovery amount, or a final disposition of the claims against Nikola; the later court record identifies a stay, rather than a dismissal, of the action against Nikola.

8. Former CEO Was Charged With SEC Civil Fraud

The SEC accused Trevor Milton of misleading investors about Nikola’s technology and business prospects. On 11 September 2025, the SEC and Milton jointly stipulated to dismiss the civil action with prejudice. The SEC said its decision did not necessarily reflect its position on any other case.

On 29 July 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed Securities and Exchange Commission v. Trevor R. Milton, No. 1:21-cv-06445, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Trevor Milton, Nikola Corporation’s founder, former chief executive officer and former executive chairman. The SEC alleged that Milton, while acting as Nikola’s principal public spokesperson, repeatedly disseminated false and misleading information, principally through social media, concerning Nikola’s technological advances, products, in-house production capabilities and commercial achievements. The SEC further alleged that the conduct produced tens of millions of dollars in personal benefits for Milton. A Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP regulatory alert, summarising the SEC’s charging instrument, reported that the alleged statements included assertions that the Nikola One was a fully functioning prototype despite being inoperable, and exaggerations regarding the volume and binding nature of vehicle-purchaser contracts. An A&O Shearman publication further reported that, unlike the related criminal allegations, the SEC complaint alleged that Milton had falsely represented Nikola trucks’ total cost of ownership as 20–30% below that of diesel vehicles.

The SEC charged Milton with violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought permanent and conduct-based injunctions, an officer-and-director bar, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. The SEC stated at the time that its investigation was ongoing. The related criminal prosecution is addressed separately in this report.

The SEC’s Litigation Release No. 26397 records that on 11 September 2025 the SEC and Milton jointly stipulated to dismiss the civil enforcement action with prejudice. According to the SEC, its decision to seek dismissal was made in the exercise of its discretion and did not necessarily reflect its position on any other case. Our investigations did not yield an official source stating that any of the requested remedies were imposed or making a merits finding in this civil action; the SEC release records its dismissal instead.

9. SEC Fraud Charges Settled for $125 Million

Nikola agreed in December 2021 to pay a $125 million civil penalty without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. Its later disclosure recorded an $80.2 million remaining settlement liability at 31 December 2024.

On 21 December 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that Nikola Corporation (Nikola) had agreed to pay a $125 million civil penalty to resolve charges that it defrauded investors by misleading them about its products, technological advances and commercial prospects. The SEC’s order found that Nikola violated federal securities-law antifraud and disclosure-control provisions. According to the SEC, the misleading information included statements concerning technological milestones, in-house production capability, hydrogen production, truck reservations and orders, and financial outlook, and omissions or misrepresentations concerning prototype-vehicle refuelling time, a planned hydrogen station, electricity costs and sources for planned hydrogen production, and the risks and benefits of a contemplated automotive-manufacturer partnership. The SEC further stated that Nikola was responsible for allegedly misleading statements by its founder and former Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, as well as other alleged deceptions. Nikola neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings, agreed to cease and desist from future violations, undertake specified voluntary measures and continue cooperation with the SEC’s ongoing litigation and investigation; the order established a Fair Fund for distribution of penalty proceeds to harmed investors.

Nikola’s 21 December 2021 announcement stated that the penalty would be payable in five instalments over two years, with the first due by year-end 2021 and the remaining instalments due semi-annually through 2023; it also stated that the settlement resolved and concluded all government investigations of Nikola. The company’s statement that all government investigations of Nikola had been resolved sits alongside the SEC’s contemporaneous statement that Nikola would continue cooperating with its ongoing litigation and investigation. In its Form 10-K for the year ended 31 December 2024, Nikola reported that it had paid the SEC $6.0 million during 2023 and $3.8 million during 2024, that the remainder of the payment plan was subject to determination, and that it carried $80.2 million as the remaining settlement liability in accrued expenses and other current liabilities at year-end, compared with $84.0 million at the end of 2023. Our investigations did not yield a further official SEC-filed update on payment or other resolution of the remaining settlement liability after 31 December 2024.

10. Battery-Control Securities Action Filed and Pending

Investors filed a separate securities action alleging that Nikola made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose deficient safety and structural controls for manufacturing battery components. The complaints alleged that the deficiencies made vehicles unsafe or unusable and increased the likelihood of a recall; one notice stated that no class had yet been certified.

