| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments The Company has entered into certain off–balance sheet commitments that require the future purchase of goods or services (“unconditional purchase obligations”). The Company entered into the Strategic Connectivity Agreement (the “Connectivity Agreement”) with Hutchison 3G UK Limited (“3UK”) on July 23, 2019. Under the Connectivity Agreement, the Company is obligated to pay 3UK $0.6 million (the “Implementation Fee”) for the implementation of a mobile virtual network operator ("MVNO" and specifically, the “3UK MVNO”), and for monthly services provided, based on usage, after the 3UK MVNO is launched, which management anticipates to be in the third quarter of 2021. On February 19, 2021, the Company and 3UK amended the Connectivity Agreement to eliminate some of the invoicing functionality of the 3UK MVNO, which will reduce the Implementation Fee to $0.4 million. The Implementation Fee is payable upon the satisfactory completion of certain agreed upon milestones. As of September 30, 2020, none of those milestones had been achieved, however, as of the date of this Report, two of the four milestones had been achieved. Concurrent with the execution of the Connectivity Agreement, the Company entered into the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Credit Voucher (the “Credit Voucher Agreement”) with PCCW Global Limited (“PCCW”) under which the Company is obligated to purchase a credit voucher for $29.3 million. The credit voucher will be used to offset certain monthly service charges incurred under the Connectivity Agreement. As of September 30, 2020, $0.2 million of the purchase price has been paid and $0.4 million of the purchase price has been recorded in accrued expenses and other payables in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet. The remaining $28.7 million unconditional purchase obligation is due and payable following the launch date of the 3UK MVNO, where after the Company is required to remit the amount of the credit voucher used to offset monthly charges incurred under the Connectivity Agreement to PCCW each quarter. Should the aggregate of the monthly charges offset with the credit voucher from the Connectivity Agreement launch date through June 30, 2022 be less than $7.6 million, the Company is obligated to remit a make-up payment (the “2022 Make-up Payment”) for the difference between $7.6 million and the aggregate monthly charges offset with the credit voucher. Should the aggregate of the monthly charges offset with the credit voucher from the Connectivity Agreement launch date through June 30, 2023, plus any 2022 Make-up Payment, if applicable, be less than $13.5 million, the Company is obligated to remit a make-up payment (the “2023 Make-up Payment”) for the difference between $13.5 million and the aggregate monthly charges offset with the credit voucher, plus any 2022 Make-up Payment. Should the aggregate of the monthly charges offset with the credit voucher from the Connectivity Agreement launch date through June 30, 2024, plus any 2022 Make-up Payment and any 2023 Make-up Payment, if applicable, be less than $20.5 million, the Company is obligated to remit a make-up payment (the “2024 Make-up Payment”) for the difference between $20.5 million and the aggregate monthly charges offset with the credit voucher, plus the 2022 Make-up Payment and the 2023 Make-up Payment. Should the aggregate of the monthly charges offset with the credit voucher from the Connectivity Agreement launch date through June 30, 2025, plus any 2022 Make-up Payment and any 2023 Make-up Payment and any 2024 Make-up Payment, if applicable, be less than $28.7 million, the Company is obligated to remit a final make-up payment for the difference between $28.7 million and the aggregate monthly charges offset with the credit voucher, plus any 2022 Make-up Payment and any 2023 Make-up Payment and any 2024 Make-up Payment. The following table presents the minimum amounts due under the Company’s unconditional purchase obligations as of September 30, 2020: (In thousands) Connectivity Agreement Credit Voucher Agreement Total 2020 (excluding the nine months ended September 30, 2020) $ 117 $ — $ 117 2021 293 — 293 2022 — 7,621 7,621 2023 — 5,862 5,862 2024 — 7,034 7,034 Thereafter — 8,207 8,207 Total $ 410 $ 28,724 $ 29,134 The following table presents management’s estimate of the timing of amounts due under the Company’s unconditional purchase obligations as of September 30, 2020: (In thousands) Connectivity Agreement Credit Voucher Agreement Total 2020 (excluding the nine months ended September 30, 2020) $ 117 $ — $ 117 2021 293 320 613 2022 — 8,591 8,591 2023 — 7,019 7,019 2024 — 8,408 8,408 Thereafter — 4,387 4,387 Total $ 410 $ 28,725 $ 29,135 Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and that have not been fully resolved. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts above management’s expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that period could be materially adversely affected. The following actions were initiated or settled on or before September 30, 2020: Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP. On May 5, 2017, the Company’s former legal counsel, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, commenced litigation proceedings in New York alleging breach of contract and claiming $0.8 million in unpaid legal fees for January 2015 through November 2016. On June 29, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement for the full $0.8 million with agreed-upon monthly installment payments through August 31, 2019. As of September 30, 2020, the amount outstanding on the settlement agreement is $0.1 million. SEC Investigation. In August 2019 and February 2020, the SEC issued subpoenas requiring the Company to produce certain documents related to, among other things, the Company’s recognition of revenue, practices with certain customers, and internal accounting controls. The SEC staff has also interviewed and taken testimony from individuals previously employed by the Company in connection with the investigation. The Company is cooperating with the SEC staff in the SEC investigation and discussions with the SEC staff regarding a potential resolution of the investigation with respect to the Company are ongoing. Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. v. Pareteum Corp., et al. , No. 19-cv-10460 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Section 11 Action”), is an action brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act by an investor, Sabby Volatility Master Fund, Ltd. (“Plaintiff Sabby”), against the Company, Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Denis McCarthy, Victor Bozzo, Robert Lippert, Yves Van Sante, and Luis Jimenez Tunon (collectively, the “Defendants”), filed on November 11, 2019. Plaintiff Sabby alleges that the Defendants caused the Company to issue false or misleading statements in a Registration Statement filed with the SEC. Plaintiff Sabby claims that as a result of the alleged misconduct, the Defendants are liable for violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act, breaches of a securities purchase agreement (the “SPA”) entered into between Plaintiff Sabby and Pareteum, and contractual indemnification allegedly owed to Plaintiff Sabby under the SPA. Plaintiff Sabby seeks monetary damages and/or rescission of the SPA, and indemnification by Pareteum for any losses resulting from its alleged breach of the SPA, including costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Section 11 Action. Artilium Africa, LLC et al. v. Artilium, PLC et al. ; ICDR Case No. 01-19-0003-1680 and Artilium Africa, LLC and Tristar Africa Telecom, LLC v. Pareteum Corporation are related matters arising out of the same dispute. The former matter is an arbitration filed with the International Center for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) on October 1, 2019 alleging that Artilium Group Limited, a subsidiary of Pareteum Corporation formerly known as Artilium PLC (“Artilium”), breached an Operating Agreement relating to a joint venture called Artilium Africa formed by Artilium Green Globe Services LLC and Tristar Africa Telecom, LLC (“Tristar” and together with Artilium, the “Delaware Plaintiffs”) to provide mobile data, cloud, and telecommunications services throughout Africa. The Claimants in the ICDR arbitration are seeking $30.0 million. The latter matter is a civil case filed on October 10, 2019 in the Delaware District Court. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that Pareteum tortuously interfered with Tristar’s contract with Artilium in order to enter into the same type of agreement with Artilium. The Plaintiffs are seeking $0.2 million in damages. On December 17, 2020, the Delaware District Court stayed the action and compelled the Delaware Plaintiffs to pursue their claims against Pareteum in the ICDR arbitration. In re Pareteum Securities Litigation is the consolidation of various putative class actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases were assigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who consolidated the actions on January 10, 2020 and named the Pareteum Shareholder Investor Group as the Lead Plaintiff. The Lead Plaintiff is asserting claims on behalf of purported purchasers and/or acquirers of Company securities between December 14, 2017 and October 21, 2019. The defendants are the Company, Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Victor Bozzo, Denis McCarthy, Dawson James Securities Inc., and Squar Milner LLP (“Defendants”). The Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants caused the Company to issue certain materially false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Lead Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages with interest for itself and the other class members for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing and reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the case. Miller ex rel. Pareteum Corporation v. Victor Bozzo, et al. was filed on February 28, 2020 in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County. It is a stockholder derivative suit brought by Plaintiff William Miller (“Plaintiff Miller”), derivatively on behalf of Pareteum, the Nominal Defendant, against certain officers and directors of Pareteum, including Victor Bozzo, Laura Thomas, Yves van Sante, Luis Jimenez-Tunon, Robert Lippert, Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, and Denis McCarthy (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiff Miller alleges that the Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of certain federal securities regulations. Plaintiff Miller alleges that as a result of their misconduct, the Individual Defendants are liable for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiff Miller seeks a judgment awarding Pareteum damages with interest sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ alleged misconduct, directing the Individual Defendants to take certain measures to reform and improve Pareteum’s corporate governance and internal procedures, awarding Pareteum restitution from the Individual Defendants, and awarding Plaintiff Miller all costs and expenses incurred in pursuing the claims. In re Pareteum Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation (the “Delaware Derivative Action”) is a consolidated action that was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) and joins several related derivative actions (the “Related Suits”). On April 3, 2020, the Delaware District Court consolidated the Related Suits brought by stockholders Edward Hayes, Juanita Silvera, and Brad Linton (“Plaintiffs”), derivatively on behalf of Pareteum, the Nominal Defendant, against certain officers and directors of Pareteum, including Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Denis McCarthy, Laura Thomas, Victor Bozzo, Luis Jimenez-Tunon, Robert Lippert, Rob Mumby and Yves Van Sante (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiffs in the related actions have alleged that the Individual Defendants caused Pareteum to issue false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of certain federal securities regulations. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Individual Defendants’ misconduct, they are liable for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and gross mismanagement. Plaintiffs seek a judgment (1) declaring that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties; (2) awarding Pareteum damages sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of federal securities laws; (3) ordering that the Individual Defendants disgorge any performance-based compensation that was received during, or as a result of, the Individual Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty; (4) directing the Individual Defendants to take certain measures to reform and improve Pareteum’s corporate governance and internal procedures; (5) granting appropriate equitable or injunctive relief to remedy the Individual Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of laws; (6) awarding Pareteum restitution from the Individual Defendants; and (7) awarding Plaintiffs all costs and expenses incurred in the Related Suits and Delaware Derivative Action. On July 22, 2020, this action was transferred to the Southern District Court. Zhang ex rel. Pareteum Corporation v. Robert H. Turner, et al. was filed on May 26, 2020 in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County. It is a stockholder derivative suit brought by Plaintiff Wei Zhang (“Plaintiff Zhang”), derivatively on behalf of Pareteum, the Nominal Defendant, against certain officers and directors of Pareteum, including Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Denis McCarthy, Victor Bozzo, Rob Mumby, Luis Jimenez-Tunon, Robert Lippert, Laura Thomas, and Yves van Sante (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiff Zhang alleges that the Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of certain federal securities regulations. Plaintiff Zhang alleges that as a result of their misconduct, the Individual Defendants are liable for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiff Zhang seeks a judgment awarding Pareteum damages with interest sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ alleged misconduct, directing the Individual Defendants to take certain measures to reform and improve Pareteum’s corporate governance and internal procedures, awarding Pareteum restitution from the Individual Defendants, and awarding Plaintiff Zhang all costs and expenses incurred in pursuing this claim. Douglas Loskot v. Pareteum Corporation, et al., is a putative class action pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. It was filed on May 29, 2020 on behalf of all former stockholders of iPass Inc. who received shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to a February 12, 2019 Offer to Exchange. The defendants are the Company, Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Victor Bozzo, Yves van Sante, Robert Lippert and Luis Jimenez-Tunon. The complaint alleges that the defendants caused the Company to issue materially false or misleading statements in SEC filings submitted in connection with the Offer to Exchange in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. Shaw ex. rel. Pareteum Corporation v. Luis Jimenez-Tunon, et al. was filed on July 10, 2020 in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County. It is a stockholder derivative suit brought by Plaintiff Michael Shaw (“Plaintiff Shaw”), derivatively on behalf of Pareteum, the Nominal Defendant, against certain officers and directors of Pareteum, including Luis Jimenez-Tunon, Robert Lippert, Yves Van Sante, Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Denis McCarthy, Victor Bozzo, and Laura Thomas (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiff Shaw alleges that the Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of certain federal securities regulations. Plaintiff Shaw alleges that as a result of their misconduct, the Individual Defendants are liable for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiff Shaw seeks a judgment awarding Pareteum damages sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ alleged misconduct, directing the Individual Defendants to take certain measures to reform and improve Pareteum’s corporate governance and internal procedures, and awarding Plaintiff Shaw all costs and expenses incurred in pursuing this claim. The following actions were initiated after September 30, 2020: Gregory Lackey, derivatively on behalf of Pareteum Corp. v. Robert “Hal” Turner, et al ., No. 1:21-mc-00070, is a shareholder derivative suit that was filed on January 25, 2021 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Gregory Lackey (“Plaintiff Lackey”) is a purported stockholder suing on behalf of Pareteum and alleging that certain officers and directors of Pareteum, including Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Denis McCarthy, Victor Bozzo, Luis Jimenez-Tunon, Robert Lippert, Rob Mumby, Laura Thomas and Yves Van Sante (the “Individual Defendants”) caused Pareteum to issue false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of certain federal securities statutes and regulations. Plaintiff Lackey alleges that as a result of their misconduct, the Individual Defendants are liable for contribution and indemnification under Section 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Lackey seeks a judgment (1) awarding Pareteum damages sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty; (2) directing the Individual Defendants to take certain measures to reform and improve Pareteum’s corporate governance and internal procedures; (3) awarding Pareteum restitution from the Individual Defendants and disgorgement of all profits obtained by the Individual Defendants; and (4) awarding Plaintiff Lackey all costs and expenses incurred in the action. Reuben Harmon, derivatively on behalf of Pareteum Corp. v. Robert H. Turner, et al. is a stockholder derivative lawsuit that was filed in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County on January 27, 2021 by Reuben Harmon (“Plaintiff Harmon”). This case was brought derivatively on behalf of Pareteum, the Nominal Defendant, against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, including Robert H. Turner, Edward O’Donnell, Denis McCarthy, Victor Bozzo, Rob Mumby, Luis Jimenez-Tunon, Robert Lippert, Laura Thomas and Yves Van Sante (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiff Harmon alleges that the Individual Defendants caused Pareteum to issue false or misleading statements in SEC filings and other public pronouncements in violation of certain federal securities statutes and regulations. Plaintiff Harmon alleges that as a result of their misconduct, the Individual Defendants are liable for breaches of their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of Pareteum, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Plaintiff Harmon seeks a judgment awarding Pareteum damages with interest sustained as a result of the Individual Defendants’ alleged misconduct, directing the Individual Defendants to take certain measures to reform and improve Pareteum’s corporate governance and internal procedures, awarding Pareteum restitution from the Individual Defendants, and awarding Plaintiff Harmon all costs and expenses incurred in pursing the claim. Deutsche Telekom A.G. (“DTAG”) is both a supplier to, and customer of, the Company’s subsidiary, iPass. DTAG has initiated a lawsuit in Germany in the amount of approximately $0.8 million for nonpayment for supply of services to iPass and/or insufficient delivery of services to DTAG. iPass has reasonable grounds to set-off a significant proportion of the claimed sums and otherwise dispute the claims. iPass intends to vigorously defend and/or set-off the DTAG claim. Stephen Brown v. Elephant Talk North America Corporation and Elephant Talk Communications Corp. , Case No. 5:18-cv-902-R in the Western District of Oklahoma. A former consultant, Steve Brown (“Plaintiff Brown”) brought a lawsuit against Pareteum and its subsidiary claiming approximately five years’ unpaid consulting fees in an amount equal to $0.8 million. The Company believes some or all of his claims are time-barred and/or frivolous. The Company’s position is that Plaintiff Brown was dismissed for cause in 2013/14, and intends to defend itself in this matter vigorously. Unclaimed Property Compliance The Company has received notices from several states stating that they have appointed an agent to conduct an examination of the books and records of the Company to determine whether it has complied with state unclaimed property laws. In addition to seeking the turnover of unclaimed property subject to escheat laws, the states may seek interest, penalties, costs of examinations, and other relief. If the potential loss from any payment claim is considered probable and the amount or the range of the loss can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. To date, the Company is not able to estimate the possible payment, if any, due to the early state of this matter. |
