COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 17 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulation, tax and other matters. The accounting standard defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and “the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.” From time to time, we are subject to asserted and actual claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Company management reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We establish accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and it discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our consolidated financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, management evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. We do not record liabilities when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC, Drawbridge Investments LLC v. Mullen Automotive Inc. In June 2022, we entered into a letter agreement with DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC (“DBI”) wherein we agreed to provide DBI with a right to purchase up to $25 million worth of a to-be-issued Series E Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants. The option and its terms have not been finalized. On March 2, 2023, DBI and Drawbridge Investments LLC (collectively, “Drawbridge”) filed a complaint in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Mullen. The complaint asserts three claims against Mullen arising out of an alleged Series E option agreement by which Drawbridge allegedly would be able to purchase to-be-created Series E preferred shares and obtain warrants for Mullen’s common stock in exchange for, inter alia, a $3.5 million discount on a promissory note held by Drawbridge. Specifically, Drawbridge asserts claims for: (1) specific performance of the alleged agreement; (2) money damages (in an amount exceeding $100 million) arising out of Mullen’s alleged breach of the alleged agreement; and (3) declaratory judgment setting forth plaintiff’s rights and Mullen’s obligations under the alleged agreement. Drawbridge also commenced an action by Order to Show Cause whereby plaintiffs, inter alia, sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (a) enjoining Mullen from (i) increasing the number of designated shares for any outstanding stock and (ii) issuing new preferred stock; and (b) requiring Mullen to maintain at least 500 million in authorized common stock. On March 14, 2023, the Court vacated the TRO and entered an Order on March 15, 2023 whereby the TRO was vacated and denied. At the April 18, 2023 hearing for the preliminary injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs in the Order to Show Cause and after reviewing Mullen’s opposition and hearing oral argument from both sides, the Court reserved decision on plaintiffs’ motion. The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March 31, 2023. Mullen Technologies Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. (“Qiantu Suzhou”) related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen. On March 14, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement providing for full settlement of all pending litigation between the Company and Qiantu Suzhou. The parties also released all claims against each other arising from or in connection with the matters and claims that were subject to the legal proceedings. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (1) the parties agreed to enter into an IP Agreement (as defined and described below) and (2) in connection with the settlement of the Legal Proceedings and for the privilege of entering into the IP Agreement, the Company paid $6 million to Qiantu Suzhou. In connection with the execution of the Settlement Agreement, on March 14, 2023, the Company entered into an Intellectual Property and Distribution Agreement (the “IP Agreement”) with Qiantu Suzhou, and two of Qiantu Suzhou’s affiliates (herein “Qiantu”). Pursuant to the IP Agreement, Qiantu granted the Company the exclusive license to use certain of Qiantu’s trademarks and the exclusive right to assemble, manufacture, and sell the homologated vehicles based on the Qiantu K-50 model throughout North America (including Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America) and South America for a period of five (5) years, which period does not start until the Company has successfully homologated vehicles based on terms of the IP Agreement (the “Five Year Period”). During the Five Year Period, the Company is also obligated to purchase a certain number of vehicle kits every year from Qiantu. These rights shall be obtained and the commitment shall only be effective upon the Company’s assessment of feasibility and profitability of the project within 150 days as provided for by the IP Agreement. As consideration for the Company’s entry into the IP Agreement, (1) the Company issued to Qiantu USA warrants to purchase up to 3,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Qiantu Warrants”) as described below; (2) the Company will pay Qiantu $2,000,000 for deliverable items under the IP Agreement; and (3) the Company will pay Qiantu a royalty fee of $1,200 for each homologated vehicle sold in North America and South America during the term of the IP Agreement. The Qiantu Warrants were issued upon execution of the IP Agreement and are exercisable at Qiantu USA’s discretion commencing at any time from September 30, 2023 up to and including September 30, 2024 at 110% of the market price of the Company’s common stock at the close of trading on the earlier of (a) when the Company completes its obligations to its Series D Preferred Stock investors; or (b) June 15, 2023 (for more information on the warrants, see note 7). International Business Machines (“IBM”) This claim was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 7, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and IBM related to a joint development and technology license agreement, patent license agreement, and a logo trademark agreement. On November 9, 2021, the court, pursuant to an inquest order, awarded damages in favor of IBM and on December 1, 2021, the court entered a judgment in favor of IBM in the amount of $5,617,192, which the Company paid. On February 2, 2022, IBM filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment it had obtained to add Mullen Automotive and Ottava as Judgment Debtors. Mullen filed an Appeal on April 8, 2022. A settlement was reached in which Mullen paid the full amount of the Judgment with interest, for a total of approximately $5.9 million, but maintained its Appeal rights. IBM then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal based on Mullen’s payment of the Judgment. Mullen filed an Opposition to the same on July 18, 2022, and the hearing of the matter was set for July 25, 2022. The Court took the same under submission, and a decision has