COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | Legal Proceedings We may be involved in legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business, and our management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these legal proceedings with certainty. The Company is plaintiff or defendant in the following actions: Dekle, et. al. v. Global Digital Solutions, Inc. et. al. Brian A. Dekle and John Ramsay filed suit against the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, North American Custom Specialty Vehicles, Inc. (“NACSV”), in the Circuit Court of Baldwin Alabama, on January 14, 2015, case no. 05-CV-2015-9000050.00, relating to our acquisition of NACSV (the ''Dekle Action"). Prior to instituting the Dekle Action, in June 2014, the Company had entered into an equity purchase agreement with Dekle and Ramsay to purchase their membership interest in North American Custom Specialty Vehicles, LLC. The Dekle Action originally sought payment for $300,000 in post-closing consideration Dekle and Ramsay allege they are owed pursuant to the equity purchase agreement. On February 9, 2015, t In response to the Company’s and NACSV's motion to dismiss, Dekle and Ramsay filed an amended complaint on March 2, 2015 seeking specific performance and alleging breach of contract, violations of Security and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, and violations of the Alabama Securities Act. The amended complaint also names the Company’s Chairman, President, and CEO, Richard J. Sullivan (“Sullivan”), as a defendant. On March 17, 2015, the Company, NACSV and Sullivan filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint seeking dismissal for failure to state valid causes of action, for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively to transfer the case to the United States District Court in and for the Middle District of Florida. Dekle and Ramsay responded on March 31, 2015, and the Company filed its response thereto on April 7, 2015. On June 2, 2015, Dekle passed away. On June 5, 2015, the Court denied the Company’s motion to transfer the case to Florida. On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s denial of its motion to transfer the case to Florida. On September 30, 2105, the Court granted the Company’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue. The case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida, where it is currently pending. On June 15, 2015, Ramsay filed a second amended complaint. On June 25, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Company’s Motion to Dismiss was denied. On July 27, 2017, the Company and Dekle and Ramsay came to a Settlement Agreement. The Company and the plantiff came to the following agreements: i) Judgment is due to be entered against the Company in the amount of $300,000 if the sum of $20,000 as noted in iv is not paid. ii) The Company grants the plaintiffs vehicles and trailers in connection to this proceeding. iii) The Company will assist the plaintiffs in obtaining possession of the said vehicles. iv) The Company will pay the plaintiffs the sum of $20,000. The $20,000 settlement was paid in August 2017 PowerUp Lending Group, LTD., v. North American Custom Specialty Vehicle, Inc. et.al On September 13, 2017 Power Up received a default judgment against the Company in the amount of $109,302.00. The Company negotiated a settlement agreement on December 21, 2017 with Power Up to pay $90,000 in three installments of $30,000. As of May 15, 2018 the company has paid the entire amount (Note 5). Global Digital Solutions, Inc. et. al. v. Communications Laboratories, Inc., et. al. On January 19, 2015 the Company and NACSV filed suit against Communications Laboratories, Inc., ComLabs Global, LLC, Roland Lussier, Brian Dekle, John Ramsay and Wallace Bailey for conversion and breach of contract in a dispute over the payment of a $300,000 account receivable that ComLabs owed to NACSV but sent payment directly to Brian Dekle. The case was filed in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County Florida, case no. 05-2015-CA-012250. On February 18, 2015 (i) defendants Communications Laboratories, Inc., ComLabs Global, LLC and Roland Lussier and (ii) defendant Wallace Bailey filed their respective motions to dismiss seeking, among other things, dismissal for failure to state valid causes of action, lumping and failure to post a non-resident bond. On February 26, 2015, defendants Dekle and Ramsay filed their motion to dismiss, or stay action, based on already existing litigation between the parties. NACSV filed its required bond on March 2, 2015. Jeff Hull, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Global Digital Solutions, Inc., Richard J. Sullivan, David A. Loppert, William J. Delgado, Arthur F. Noterman and Stephanie C. Sullivan United States District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton), Case No. 3:16-cv-05153-FLW-TJB On August 24, 2016, Jeff Hull, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated (“Hull”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Securities and Exchange Commission v. Global Digital Solutions, Inc., Richard J. Sullivan and David A. Loppert United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:16-cv-81413-RLR On August 11, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida On October 12, 2016, Defendant GDSI filed its First Answer to the Complaint. On November 9, 2016, Defendant Sullivan filed a Letter with the Court denying all allegations regarding the case. On December 15, 2016, the SEC filed a Motion for Judgment and Notice of Filing of Consent of Defendant Loppert to entry of Final Judgment by the SEC. On December 19, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the SEC’s Motion for Judgment as to Defendant Loppert. On December 21, 2016, the SEC filed a Notice of Settlement as entered into by it and Defendants GDSI and Sullivan. On December 23, 2016, the Court entered an Order staying the case and directing the Clerk of the Court to close the case for statistical purposes per the December 21, 2016 Notice of Settlement. On March 7, 2017, the SEC moved for a Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief and Notice of Filing Consent of Defendant GDSI to Entry of Judgment by the SEC. On March 13, 2017, the Judge signed the Judgment as to Defendant GDSI and it