On 13 October 2023, John Tenneson filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Nikola Corporation and certain officers and directors, captioned Tenneson v. Nikola et al., No. 2:23-cv-02131-DJH (the “Tenneson Action”), according to Nikola’s SEC filing. The action seeks relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for purchasers or acquirers of Nikola securities between 24 February 2022 and 7 September 2023, according to Nikola’s filing and a Pomerantz LLP announcement. The complaint alleges that Nikola made materially false or misleading statements and omissions in press releases, public filings and social media concerning safety and structural controls in manufacturing battery components and the likelihood of a product recall. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that deficient controls rendered Nikola vehicles unsafe to operate and unusable, increasing recall risk and making the company’s public statements materially false or misleading; these are allegations in the complaint, not findings reported by the sources.

Nikola’s SEC filing states that the District of Arizona appointed Reyes as lead plaintiff on 25 April 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on 24 May 2024, and the defendants moved to dismiss on 25 July 2024; briefing was scheduled to conclude on 19 August 2024. Nikola stated that the plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief, that it intended to defend the action vigorously, and that it could not estimate a potential loss or range of loss, which could be material. A 7 September 2023 Rosen Law Firm notice stated that no class had then been certified and that investors were not represented by counsel unless they retained counsel; the record provided does not state whether certification was later decided. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a final ruling, settlement, dismissal, class-certification decision, or later case-status disclosure in the public sources searched.

11. Nikola Was Placed into Chapter 11 Liquidation

Nikola and certain subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware on February 19, 2025, after failing to secure a buyer or additional capital, and began a court-supervised asset-sale and wind-down process. Substantially all assets were sold, a liquidating plan was confirmed, and the plan later became effective with NKLAQ shares deemed null, void and worthless; the proceedings also included delisting, accelerated note obligations, objections to the sale process and a $4 million resolution of an SEC plan objection. Reports linked the collapse to mounting debt, losses, rising costs, waning demand, recalls and operational problems.

On 19 February 2025, Nikola Corporation and nine affiliates filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, jointly administered under lead case No. 25-10258 before Judge Thomas M. Horan. Nikola stated in its contemporaneous Form 8-K that it would operate as debtor-in-possession while seeking authority for a competitive Section 363 auction and structured asset sale, and would retain limited direct truck-service and HYLA fueling operations only through the end of March 2025. In its own 19 February press release, Nikola said that, after months of considering alternatives, it intended to sell all, substantially all, or part of its assets and effect an orderly wind-down; it reported approximately $47 million of cash to fund limited operations, the sale process and a Chapter 11 plan. The filing also triggered defaults under Nikola's June 2022 and June 2023 convertible-note indentures: the company reported that the relevant principal and accrued unpaid interest became immediately due and payable, including $31.78 million principal and $557,956.71 accrued interest on the June 2022 notes. The case listing recorded estimated assets of $500 million to $1 billion, estimated liabilities of $1 billion to $10 billion, and 1,000–5,000 creditors; a separate bankruptcy-summary source, citing court filings, reported $878.1 million of assets and $469 million of liabilities as of the petition date, expressly excluding certain contingent and unliquidated litigation claims. Nasdaq issued a delisting notice on 19 February 2025 based on the Chapter 11 filing, public-interest and equity-holder concerns, and continuing-listing compliance, with suspension scheduled for 26 February 2025.

Contemporaneous reporting attributed the collapse to unsuccessful efforts to secure a buyer or further capital, while Nikola itself cited market and macroeconomic factors and said its capital-raising, liability-reduction and cash-preservation efforts had not overcome the challenges. Moody’s reported that rising costs, weak demand, difficulty ramping production, higher debt-servicing costs and continuing losses preceded the filing; it stated that financing costs tripled between 2022 and 2023 and that the company ultimately sought court protection while monetizing its remaining assets. Nikola's prepetition financial difficulties also occurred against the background of product recalls and related operational issues, which are addressed separately in this report.

The case record shows that the Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on 12 September 2025. An Epiq key-documents search result identifies 12 December 2025 as the plan’s effective date, although the underlying document was not publicly retrievable through the page reader. An account of the case states that substantially all assets were sold through Section 363 sales, rather than Nikola reorganizing as a going concern, and that a liquidating trust was established to administer the residual estate, reconcile claims and make creditor distributions. Law360 reported on 3 September 2025 that Nikola had resolved the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s objection to its Chapter 11 liquidation plan by agreeing to pay $4 million; the article’s substantive text was unavailable without registration. On 9 December 2025, ISSO, LLC—an entity through which former CEO Trevor Milton pursued estate claims—objected to the Section 363 sale process, alleging defective notice, grossly inadequate sale prices and failure to consider its competing offers; the debtors contested those allegations and maintained that court-ordered bidding procedures had been followed. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a final adjudication of ISSO’s sale-process objections or final recoveries for creditors and equity holders.

