Contingencies | 11. Contingencies On December 17, 2019, GreenPower Motor Company Inc., a public company incorporated under the laws of British Columbia (“GreenPower”), of which Phillip W. Oldridge, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our board of directors, previously served as a senior officer and a member of its board of directors, filed a notice of civil claim, captioned GreenPower Motor Company Inc. v. Phillip Oldridge et al., Action No. S-1914285, On or about July 18, 2021, GreenPower and GP Greenpower Industries Inc. filed a counterclaim against Phillip W. Oldridge, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our board of directors, David Oldridge, our Chief Technology Officer and the brother of Phillip W. Oldridge, EVTDS Wyoming and other companies in Supreme Court of British Columbia Action No. S207532. The counterclaim alleges that David Oldridge, Phillip Oldridge, EVTDS Wyoming and other companies committed the tort of abuse of process by causing 42 Design Works Inc. to commence a lawsuit against Greenpower and GP Greenpower Industries Inc. Additionally, Greenpower and GP Greenpower Industries Inc. claim against David Oldridge, Phillip W. Oldridge, EVTDS Wyoming and the other companies for conspiracy. EVTDS Wyoming, David Oldridge and the other companies have filed an application to strike the allegations in the counterclaim regarding abuse of process and conspiracy. The court application is scheduled to be heard on November 12, 2021. On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside against us, certain of our executive officers, Edward R. Monfort, the former Chief Technology Officer and a former director of ADOMANI, Inc., and the two underwriters of our offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017. This complaint alleges that documents related to our offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that we and the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection therewith. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i) certification of a class under California substantive law and procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the c terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020, we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort’s cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed its motion for class certification. On March 17, 2021, the court held a case management conference. At the case management conference, the court set a tentative schedule for class discovery and briefing on the motion for class certification. On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI filed a stipulation extending the deadline for class certification discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class discovery on September 28, 2021; defendants’ opposition to the motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021; plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021; a case management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification. Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort. The Underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains on the primary claims in this matter. All defendants are maintaining their cross claims against each other. On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains’ counsel moved to be relieved as counsel and on August 23, 2021, the court granted this motion. Also on August 23, 2021, the Clerk of Court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be stricken and matter dismissed for failure to retain new counsel to Electric Drivetrains. On October 28, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed a substitution of attorney, substituting J. Ryan Gustafson of Good Gustafson Aumais LLP as its new counsel. A case management conference and hearing on the order to show cause are set for December 13, 2021. We believe that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On June 19, 2019, Alan K. Brooks, an ADOMANI investor, filed a complaint, captioned Alan K. Brooks v. ADOMANI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-CV-349153 plus interest and attorney’s fees. On September 20, 2019, Mr. Brooks filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) reasserting his breach of contract claim and alleging five additional claims for (i) violations of Cal. Corp. Code Section 25401, (ii) fraud, (iii) negligent misrepresentation, (iv) elder abuse, and (v) unfair competition. We answered the FAC on November 12, 2019, generally denying the allegations in the FAC and asserting affirmative defenses. Fact discovery in this matter remains ongoing. On August 10, 2021, we filed a motion for summary judgement and dismissal of plaintiff’s FAC. The hearing on the motion for summary judgement as well as the trial setting conference is set for November 23, 2021. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On February 3, 2020, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of Ebus in a foreclosure sale through a credit bid in the amount of $582,000, representing the amount then owed by Ebus to the Company evidenced by a secured promissory note. Following the Company’s successful credit bid at the foreclosure sale, Ebus’s obligations under the note were extinguished and the Company was entitled to take possession of substantially all of the assets of Ebus. While the Company was able to take possession of some of the assets, Ebus prevented the Company from taking possession of all of the assets purchased at the foreclosure sale. As a result, on April 13, 2020, the Company filed a complaint captioned ADOMANI, Inc. v. Ebus, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20ST CV 14275, against Ebus and certain of its insiders and affiliates seeking to recover the remainder of the assets and related damages. On January 14, 2021, a cross-complaint was filed against the Company by Ebus, Inc. and Anders B. Eklov for Unjust Enrichment and Conversion of Domain Name, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to pursue its claims set forth in the complaint and defend the claims set forth in the cross-complaint. |