was entered on the Court’s docket. On April 6, 2017, the SEC moved for a final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief and Notice of Filing Consent of Defendant Sullivan. On April 10, 2017, the Judge signed the final Judgment as to Defendant Sullivan and it was entered on the Court’s docket. On December 21, 2017, the SEC moved for a final Judgment and Notice of Filing Consent of Defendant GDSI to Entry of Final Judgment. On January 2, 2018, the Judge signed the Final Judgment as to Defendant GDSI and it was entered on the Court’s docket. The amount of the judgement is One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) plus interest, which is included in accrued expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Adrian Lopez, Derivatively and on behalf of Global Digital Solutions, Inc. v. William J. Delgado, Richard J. Sullivan, David A. Loppert, Jerome J. Gomolski, Stephanie C. Sullivan, Arthur F. Noterman, and Stephen L. Norris United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 3:17-cv-03468-PGS-LHG On September 19, 2016, Adrian Lopez, derivatively, and on behalf of Global Digital Solutions, Inc., filed an action in New Jersey Superior Court sitting Mercer County, General Equity Division. That action was administratively dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff Lopez, through his counsel, filed a motion to reinstate the matter on the general equity calendar on or about February 10, 2017. The Court granted the motion unopposed on or about April 16, 2017. On May 15, 2017, Defendant William Delgado (“Delgado”) filed a Notice of Removal of Case No. C-70-16 from the Mercer County Superior Court of New Jersey United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Mercer County Superior Court of New Jersey Adrian Lopez v. Global Digital Solutions, Inc. and William J. Delgado Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, Equity Part, Docket No. MER-L-002126-17 On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff Adrian Lopez (“Lopez”) brought an action against Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (“GDSI”) and William J. Delgado (“Delgado”) to compel a meeting of the stockholders of Global Digital Solutions, Inc. pursuant to Section 2.02 of GDSI’s Bylaws and New Jersey Revised Statute § 14A:5-2. On October 27, 2017, Defendants GDSI and Delgado filed a Motion to Stay the Proceeding. On November 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Proceeding. On January 19, 2018, Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Proceeding was denied. On February 2, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases. On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On March 23, 2018, Defendants filed a Brief in Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. As of this date, the Court has not issued a decision and Order regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The Company believes the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is remote. In the Matter of GLOBAL DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-18325. Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 26, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted public administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Respondent Global Digital Solutions, Inc. On January 8, 2018, Respondent Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (“GDSI”) filed its answer to the allegations contained in the Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings and Notice of Hearing Pursuant to Section 12U) of the Exchange Act. A briefing schedule was entered into and on February 15, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a motion for an order of summary disposition against Respondent GDSI on the grounds that there is no genuine issue with regard to any material fact, the Division was entitled as a matter of law to an order revoking each class of GDSI's securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act. Respondent GDSI opposed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion on the grounds that there were material issues of fact. The Securities and Exchange Commission replied and a hearing was held on April 9, 2018. The Administrative Law Judge ordered supplemental evidence and briefing on the issues of material fact. The Company believes the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is reasonably possible, but is not able to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable. PMB HELIN DONOVAN, LLP vs. GLOBAL DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT lN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, Docket No.: 50-2017-CA-011937-XXXX-MB On October 31, 2017, PMB Helin Donovan, LLP filed an action for account stated in Palm Beach County. Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (“GDSI”) settled the matter for Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) of which the first payment of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) has been paid on May 16, 2018. The $40,000 is included in accounts payable as of December 31, 2017. JENNIFER CARROLL, vs. GLOBAL DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC., NORTH AMERICAN CUSTOM SPECIALTY VEHICLES, INC., IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT lN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 50-2015-CC-012942-XXXX-MB On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff Jennifer Carroll moved the court for a default judgment against Defendant Global Digital Solutions, Inc. (“GDSI”) and its subsidiary North American Custom Specialty Vehicles Inc. The amount of the judgement is Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) plus fees of Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three Dollars Forty Four Cents ($13,353.44) and costs of six hundred twenty four dollars thirty cents ($624.30). Consulting agreements The Company entered into two consulting agreements in May 2016, for services to be provided in connection towards the resolution of the Rontan lawsuit (below). The consulting agreements includes a monthly retainer payment of $10,000 to each consultant. The agreement also includes consideration of 5,000,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company, plus a 5% cash consideration of the Resolution Progress Funding, (defined as upon the retention of legal counsel