Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 8 – Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease

We have entered into various operating lease agreements, including our corporate headquarters. We account for leases in accordance with ASC Topic 842: Leases, which requires a lessee to utilize the right-of-use model and to record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases are classified as either financing or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the statement of operations. In addition, a lessor is required to classify leases as either sales-type, financing or operating. A lease will be treated as a sale if it transfers all of the risks and rewards, as well as control of the underlying asset, to the lessee. If risks and rewards are conveyed without the transfer of control, the lease is treated as financing. If the lessor does not convey risk and rewards or control, the lease is treated as operating. We determine if an arrangement is a lease, or contains a lease, at inception and record the lease in our financial statements upon lease commencement, which is the date when the underlying asset is made available for use by the lessor.

Right-of-use assets represent our right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent our obligation to make lease payments over the lease term. Lease right-of-use assets and liabilities at commencement are initially measured at the present value of lease payments over the lease term. We generally use our incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at commencement to determine the present value of lease payments except when an implicit interest rate is readily determinable. We determine our incremental borrowing rate based on market sources including relevant industry data.

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

We have lease agreements with lease and non-lease components and have elected to utilize the practical expedient to account for lease and non-lease components together as a single combined lease component, from both a lessee and lessor perspective with the exception of direct sales-type leases and production equipment classes embedded in supply agreements. From a lessor perspective, the timing and pattern of transfer are the same for the non-lease components and associated lease component and, the lease component, if accounted for separately, would be classified as an operating lease.

We have elected not to present short-term leases on the balance sheet as these leases have a lease term of 12 months or less at lease inception and do not contain purchase options or renewal terms that we are reasonably certain to exercise. All other lease assets and lease liabilities are recognized based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term at commencement date. Because most of our leases do not provide an implicit rate of return, we used our incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at lease commencement date in determining the present value of lease payments.

Our leases, where we are the lessee, do not include an option to extend the lease term. Our lease also includes an option to terminate the lease prior to the end of the agreed upon lease term. For purposes of calculating lease liabilities, lease term would include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that we will exercise such options.

Lease expense for operating leases is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term as an operating expense, included as a component of general and administrative expenses, in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations.

Certain operating leases provide for annual increases to lease payments based on an index or rate, our lease has no stated increase, payments were fixed at lease inception. We calculate the present value of future lease payments based on the index or rate at the lease commencement date. Differences between the calculated lease payment and actual payment are expensed as incurred.

At September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively, the Company has no financing leases as defined in ASC 842, “Leases.”

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

The tables below present information regarding the Company’s operating lease assets and liabilities at September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively:

	For the Nine Months Ended		For the Nine Months Ended
	September 30, 2022		September 30, 2021
Operating Leases	$	44,747	$	140,464
Interest on lease liabilities		17,216		31,898
Total net lease cost	$	61,963	$	172,362

Supplemental balance sheet information related to leases was as follows:

	September 30, 2022		December 31, 2021
Operating leases
Operating lease ROU assets - net	$	441,921	$	486,668
Operating lease liabilities - current		38,606		49,352
Operating lease liabilities - non-current		409,672		438,903
Total operating lease liabilities	$	448,278	$	488,255

Supplemental cash flow and other information related to leases was as follows:

	For the Nine Months Ended			For the Nine Months Ended
	September 30, 2022			September 30, 2021
Cash paid for amounts included in measurement of lease liabilities
Operating cash flows from operating leases	$	39,977		$	117,357
ROU assets obtained in exchange for lease liabilities
Operating leases	$	-		$	515,848
Weighted average remaining lease term (in years)
Operating leases		7.74			8.19
Weighted average discount rate
Operating leases		5	%		5	%

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

Future minimum lease payments at September 30, 2022

2022 (3 months)	$	14,878
2023		60,294
2024		61,876
2025		63,460
Thereafter		351,356
Total lease payments		551,864
Less: amount representing interest		(103,586	)
Total lease obligations	$	448,278

In May 2021, the Company and its landlord mutually agreed to terminate the outstanding lease for ECS. The Company had an outstanding ROU liability of $228,752 at the date of termination. There was no gain or loss on lease termination.

