COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9)
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as discussed below are not presently a party to any material litigation, nor to the knowledge of management is any litigation threatened against us, which may materially affect us On July 9, 2021 the Company and Singlepoint Direct Solar, LLC (“SDS” or “Direct Solar”) served a complaint (the “Company Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Pablo Diaz Curiel, Kjelsey Johnson, and Brian Odle alleging, amongst other things, that the aforementioned individuals: (i) Interference with Direct Solar America’s existing and prospective business opportunities; (ii) Made unauthorized use of, claims of ownership, and/or offers for sale under direct Solar America’s commercial identity; (iii) Misappropriated trade secrets of Direct Solar America; (iv) Breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement originally entered into between the Company and Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson (Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson); and (v) Breach of the Employment Agreement originally entered into between Direct Solar America and Mr. Diaz. Also on July 9, 2021 the Company was served with a Complaint by Mr. Diaz (and certain other parties) against the Company and certain officers (and former officers) of the Company (the “Diaz Complaint”). On August 11, 2021, an Order was issued consolidating the Company Complaint and the Diaz Complaint which results in the two legal actions being consolidated into one matter, and requiring Defendants to refile their Complaint as a counterclaim. A Counterclaim was submitted by Pablo Diaz Curiel, Kjelsey Johnson, Elijah Chaffino, Dan Shikiar, Jagusa Holdings, Inc. and Brian Odle against the Company and SDS, Greg Lambrecht, Wil Ralston and Corey Lambrecht. The Counterclaim includes but is not limited to the following material allegations: (i) violation of Section 10b-5 of the Exchange Act; (ii) Breach of Contract; (iii) Tortious Interference; (iv) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (v) Unlawful diversion of ownership, earnings and monies; (vi) Intentional Misrepresentations; and (vii) Engaging in a pattern and practice of acquisitions based on false promises. The Counterclaim was filed September 11, 2021. On July 14, 2021, the Company filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) adding parties Solar Integrated Roofing Corporation, USA Solar Network, LLC, David Massey, Christina Berume and Jessica Hernandez in addition to Pablo Diaz Curiel, Kjelsey Johnson and Brian Odle as defendants. In the FAC, the Company alleges (amongst other things) that the defendants: (i) Misappropriated trade secrets; (ii) Breached the Asset Purchase Agreement (Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson); (iii) Breached the Employment Agreement (Mr. Diaz); (iv) Breached the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson); (v) Breached Fiduciary Duties (Mr. Diaz); (vi) Engaged in Unfair Competition; (vii) Violated the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (viii) Intentionally Interfered with Contract/Business Expectancy; (ix) Converted assets of the Company; (x) Were Unjustly Enriched; and (xi) Committed Violations of the Lanham Act. On August 27, 2021, the Company filed a Second Amended Compliant which includes additional causes of action including Copyright Infringement (USA Solar Network, LLC) and Defamation (Mr. Diaz). On September 10, 2021 Solar Integrated Roofing Corporation, USA Solar Network, LLC and David Massey filed a motion to dismiss the claims as it relates to such parties. On February 22, 2022, a Senior Judge signed the order stating that Defendants SIRC and Massey’s Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. With respect to Defendant Massey, the Court dismissed all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. With respect to Defendant SIRC, the Court dismissed the following claims from the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): (a) unfair competition (count seven); (b) intentional interference with contract/business expectancy (count nine); (c) conversion (count ten); and (d) unjust enrichment (count eleven). The remaining claims against Defendant SIRC survived the Motion to Dismiss and remain before the Court. The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration of all of Defendant Diaz’s counterclaims under his Employment Agreement with SDS was granted. The Court ordered the dismissal of the following claims from the FAC: count three in its entirety, count six as to Defendant Diaz, and counts five, nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen as to Diaz, to the extent those claims are based on Diaz’s rights and responsibilities under the Employment Agreement subject to arbitration. The court further ordered that Counterdefendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9)

