Exhibit 99.1

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

VERIFIED PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER 8 DEL. C. § 205

Petitioner Advent Technologies Holdings, Inc. (“Advent” or the “Company”) brings this petition (the “Petition”) for relief under Section 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”):

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is another Petition for relief under Section 205 relating to a de-SPAC transaction. The Company seeks to validate a Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation that it filed in Delaware on February 4, 2021 (the “Charter”) and to validate the securities issued in reliance thereon. Ex. A.

2. As a comparison to similar petitions the Court has addressed:

The Charter created the headroom to issue an additional ten million shares. The Company intends to raise needed financing by issuing shares, possibly as soon as next month. Depending on the market price of its stock at that time, the Company may need to issue part of the ten million shares created by the Charter.

BACKGROUND

3. SPAC Formation. The Company was incorporated on June 18, 2018. It filed an amended and restated certificate of incorporation on November 15, 2018, and twice amended that document, on May 19, 2020 and October 16, 2020. The second amended and restated charter (as twice amended) is the “Old Charter” that was in effect at the time the Company sought stockholder approval of the current Charter. See Ex. B.

4. Business Combination. The Company entered into a business combination (the “Business Combination”) to acquire a private company referenced herein as “Private Advent.”¹ The Business Combination resulted in the Company becoming an advanced materials and technology development company operating in the fuel cell and hydrogen technology space.

5. Charter Amendments. Relevant to this Petition, the Charter re- designated its “Class A Common Stock” as “Common Stock” and increased the authorized number of shares of this class of stock. The Old Charter authorized 100 million shares of Class A Common Stock, and the Charter authorizes 110 million shares of Common Stock. Unlike other de-SPAC petitions, the Charter did not effect an amendment to “opt out” of the class vote provided by Section 242(b) of the DGCL. This means that, even after the Charter was approved, additional share increases to the Common Stock require a class vote of the Common Stock.²

6. Voting Standard Disclosed to Stockholders. The proxy materials used to solicit Company stockholder approval of the Business Combination and the Charter stated that the Charter required approval by “the affirmative vote of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of AMCI Common Stock [defined in the proxy materials as the Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock then outstanding],”³ which the Company believed to be the correct standard.

7. Stockholder Adoption and Votes Obtained. At a special meeting held on February 2, 2021, the Charter Proposal was approved by a majority of the Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock, voting as a single class, but was not approved by a majority of the Class A Common Stock, voting as a separate class.⁴ Because this approval satisfied the voting standards described in the proxy materials, and which the Company believed to be the correct standard, the Company caused the Charter to be filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

8. Issues Related to the Boxed Decision. The shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock were authorized in Section 4.1 of the Old Charter, using substantially the same words as the charter at issue in the Court of Chancery’s decision in Garfield v. Boxed.⁵ It is therefore unclear whether the Class A Common Stock should have been considered a separate class for purposes of the DGCL. If so considered, there was no “opt out” in the Old Charter to the class voting requirement for share increases set forth in Section 242(b)(2) of the DGCL. Accordingly, a class vote of the Class A Common Stock might have been required under Boxed but was neither sought nor obtained.

9. Common Stock Authorized For Issuance. The Old Charter authorized 100 million shares of Class A Common Stock. The Charter re-named the Class A Common Stock as Common Stock and authorized the issuance of an additional ten million shares.

10. Share Issuances. To date, the Company has neither issued, nor reserved for issuance, shares in excess of the Old Charter’s 100 million authorized number. However, the Company wishes to raise money over the next few months by issuing additional shares of stock. Depending on the market price of its stock, the Company may need to rely on part of the 10 million shares of “headroom” created by the Charter to issue shares and raise equity financing. Based on totals as of the end of last year, the total number of issued shares of Common Stock issued is 51,717,720 shares, and an additional 33,285,449 shares are reserved for issuance to satisfy the conversion or exercise of outstanding warrants, rights and options, meaning a total of 85,003,169 shares of the 100 million authorized by the Old Charter are not available for new issuances.

CONSIDERATIONS WARRANTING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 205

11. Recourse Available to the Company. The Company could in theory ratify the Charter pursuant to Section 204 of the DGCL, but not in the time frame necessary to resolve the uncertainty created by the Charter and to raise funds.

12. The Company filed the Charter with the belief that it had been approved in accordance with the DGCL.

13. The Company and third parties have treated the Charter as valid. The Private Advent stockholders relied on the validity of the Charter because it set forth the terms of the securities that they received as a result of the Business Combination. These terms included the headroom to authorize up to 110 million shares of Common Stock. The additional ten million shares of headroom are part of the Company’s business plan for raising funds to finance its operations.

14. Harm resulting from no Validation. The Company will be harmed if it cannot ensure the required approvals of its auditor to file its annual report and if the Company needs the headroom created by the Charter to raise financing in the near term.

15. Harm resulting from Validation. The Company is not aware of any harm that will result from the validation of the Charter. Instead, the validation of the Charter will place the Company and its security holders in the position they have always thought they were in vis-à-vis the Charter and the Company’s capitalization table. Indeed, unlike some other SPACs, before the closing of the Business Combination the Company never received a single demand letter complaining about the proper stockholder vote necessary to approve any components of the Business Combination.

16. For all of these reasons, the Company respectfully requests the relief it seeks here pursuant to Section 205.

COUNT ONE

(Validation of the Amendment Under 8 Del. C. § 205)

17. The Company repeats and reiterates the allegations above as if set forth fully herein.

18. Because of the potential defects described above, there is uncertainty as to the validity of the Charter, which is a potentially defective corporate act.

19. This Court has the authority under Section 205(a)(4) to determine the validity of any corporate act, which includes the filing and effectiveness of the Charter.

20. The Company lacks the ability to ratify the Charter under Section 204 in a timely fashion.

21. The Company effected the Charter with a good faith belief that it was validly approved by the stockholders of the Company.

22. The Company has treated the Charter as valid.

23. On information and belief, following the public disclosure of the voting results of the special meeting called to approve the Business Combination and the filing of the Charter, market participants and other third parties, including purchasers of shares of Class A Common Stock and other securityholders, have relied on the validity of the Charter, and no persons would be harmed by the validation thereof.

24. The Company and its stockholders will be irreparably harmed absent relief from this Court.

25. The Company has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT TWO

(Validation of Issuances of Securities Under 8 Del. C. § 205)

26. The Company repeats and reiterates the allegations above as if set forth fully herein.

27. Because of the potential defects described above, there is uncertainty as to the validity of the Charter, which is a potentially defective corporate act, and there may be questions as to the shares of capital stock, and securities convertible into or exercisable for capital stock thereunder, which are intended to have the attributes provided in the Charter.

28. This Court has the authority under Section 205(a)(4) to determine the validity of any “stock, rights or options to acquire stock.”

29. The Company lacks the ability to ratify these issuances in a timely fashion.

30. As stated above, the Company has treated the Charter as valid, and has issued securities in reliance thereon.

31. On information and belief, purchasers and recipients of the securities relied on the validity of such securities, and no persons would be harmed by the validation of the issuances thereof.

32. The Company and its stockholders will be irreparably harmed absent relief from this Court.

33. The Company has no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Company respectfully requests that this Court enter a proposed Final Order Granting Relief Under 8 Del. C. § 205 in the form attached hereto:

March 6, 2023