Cash App stated that NKLAQ shares were delisted from the OTC market before the opening of trading on 26 December 2025 and that the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation had determined them to be null, void and worthless; it described the effective date as 26 December 2025, which conflicts with Epiq’s 12 December 2025 effective-date entry. The bankruptcy case nevertheless continued to generate post-effective-date activity: the docket reflected a 3 September 2026 order approving the liquidating trustee’s transfer of certain related intellectual property to Simoneta, Ltd., doing business as Hyroad Energy.

12. Truck Safety Recalls Were Triggered by Fire and Defects

Nikola recalled battery-electric trucks following fires and a coolant leak inside battery packs, suspended sales and undertook battery-pack replacements that reportedly caused more than $44 million in realized losses and an estimated total impact of about $56 million. Other recalls concerned seat-belt anchor assemblies and potentially overlong bolts on hydrogen-tank mounting blocks; Nikola said it was unaware of leaks, injuries or property damage from the hydrogen-bolt issue.

An undated Wikipedia entry reports that Nikola Corporation recalled all 93 Tre Class 8 battery-electric vehicles in September 2022 because of an issue with seat-belt anchor assemblies. Our investigations did not yield an official source concerning this separate 2022 seat-belt recall or its remediation status.

Nikola’s October 2023 Part 573 filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) records the recall of 209 model-year 2022-2023 Tre battery-electric vehicles manufactured between 5 November 2021 and 21 December 2022, because components of the battery cooling system could leak coolant inside a battery pack. The filing states that accumulated coolant could cause an electrical short and thereby increase fire risk. According to Nikola’s chronology in that filing, a battery-pack fire at its Phoenix headquarters on 23 June 2023 spread to four other parked vehicles, and a second fire occurred in a validation vehicle outside its Coolidge, Arizona factory on 10 August 2023; local fire departments extinguished both fires, and Nikola reported no injuries in either incident. An outside firm’s preliminary investigation identified a coolant leak as the likely cause of the August fire, after which Nikola’s Vehicle Defects Committee determined that a safety-related defect existed and decided to issue the recall; Nikola also halted Tre BEV production pending development of a remedy and corrected parts. Nikola initially instructed owners to keep the main battery disconnect switch on and consider outside parking, pending a final remedy. A January 2025 NHTSA quarterly report shows that, as of the fourth quarter of 2024, 40 of the 209 recalled vehicles had been remedied, with none reported unreachable or removed. This official completion figure differs from an undated Elevenflo article’s statement that 111 trucks had been repaired and 98 remained outstanding. A February 2025 case-summary website, citing court filings and company materials, states that battery-pack retrofits remained ongoing as of Nikola’s Chapter 11 petition date, with approximately $44 million in realized losses and an estimated total recall impact of approximately $56 million; a contemporaneous Trucking Dive article quotes Nikola CEO Steve Girsky as reporting more than $44 million in losses and an expected total negative impact of approximately $56 million.

In its February 2025 Part 573 filing, Nikola reported recalling 95 model-year 2024-2025 Tre fuel-cell electric vehicles because hydrogen-tank mounting-block bolts longer than those designed for the vehicles may have been installed. Nikola stated that such bolts could contact and damage hydrogen tanks, potentially causing a leak and increasing fire risk; it attributed the condition to inadequate process control at the plant assembly station. The company’s investigation identified five field trucks with incorrect bolts, while Nikola stated that it was unaware of associated leaks, injuries or property damage. Nikola planned dealer inspections, free replacement of incorrect bolts and replacement of damaged tanks where necessary, and stated that it had quarantined non-conforming bolt supplies and installed a new assembly-station process control. Our investigations did not yield a later public NHTSA completion report for this February 2025 recall.

13. Sympathetic Milton Documentary Was Allegedly Promoted by Synthetic Accounts

An author alleged that Milton was involved in an astroturfing campaign using synthetic social-media accounts to promote a sympathetic documentary about him and his presidential pardon. The author also suggested that Milton commissioned the documentary.

