Contingencies | 10. Contingencies 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, 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. 5:22-cv-00252 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 is 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. 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. On December 10, 2021, the Court vacated the order to show cause. On January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his cross-complaint for indemnification against the Company. Electric Drivetrains has, on several occasions, forwarded its proposed Fifth Amended Complaint, in which it: i) drops certain class allegations; ii) adds certain state law claims; iii) and drops certain factual allegations but leaves the remaining claims against defendants intact. The Company is considering whether to stipulate the most recent proposed Fifth Amended Compliant. A status conference is scheduled for June 16, 2022. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On January 20 , 2022 , Mr. Monfort dismissed his cross-complaint for indemnification against the Company in the Mollik action. On April 8 , 2022 , the Company and Boustead Securities, LLC (“Boustead”) settled their respective cross-claims against each other in both the Mollik action and Brooks action in exchange for the Company paying fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in cash and 20,415 shares of common stock and mutual releases between parties. On August 5, 2022, the Santa Clara Superior Court approved this Settlement rendering it finally effective, with consideration being forthcoming. There are no longer any cross claims pending in the Mollik action. On February 3, 2020, the Company acquired substantially all 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. A settlement agreement was entered into on March 15, 2022. |