and receipt of funding for the litigation), as of the Resolution Progress Funding date and 10,000,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company and a 5% cash consideration of the Resolution Funding amount (defined as a settlement or judgement in favour of the Company by Rotan), at the Resolution Funding date. The Resolution Progress funding was met on December 22, 2017. Share Purchase and Sale Agreement for Acquisition of Grupo Rontan Electro Metalurgica, S.A. Effective October 13, 2015, the Company (as “Purchaser”) entered into the SPSA dated October 8, 2015 with Joao Alberto Bolzan and Jose Carlos Bolzan, both Brazilian residents (collectively, the “Sellers”) and Grupo Rontan Electro Metalurgica, S.A., a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of Federative Republic of Brazil (“Rontan”) (collectively, the “Parties”), pursuant to which the Sellers agreed to sell 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of Rontan to the Purchaser on the closing date. The purchase price shall consist of a cash amount, a stock amount and an earn-out amount as follows: (i) Brazilian Real (“R”) $100 million (approximately US$26 million) to be paid by the Purchaser in equal monthly installments over a period of forty eight (48) months following the closing date; (ii) an aggregate of R$100 million (approximately US$26 million) in shares of the Purchaser’s common stock, valued at US$1.00 per share; and (iii) an earn-out payable within ten business days following receipt by the Purchaser of Rontan’s audited financial statements for the 12-months ended December 31, 2017, 2018 and 2019. The earn-out shall be equal to the product of (i) Rontan’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) for the last 12 months, and (ii) twenty percent and is contingent upon Rontan’s EBITDA results for any earn-out period being at least 125% of Rontan’s EBITDA for the 12-months ended December 31, 2015. It is the intention of the parties that the stock amount will be used by Rontan to repay institutional debt outstanding as of the closing date. Under the terms of a Finders Fees Agreement dated April 14, 2014, we have agreed to pay RLT Consulting Inc., a related party, a fee of 2% (two percent) of the Transaction Value, as defined in the agreement, of Rontan upon closing. The fee is payable one-half in cash and one-half in shares of our common stock. Specific conditions to closing consist of: a) Purchaser’s receipt of written limited assurance of an unqualified opinion with respect to Rontan’s audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2014 (the “Opinion”); b) The commitment of sufficient investment by General American Capital Partners LLC (the “Institutional Investor”), in the Purchaser following receipt of the Opinion; c) The accuracy of each Parties’ representations and warranties contained in the SPSA; d) The continued operation of Rontan’s business in the ordinary course; e) The maintenance of all of Rontan’s bank credit lines in the maximum amount of R$200 million (approximately US$52 million) under the same terms and conditions originally agreed with any such financial institutions, and the maintenance of all other types of funding arrangements. As of the date of the SPSA, Rontan’s financial institution debt consists of not more than R$200 million (approximately US$52 million), trade debt of not more than R$50 million (approximately US$13 million) and other fiscal contingencies of not more that R$95 million (approximately US$24.7 million); f) Rontan shall enter into employment or consulting service agreements with key employees and advisors identified by the Purchaser, including Rontan’s Chief Executive Officer; and g) The Sellers continued guarantee of Rontan’s bank debt for a period of 90 days following issuance of the Opinion, among other items. The Institutional Investor has committed to invest sufficient capital to facilitate the transaction, subject to receipt of the Opinion, as well as the ability to acquire 100% of the outstanding stock of Rontan at a price of $200 million BR, and the Company can acquire 100% of all real estate held by Rontan. Subject to satisfaction or waiver of the conditions precedent provided for in the SPSA, the closing date of the transaction shall take place within 10 business days from the date of issuance of the Opinion. Rontan is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of specialty vehicles and acoustic/visual signaling equipment for the industrial and automotive markets. Subsequent to December 31, 2015, on April 1, 2016, we believed that we had satisfied or otherwise waived the conditions to closing (as disclosed under the SPSA, the closing was subject to specific conditions to closing, which were waivable by us,) and advised the Sellers of our intention to close the SPSA and demanded delivery of the Rontan Securities. The Sellers, however, notified us that they intend to terminate the SPSA. We believe that the Sellers had no right to terminate the SPSA and that notice of termination by the Sellers was not permitted under the terms of the SPSA. On January 31, 2018, we announced that we initiated a lawsuit for damages against Grupo Rontan Metalurgica, S. A, (“Rontan”) and that company’s controlling shareholders, Joao Alberto Bolzan and Jose Carlos Bolzan. The action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that Rontan is wholly-owned by Joao Bolzan and Jose Bolzan. In the complaint, we further allege that Rontan and its shareholders improperly terminated a Share Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “SPA”) by which we were to acquire whole ownership of Rontan. On February 5, 2018, United States District Court Southern District of Florida filed a Pretrial Scheduling Order and Order Referring Case to Mediation dated February 5, 2018 for the Company’s lawsuit against Grupo Rontan Electro Metalurgica, S.A., et al. The Case No. is 18-80106-Civ-Middlebrooks/Brannon. The court has issued a schedule outlining various documents and responses that are to be delivered by the parties as part of the discovery plan. On April 25, 2018, the Note of Filing Proposed Summons was completed by the Company. On April 26, 2018, a summons was issued to Grupo Rontan Electro Metalurgica, S.A. Also, on May 15, 2018 the Company filed a motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory. |