An undated post by David Z. Morris on Substack alleged that, after Trevor Milton’s presidential pardon, a purported social-media astroturfing campaign promoted a sympathetic documentary, “Conviction or Conspiracy – The Trevor Milton Saga,” and the pardon using the hashtag #justicereform. Morris wrote that an account named “William Jones,” which had first contacted him in December about the forthcoming documentary and notified him of the trailer on the Monday following the pardon, was not a real person; he further alleged that “Sally Macintosh,” “Jack Stevens,” “Tobias Anderson,” and “Michael Greene” were similarly created synthetic personas that shared the trailer and pardon news. According to Morris, the apparent purpose was to present the documentary as independently and neutrally produced, and he suggested that Milton had commissioned it because it was heavily featured on an unspecified site.

The available contemporaneous promotional material establishes Milton’s association with, but does not establish his commissioning or financing of, the film: a June 4, 2025 paid PR Newswire release attributed to Trevor Milton Media described it as “my documentary” in a Milton quotation, announced a June 10 YouTube premiere, named Mark Soldinger as director, and stated that Milton chose to make it available free on his YouTube channel. Milton’s own website similarly stated that the film premiered on YouTube on June 10, 2025 and that Milton chose the YouTube release; these are Milton’s own statements rather than independent evidence of commissioning or funding. The cited materials do not identify the operators of the named accounts or provide evidence establishing coordinated synthetic-account activity, and our investigations did not yield documentary financing or commissioning records, a response by Milton addressing the allegation, or an official investigation or finding concerning it.

14. Arizona Layoffs and Potential WARN Act Breach Alleged

In connection with its February 2025 bankruptcy, Nikola announced approximately 855 additional job cuts in Arizona. A law firm said it was investigating whether Nikola failed to provide at least 60 days’ notice before laying off 540 Phoenix employees and 315 Coolidge employees, potentially violating the WARN Act.

In connection with Nikola Corporation’s February 2025 Chapter 11 filing, CreditPulse reported that the company gave a WARN notice of plans to eliminate a further 855 jobs in Arizona. A 26 February 2025 publication by Strauss Borrelli PLLC, a class-action law firm, states that Nikola notified the Arizona Department of Economic Security on 19 February 2025 that it would lay off employees following the bankruptcy filing. The law firm identified 540 affected employees in Phoenix and 315 in Coolidge, Arizona, which together equal 855 employees. An undated WarnTracker aggregator page separately lists 315 layoffs in Coolidge and 540 in Phoenix during 2025, but its displayed entries contain no notice or layoff dates.

Strauss Borrelli stated that it was investigating Nikola’s mass layoffs in Phoenix and Coolidge and alleged that Nikola failed to provide at least 60 days’ notice before the layoffs, potentially violating the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). According to the firm, the WARN Act requires covered employers to give 60 days’ written notice before a mass layoff or plant closing, and employees may be entitled to 60 days of severance pay and benefits; the firm invited affected Nikola employees to contact it concerning potential remedies. These are the law firm’s allegations and statements in connection with its investigation; the supplied sources do not include Nikola’s response or establish whether an exception to the WARN Act’s notice requirement applied. WarnTracker reports an overall 907 workers across 10 Nikola WARN notices from February through April 2025, but its displayed table does not reconcile that total, including an Arizona Coolidge entry with no number, and does not establish compliance or any claim outcome. Our investigations did not yield further findings on an Arizona official WARN notice or on any Nikola employee lawsuit, enforcement action, court finding, settlement, or award concerning the alleged WARN Act violation.

15. Board-Takeover and Badger-Project Claims Were Dismissed

Nikola alleged that Trevor Milton and others sought to take over its board and interfered with the Badger project. The claims involving EMBR, Cannon and Sparks were dismissed with prejudice in April 2024, with no finding of liability or fault against them. The action was terminated in May 2024.

On 28 March 2024, Nikola Corporation filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, case No. CV-24-00690-PHX-DWL, against Trevor R. Milton, M&M Residual LLC, EMBR Motors Incorporated, Cole Cannon and David “Dave” Sparks; the court docket records the complaint, issuance of summonses and the case assignment to Judge Dominic W. Lanza. According to Nikola’s own statement reproduced by Fuel Cells Works, Nikola had sold Badger and powersports assets, including specified intellectual property and prototypes, to EMBR under an agreement made in summer 2023, while retaining a 30% stake in EMBR. Nikola stated that the agreement prohibited Milton from any direct or indirect involvement with EMBR or the acquired assets and restricted EMBR’s use of Nikola’s name and trademarks except as provided in the transaction. Nikola alleged that Sparks, Cannon and Milton subsequently mounted a campaign to take over Nikola’s board, using EMBR to attract attention, and that the contractual restrictions had not been observed, which Nikola said was apparent from social-media posts and SEC filings. The company’s allegations encompassed breach of contract, securities-law violations, trademark infringement and conspiracy; Nikola characterized the alleged conduct as part of Milton’s effort to avoid a $165 million judgment and regain influence over the company.