Contingencies – Legal Matters

True Wireless and Surge Holdings - Terracom Litigation

Global Reconnect, LLC and Terracom, Inc. v. Jonathan Coffman, Jerry Carroll, True Wireless, & Surge Holdings: In the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, TN, Docket # 20-00058, Filed Jan 21, 2020. On January 21, 2020, a complaint was filed related to a noncompetition dispute. Terracom believes Mr. Coffman and Mr. Carroll are in violation of their non-compete agreements by working for us and True Wireless, Inc. Oklahoma and Tennessee state law does not recognize non-compete agreements and are not usually enforced in the state courts of these states, as such we believe True Wireless has a strong case against Terracom. The matter is entering the discovery process. Both Mr. Carroll and Mr. Coffman are no longer working for True Wireless in sales. Mr. Carroll is off the payroll and Mr. Coffman works for SurgePays, Inc., but not in wireless sales. The complaint requests general damages plus fees and costs for tortious interference with a business relationship in their prayer for relief. They have made no written demand for damages at this point in time. The Company believes this matter is simply an anti-competitive attempt by Terracom to cause distress to True Wireless.

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

Surge Holdings – Juno Litigation

Juno Financial v. AATAC and Surge Holdings Inc. AND Surge Holdings Inc. v. AATAC; Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, Case # 20-CA-2712 DIV A: Breach of Contract, Account Stated and Open Account claims against Surge by a factoring company. Surge has filed a cross-complaint against defendant AATAC for Breach of Contract, Account Stated, Open Account and Common Law Indemnity. Case is in discovery. Following analysis by our litigation counsel stating that there is a good defense, management has decided that a reserve is not necessary.

Unimax - Litigation

On July 9, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement and release agreement with Unimax Communications, LLC (“Unimax”). The settlement is related to a complaint filed by Unimax alleging the Company is indebted pursuant to a purchase order and additional financing terms. The Company agreed to pay Unimax the total sum of $785,000 over a 24-month period. The settlement amount is included accounts payable and accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheets. The balance was repaid in April 2021.

Glen Eagles Litigation

SurgePays, Inc., formerly named as Surge Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Glen Eagles Acquisition LP, a Delaware limited partnership, Defendant; District Court Clark County, Nevada; Case No.: A-21-831204-B

ALTCORP TRADING, LLC, a Costa Rica limited liability company; et al, Plaintiffs, vs. Surge Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation; VSTOCK Transfer, LLC, a California limited liability company, et al; District Court Clark County, Nevada; Case No.: A-20-823039-B

These two lawsuits involved AltCorp Trading, LLC, Stanley Hills, LLC, and Glen Eagles Acquisition LP (the “AltCorp Parties.”). Each of these lawsuits were ultimately disputes relating to the total consideration the Company paid to GBT Technologies, Inc. (“GBT”) to acquire all of the assets of the entities that comprise the ECS Business (prior to the Company’s January 2020 acquisition of the entities themselves).

On October 18, 2021, the AltCorp Parties, GBT, and the Company entered into a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) to set up a framework for an attempt to settle the two lawsuits.

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

On December 22, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), pursuant to the framework in the MOU, the AltCorp Parties, Igor 1 Corp. (an entity related to the AltCorp Parties), the Company, ECS Prepaid LLC (“ECS LLC), and, in his individual capacity, Kevin Brian Cox (the Company’s Chief Executive Officer), entered into a Resolution of Purchase, Mutual Release, and Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to settle the two lawsuits and resolve all disputes related to the consideration paid by the Company to GBT.

This Settlement Agreement was entered into pursuant to a resolution of the Board authorizing the negotiation of and entry into of such agreement.

As part of this agreement, the Company has acquired GBT’s rights to a certain Master Distribution and Service Agreement between Interactive Communications International, Inc. and W.L. Petrey Wholesale Company, Inc., d/b/a UGO-HUB dated August 29, 2016 (the “MDA”), as amended. The MDA contains sales channel access to a variety of unique wholesale prepaid products with approximately $1,500,000 to $2,500,000 in monthly revenue. The MDA is the subject of a lawsuit between GBT and Robert Warren Jackson, RWJ Advanced Marketing LLC, and Gregory Bauer int federal district court in Nevada (the “GBT Lawsuit”).

If the result of the GBT Lawsuit is an assignment of the MDA to GBT or that GBT or an affiliate of GBT is the legal owner of the MDA, GBT or such affiliate will assign the MDA to Surge and GBT shall be entitled to receive the Escrow Amount. If the result of the GBT Lawsuit is a monetary judgment without the assignment or legal decree of ownership of the MDA, GBT shall be entitled to receive the Escrow Amount and shall assign and timely pay to the Company the first one million dollars ($1,000,000) GBT recovers from the defendants in the GBT Lawsuit. In the event that GBT does not prevail in the GBT Lawsuit then it shall be entitled to release of the Escrow Amount but shall be responsible for any fees and costs obligation sought by the defendants in the GBT Lawsuit.

