COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingent Liabilities The Company recorded contingent liabilities for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 in the amount of $422,483. The contingent liability includes $197,283 for settlement of an arbitration dispute plus accrued interest and fees, and a $75,000 note payable, as further defined below, and two additional prior notes payable in the amount $10,000 and $140,200. The Company was notified through its confirmation process that a prior law firm intends to file for the collection of prior fees accrued to them in the amount of $92,000. The Company has included penalties and interest in the amount of $14,884 in its payables to account for the possible loss for a total of $106,884. Former CEO Fraud / Maleficence In October 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with Iconic Holdings (“Iconic”) with our then current CEO, Richard Johnson (“Johnson”). The note on the books for $30,000 was intended to go to a law firm for preparing an S-1 in the amount of $5,000,000, according to the executed term sheet. It is known that based on the financial status of Valley High Mining at the time, there was no way a $5,000,000 S-1 was going to get approved. Two things happened during that transaction, 1) Iconic did not send the funds to the law firm as was stated in the Term Sheet, it was sent to the Company whereby Johnson paid some of the funds to himself; and 2) Iconic executed a "2nd Note" of $75,000 as consideration for the S-1, but no real consideration was given, except to say that Iconic would provide the S-1 funding, which was not possible. The events were all presented to Iconic, including the fact that Johnson signed it as sole director and never had Board consent (from Peter Bianchi, the second director at the time). Iconic agreed that it did not add up. The Company stated that Iconic should not be held accountable for Johnson's potential fraudulent act and that the Company would honor the $30,000 ($25,000 net amount) that Iconic wired to the Company. However, assuming that Iconic is familiar with S-1 filings and the funding in the amount of $5,000,000, they should know that the deal structure was not plausible, and therefore no consideration was being given for the $75,000 second note. Therefore, Iconic should have no claim to the second note and the Company will take legal action to defend (including both notes for fraud if needed). However, an additional second contingency for the face value of the $75,000 note is being added as a legal contingency until the matter is resolved. Legal proceedings On February 24, 2015, the Company was named a defendant in a complaint filed by John Michael Coombs in the Third Judicial District Court in and For Salt Lake County, State of Utah, alleging, among other things, Breach of Contract, in connection with a Warrant Agreement issued by the Company to Mr. Coombs in 2010. Management has informed Mr. Coombs that it fully intends to honor the Warrant Agreement and is in discussions to settle this matter. The Company carries this liability on its balance sheet as a derivative liability. In March 2014, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with one of its former CEO’s Andrew Telsey. A dispute arose with respect to the Company’s performance under such settlement agreement and, in accordance with the terms of such agreement, such party moved for arbitration to resolve such dispute. An agreement was reached in April 2015 during arbitration; however, the Company was unable to perform under the settlement agreement. The Company has recorded a liability in the amount of $125,000, plus accrued interest and fees, to account for a total liability of $187,283, which was recorded as a judgment amount in September 2016. The Company was notified through its confirmation process that a prior law firm intends to file for the collection of prior fees accrued to them in the amount of $92,000. The Company has not stated a position related to the accrual or outcome of the amount, but the Company has included penalties and interest in the amount of $14,884 in its payables to account for the possible loss for a total of $106,884. Derivative Liability As described in Note 6, the Company entered into a warrant agreement which has been accounted for as a derivative. The Company has accrued a loss contingency associated with this agreement because it is both probable that a liability had been incurred and the amount of the loss can reasonably be estimated. The fair value of this liability is closely linked to whether the Company enters a reverse merger, initiates a public offering of stock or engages in a similar transaction. The Company believes that the realization of one or more of these events in the near future is probable and when realized, it could have a material effect on the value of the derivative liability recorded. The main factors that will affect the fair value of the derivative are the number of shares outstanding post acquisition or post offering and the resulting market capitalization. In order to estimate a range for the potential contingent liability, the Company utilized the Black-Scholes method in calculating the value of the warrant derivative. |