On 30 April 2024, Judge Lanza granted a stipulation dismissing with prejudice all claims and defenses between Nikola and EMBR, Cannon and Sparks, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. A joint statement by Nikola, EMBR, Cannon and Sparks said that those parties had amicably resolved their disputes, that EMBR, Cannon and Sparks denied Nikola’s claims, and that the dismissals involved no finding of liability or fault against them. The same joint statement said M&M Residual withdrew its entire director-nominee slate after four of its five nominees decided not to seek election at Nikola’s 2024 annual meeting. On 2 May 2024, following Nikola’s notice of voluntary dismissal, the court ordered the Clerk to terminate the action and denied all pending motions, including Nikola’s preliminary-injunction motion, as moot. Our investigations did not yield further findings in the docket material reviewed on the terms of the parties’ resolution or on a merits judgment or finding concerning Nikola’s allegations.

16. Patent and Trademark Claims Against Tesla Dismissed

Nikola sought at least $2 billion from Tesla for alleged infringement of design patents, a utility patent and trademark rights. Tesla countered that Nikola’s design patents were invalid because Nikola had intentionally concealed an earlier truck design from the USPTO, and the parties ultimately dismissed their claims and counterclaims without prejudice.

In 2018, Nikola Corporation (“Nikola”) sued Tesla Inc. in Arizona, seeking at least US$2 billion for alleged infringement of design patents, a utility patent and trademark rights connected with Nikola’s Nikola One hydrogen-fuelled truck, according to Reuters’ 5 January 2022 report. Reuters reported that the matter was transferred to San Francisco later in 2018 and proceeded as Nikola Corp. v. Tesla Inc., No. 3:18-cv-07460, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge James Donato. According to Reuters, Nikola alleged that Tesla’s Semi truck infringed patents covering the truck’s wrap windshield, mid-entry door, overall design and other features; Reuters also summarised Nikola’s allegation as accusing the Semi of copying the Nikola One design. Tesla countered, among other matters, that Nikola’s design patents were invalid because they resembled an earlier truck design that Nikola had allegedly “intentionally concealed” from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Reuters reported.

A filing in the San Francisco federal court, reported by Reuters on 5 January 2022, recorded that the parties had agreed to end the litigation through a voluntary dismissal of both the claims and counterclaims without prejudice. As Reuters explained, dismissal without prejudice permitted the claims and counterclaims to be refiled. The filing did not state why Nikola and Tesla agreed to terminate the case, and neither company nor their counsel immediately responded to Reuters’ requests for comment. Our investigations did not yield further findings on any refiling, merits determination, settlement terms or payment concerning this dispute.

17. Sexual-Abuse Allegations Were Made Against Founder

Two women accused Milton of sexually abusing them when they were minors, allegations that he denied. The Financial Times reportedly cited unnamed sources saying the allegations were the main reason for his resignation, although neither Nikola nor Milton connected the resignation to them.

In late September 2020, CNBC reported that two women had made formal sexual-assault complaints to Utah authorities against Nikola Corporation founder Trevor Milton, alleging sexual abuse when each was 15 years old. One complainant, Milton’s cousin Aubrey Ferrin Smith, alleged that Milton groped her breasts without consent after a family funeral outside Salt Lake City in 1999, when she was 15 and Milton was 17; the Unified Police Department’s Sgt. Melody Cutler confirmed that a report had been filed against Milton and that it repeated the allegations made by Smith on social media. CNBC further reported that the other complaint concerned an alleged 2004 assault in St. George, Utah, when Milton, then 22, had hired the complainant, then 15, as an office assistant at a security company he ran; St. George Police Department Capt. Mike Giles confirmed that a complaint involving a minor had been filed but did not provide further details. Milton, through a spokesman, categorically denied the allegations, stating that they were false and that he had never engaged in inappropriate physical contact with anyone.

Nikola declined to comment to CNBC on the allegations. According to an undated Springer Nature chapter describing a 6 December 2020 Financial Times article, neither Nikola nor Milton linked Milton’s resignation as chairman to the allegations; however, the Financial Times reportedly cited three unnamed people as saying that personal allegations circulating after the Hindenburg report led him to offer his resignation and were the principal reason for it. The sources reviewed do not state the outcome of either police complaint. Our investigations did not yield further findings on a public Utah police outcome, charging decision, investigative closure, civil claim, criminal proceeding, or other resolution of the allegations.