The Company agreed to make total payments of four million two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000) to Stanley Hills, LLC on or prior to January 7, 2022. This $4.2 million amount consists of a total of four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000) paid by the Company in November and December 2021, one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to be paid on or about January 4, 2022, and three million six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($3,650,000) to be paid on or prior to January 7, 2022 of which three hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($375,000) will be held in escrow (the “Escrow Amount”). At December 31, 2021, the Company had accrued $3,750,000 as a settlement expense, which was paid on January 7, 2022.

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

In addition, Igor 1 Corp. as of the Effective Date, held one hundred ten thousand (110,000) shares of the Company’s common stock that has a restrictive legend (the “Igor Shares”). The owner of Igor 1 Corp. will be responsible for and shall pay for attempting to have the restrictive legend from the Igor Shares removed (with the Company agreeing to pay seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) to help pay for the legal opinion required). If Igor 1 Corp. is unable to have the legend removed prior to January 30, 2022, the Company will pay Igor 1 Corp. five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) within five (5) trading days to purchase the Igor Shares back and then cancel them. As of February 4, 2022 (five trading days after January 30^th), the Company was not asked to pay Igor 1 Corp. any funds related to this possible share cancellation.

Glen Eagles and a related entity as of the Effective Date, held three thousand (3,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Glen Eagles Shares”). The Glen Eagles shares shall be sold on the open market within thirty (30) days following the Effective Date. If for any reason the consideration for the Glen Eagles shares is less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), the Company will have the obligation to compensate Glen Eagles for the difference between the actual amount received and $15,000. Such difference shall be paid within five (5) days of Glen Eagles providing written proof of the proceeds of the sale of the Glen Eagles Shares. Glen Eagles was paid $8,552.25 on February 16, 2022 for full settlement.

The Settlement Agreement replaces all prior agreements between the parties. In addition, within three (3) trading days of the last payment related to the $4.2 million payment to Stanley Hills being made, the parties shall make filings with the state District Court in Clark County, Nevada to dismiss both lawsuits, including, regarding the lawsuit filed by AltCorp Trading, LLC, the dismissal of the lawsuit as to VStock Transfer, LLC, to which the Company owed certain indemnification obligations. The parties agreed to a full mutual release of any disputes or claims between the parties. All matters were dismissed by stipulation of the parties on January 12, 2022.

Crystal Chapman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff versus SurgePays, Inc., Defendant; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No.: 1:21-cv-04272. On August 11, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a putative class action. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and an order enjoining the Company or their agents from making autodialed calls. The case alleges contact to consumer(s) whose telephone numbers are on the Federal Do Not Call list, without their consent. There are no other counts under the TCPA or any other statute or tort. The Company vigorously disputes the allegations in this complaint as the Company only contacts consumers who have provided express written consent to be contacted. The Company believes it uses the leading software in the industry for lead verification and believes it can prove consent for all called parties. This matter was settled in the quarter ended December 31, 2021.

SURGEPAYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

(UNAUDITED)

SurgePays – Ambess Litigation

On December 17, 2021, Ambess Enterprises, Inc. v SurgePays, Inc., Blair County Pa. case number 2021 GN 3222. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and prays for damages of approximately $73,000.00, plus fees, costs and interest. Litigation counsel is managing the motion practice and discovery process.

True Wireless and SurgePays - Litigation

Blue Skies Connections, LLC, and True Wireless, Inc. v. SurgePays, Inc., et. al.: In the District Court of Oklahoma County, OK, CJ-2021-5327, filed on December 13, 2021. Plaintiffs’ petition alleges breach of a Stock Purchase Agreement by SurgePays, SurgePhone Wireless, LLC, and Kevin Brian Cox, and makes other allegations related to SurgePays’ consulting work with Jonathan Coffman, a True Wireless employee. Blue Skies believes the Defendants are in violation of their non-competition and non-solicitation agreements related to the sale of True Wireless from SurgePays to Blue Skies. Oklahoma state law does not recognize non-compete agreements and non-solicitation agreements in the manner alleged by Plaintiffs, as such we believe SurgePays, SurgePhone, and Cox have a strong defense against the claims asserted by Blue Skies and True Wireless. The matter continues in the discovery process. Mr. Coffman is no longer working for True Wireless. An attempt at mediation in July, 2022 did not achieve a settlement. The petition requests injunctive relief, general damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs for alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, and fraud. Plaintiffs have made a written demand for damages and the parties continue to discuss a potential resolution. This matter is an anti-competitive attempt by Blue Skies and True Wireless to damage SurgePays, SurgePhone, and Cox.