NOTE 9 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as discussed below are not presently a party to any material litigation, nor to the knowledge of management is any litigation threatened against us, which may materially affect us

On July 9, 2021 the Company and Singlepoint Direct Solar, LLC (“SDS” or “Direct Solar”) served a complaint (the “Company Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Pablo Diaz Curiel, Kjelsey Johnson, and Brian Odle alleging, amongst other things, that the aforementioned individuals: (i) Interference with Direct Solar America’s existing and prospective business opportunities; (ii) Made unauthorized use of, claims of ownership, and/or offers for sale under direct Solar America’s commercial identity; (iii) Misappropriated trade secrets of Direct Solar America; (iv) Breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement originally entered into between the Company and Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson (Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson); and (v) Breach of the Employment Agreement originally entered into between Direct Solar America and Mr. Diaz.

Also on July 9, 2021 the Company was served with a Complaint by Mr. Diaz (and certain other parties) against the Company and certain officers (and former officers) of the Company (the “Diaz Complaint”). On August 11, 2021, an Order was issued consolidating the Company Complaint and the Diaz Complaint which results in the two legal actions being consolidated into one matter, and requiring Defendants to refile their Complaint as a counterclaim. A Counterclaim was submitted by Pablo Diaz Curiel, Kjelsey Johnson, Elijah Chaffino, Dan Shikiar, Jagusa Holdings, Inc. and Brian Odle against the Company and SDS, Greg Lambrecht, Wil Ralston and Corey Lambrecht. The Counterclaim includes but is not limited to the following material allegations: (i) violation of Section 10b-5 of the Exchange Act; (ii) Breach of Contract; (iii) Tortious Interference; (iv) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (v) Unlawful diversion of ownership, earnings and monies; (vi) Intentional Misrepresentations; and (vii) Engaging in a pattern and practice of acquisitions based on false promises. The Counterclaim was filed September 11, 2021.

On July 14, 2021, the Company filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) adding parties Solar Integrated Roofing Corporation, USA Solar Network, LLC, David Massey, Christina Berume and Jessica Hernandez in addition to Pablo Diaz Curiel, Kjelsey Johnson and Brian Odle as defendants. In the FAC, the Company alleges (amongst other things) that the defendants: (i) Misappropriated trade secrets; (ii) Breached the Asset Purchase Agreement (Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson); (iii) Breached the Employment Agreement (Mr. Diaz); (iv) Breached the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Mr. Diaz and Ms. Johnson); (v) Breached Fiduciary Duties (Mr. Diaz); (vi) Engaged in Unfair Competition; (vii) Violated the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (viii) Intentionally Interfered with Contract/Business Expectancy; (ix) Converted assets of the Company; (x) Were Unjustly Enriched; and (xi) Committed Violations of the Lanham Act. On August 27, 2021, the Company filed a Second Amended Compliant which includes additional causes of action including Copyright Infringement (USA Solar Network, LLC) and Defamation (Mr. Diaz).

On September 10, 2021 Solar Integrated Roofing Corporation, USA Solar Network, LLC and David Massey filed a motion to dismiss the claims as it relates to such parties.

On February 22, 2022, a Senior Judge signed the order stating that Defendants SIRC and Massey’s Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. With respect to Defendant Massey, the Court dismissed all claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. With respect to Defendant SIRC, the Court dismissed the following claims from the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): (a) unfair competition (count seven); (b) intentional interference with contract/business expectancy (count nine); (c) conversion (count ten); and (d) unjust enrichment (count eleven). The remaining claims against Defendant SIRC survived the Motion to Dismiss and remain before the Court. The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration of all of Defendant Diaz’s counterclaims under his Employment Agreement with SDS was granted. The Court ordered the dismissal of the following claims from the FAC: count three in its entirety, count six as to Defendant Diaz, and counts five, nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen as to Diaz, to the extent those claims are based on Diaz’s rights and responsibilities under the Employment Agreement subject to arbitration. The court further ordered that Counterdefendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.