Contingencies | Note 9 - Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with total confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any legal proceedings or potential claims against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows. Social Reality Inc. v. YayYo, Inc. This action was filed on February 11, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Social Reality Inc. is a media company that claims to have provided media services to the Company. Plaintiff has sued the Company for breach of contract and related causes of action, arising from its claims that the Company has failed to pay for past outstanding invoices for services rendered. The plaintiff has also filed a motion for prejudgment attachment which was heard on July 28, 2020. The Superior Court denied the writ of attachment on the merits. The parties have a case management conference scheduled for August 18, 2020. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the lawsuit, and expects to file counterclaims that will offset or negate any monies owed to plaintiff; it will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi This action was filed on March 5, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Anthony Davis was hired by the Company as its Chief Executive Officer in or about December 2016, although he worked there for only a matter of months. Mr. El-Batrawi is the founder of the Company and our current Chief Executive Officer and director, and was involved, the complaint alleges, in Plaintiff’s hiring. As part of his compensation, Mr. Davis claims that he expected to receive stock options in the Company. He has alleged that “after several months of unsuccessfully attempting to persuade the Company’s founder to implement certain protocols and procedures” Davis resigned from his executive officer and director positions, and entered into a written settlement agreement with the Company as a consultant. Mr. Davis claims that the Company breached its agreement to award him certain stock options and includes a claim for wage and hour violations. The lawsuit also includes a request for declaratory and injunctive relief. Davis also included a claim under California Unfair Practices Act. The Company denies liability and asserts that it has paid Davis all amounts due to him under the contract, and that Davis failed to exercise his stock options before they expired on December 31, 2018. It intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, and has agreed to pursue mediation pursuant to the contract with plaintiff. Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 This action was filed on July 22, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Ivan Rung claims to have purchased the Company’s stock and purports to bring a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of YayYo’s stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with YayYo’s November 14, 2019 initial public stock offering (IPO”). Mr. El-Batrawi is the founder and current CEO of the Company but at the time of the IPO was only a shareholder of the Company having stepped down as CEO, Director and a controlling shareholder of the Company. The complaint is vague about alleged misrepresentation and material omissions, detailing instead a supposed chronology of events leading to the Company’s voluntary decision to delist its stock from NASDAQ, a decision the Company announced in an 8K filed on February10, 2020. The Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed all materially adverse facts and occurrences in its Registration Statement, related public filings and other public statements, and the Complaint’s alleged violations of Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless. It intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066 This action was filed on July 23, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, also as a purported class action. Plaintiff Michael Vanbecelaere claims to have purchased the Company’s stock “traceable to the IPO” and like Rung, brings a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of YayYo’s stock. The complaint like the preceding action, Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 (“Rung”) alleges false statements and material omission pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with YayYo’s November 14, 201 9 initial public stock offering (IPO). The defendants are identical to the defendants in the action filed the day before, on July 22, 2020. The two complaints are virtual cookie cutter versions of each other including a false allegation of fact about YayYo that appears in an identical paragraph 13: “On or about June 21, 2016, defendant EI-Batrawi incorporated YayYo in Delaware. The Company then rented cars to Uber and Lyft drivers.” (The business model of YayYo was different on June 21, 2016.) As with the Rung case, the Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed all materially adverse facts, events and occurrences in its Registration Statement and related public filings, and the Complaint’s alleged violations of Sections 11 & 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless. The actions will be “low numbered” to the same Superior Court judge and consolidated. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. |