PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Except as set forth below, we know of no material, existing or pending, legal proceedings against our Company, nor are we involved as a plaintiff in any material proceeding or pending litigation. There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholder, is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.
On December 17, 2019, GreenPower Motor Company Inc., a public company incorporated under the laws of British Columbia (“GreenPower”), of which Phillip W. Oldridge, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and a member of its 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,
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, against Phillip Oldridge, his trust, EVTDS and certain other companies affiliated therewith. The notice of civil claim alleges that Mr. Oldridge breached certain fiduciary duties owed to GreenPower by working with certain parties in direct competition with and at the expense of GreenPower. GreenPower alleges that the Company conspired with Mr. Oldridge to build its business, competing products and unfairly compete with GreenPower. GreenPower seeks general damages, special damages and punitive damages, plus interest and costs against EVTDS. On February 2, 2020, the Company and the other companies affiliated therewith named in the notice of civil claim filed a response to the civil claim in which they denied certain of the allegations and asserted that certain other facts were outside of their knowledge. Fact discovery, through document disclosure and examinations for discoveries, in this matter remain ongoing. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.
On or about July 18, 2021, GreenPower and GP Greenpower Industries Inc., (collectively “the GreenPower entities”) filed a counterclaim against David Oldridge, Phillip Oldridge, the Company and other companies in Supreme Court of British Columbia Action No. S207532. The counterclaim alleges that David Oldridge, Phillip Oldridge, the Company and other companies committed the tort of abuse of process by causing 42 Design Works Inc., to commence a lawsuit against the GreenPower entities. Additionally, GreenPower entities also advanced claims against David Oldridge, Phillip Oldridge, the Company and other companies for conspiracy. The pleadings in this lawsuit have not closed and we intend to vigorously defend the counterclaim.
On February 8, 2022, GreenPower Motor Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and GreenPower Motor Company Inc., a Canadian Corporation, filed a complaint captioned GreenPower Motor Company, Inc. v. Philip Oldridge, et al., Case No.
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint names the Company and the following affiliated entities, officers, or directors: Phillip Oldridge, Envirotech Electric Vehicles Inc., Envirotech Drive Systems Incorporated US, Envirotech Drive Systems Incorporated Canada, Sue Emry, David Oldridge, S&P Financial and Corporate Services, Inc. GreenPower also named the Philip Oldridge Trust and a purported entity called EVT Motors, Inc., but has since dismissed those parties. The complaint alleges (i) RICO violations, (ii) conspiracy to commit RICO violations, (iii) breach of fiduciary duties, (iv) breach of an employment contract, (v) conversion of GreenPower property, (vi) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and violations of California’s Business and Profession Code. The complaint seeks an undisclosed amount of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to prevent the alleged anti- Competitive behavior, restitution for harm, an award of treble damages, and associate fees and costs. The complaint’s allegations are centered around the same assertions in the pending Canadian litigation.
On May 10, 2022, the Company, together with other defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of the Canadian litigation. Hearing on this Motion set for October 7, 2022. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.
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 recessionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the court. Plaintiff’s counsel has subsequently filed a first amended complaint, a second amended complaint, a third amended complaint, and a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class representative. On October 27, 2020, we answered the fourth amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead Securities (together the “Underwriters”) filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for the Company’s initial public offering (the “Underwriting Agreement”). On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the Underwriters’ cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the 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.