still not been issued. The Appeal remains pending. Federal and State Tax Liabilities During the third quarter of 2022, the Company entered into an instalment agreement with the IRS to pay $45,000 per month related to unpaid federal payroll liabilities plus accrued interest and penalties. In addition to the payment plan, the IRS also collected $725,817 when the Company sold property IRS had liened. As of March 31, 2023, we had an accrued liability of $185,873 related to IRS liabilities. The GEM Group On September 21, 2021, the GEM Group filed an arbitration demand and statement of claim against Mullen seeking declaratory relief and damages. This matter arises out of an alleged breach of a securities purchase agreement dated November 13, 2020. On April, 20, 2023, at the direction of the sole arbitrator, closing arguments for the arbitration previously scheduled for April 28, 2023, were rescheduled for May 18, 2023. The Company does not have an estimated of possible loss as of March 31, 2023. TOA Trading LLC Litigation This claim arises out of an alleged breach of contract related to an unpaid finder’s fee. On April 11, 2022, TOA Trading LLC and Munshibari LLC, filed a complaint against Mullen Automotive Inc. and Mullen Technologies Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 18, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue, which has not yet been ruled upon. The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March 31, 2023. Mullen Stockholder Litigation Margaret Schaub v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. – Securities Class Action On May 5, 2022, Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the “Schaub Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 22, 2022. On April 13, 2023, the court took the April 14, 2023 hearing off calendar after determining that oral argument was not necessary. The Company’s motion to dismiss has been taken under submission. The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March 31, 2023. Jeff Witt v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.; Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al. - Consolidated Derivative Action On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and current or former Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Lawsuit”). On September 30, 2022, Hany Morsy, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, former Company officer and director, Jerry Alban, and Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Morsy Lawsuit”). On November 8, 2022, the court consolidated the Witt Lawsuit and Morsy Lawsuit into one case. The consolidated lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The consolidated lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On November 30, 2022, the court stayed this consolidated derivative action pending (1) dismissal of the consolidated securities class action (the Schaub Lawsuit discussed above), or (2) the filing of an answer in the consolidated securities class action and notice by any party that they no longer consent to the voluntary stay of this consolidated derivative action. The case currently remains stayed. Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability from this claim, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Therefore, no liability has been reflected on the condensed consolidated financial statements. Thomas Robbins v. David Michery, et al.; Patrick V.P. Foley, Jr. and Jeffrey Pudlinski v. David Michery, et al. On December 7, 2022, Thomas Robbins, a purported stockholder, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, Mr. Michery, and current or former Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Betor, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Miltner, Mr. Puckett, and Mr. New (the “Robbins Lawsuit”). On December 13, 2022, a second putative stockholder class action was filed in the Court of Chancery, styled as Foley v. Michery, et al., (the “Foley Lawsuit” and, together with the Robbins Lawsuit, the “Stockholder Actions”). The Stockholder Actions seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to the vote on a series of proposal at a special meeting of Company stockholders that was held on December 23, 2022, and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all Company directors (except Mr. New). The consolidated lawsuit also seeks an award of fees and costs related to this action. On February 3, 2023, the Court entered a stipulated order pursuant to which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Stockholder Actions with prejudice as to themselves only and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of deciding any application of plaintiffs’ counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On March 3, 2023, plaintiffs’ counsel filed their motion for an award of attorneys’ fee and expenses for benefits they contend were conferred on the Company and its stockholders in connection with the Stockholder Actions (the “Fee Application”), seeking an award of attorneys’ fee and expenses in the amount of $3.0 million. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the Fee Application on May 25, 2023. On November 30, 2022, the court stayed this consolidated derivative action pending (1) dismissal of the consolidated securities class action (the Schaub Lawsuit discussed above), or (2) the filing of an answer in the consolidated securities class action and notice by any party that they no longer consent to the voluntary stay of this consolidated derivative action. The case currently remains stayed. Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability from this claim, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Therefore, no liability has been reflected on the condensed consolidated financial statements.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

NOTE 17 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulation, tax and other matters. The accounting standard defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation,

or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and “the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.”

From time to time, we are subject to asserted and actual claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Company management reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We establish accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and it discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our consolidated financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, management evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. We do not record liabilities when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC, Drawbridge Investments LLC v. Mullen Automotive Inc.

In June 2022, we entered into a letter agreement with DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC (“DBI”) wherein we agreed to provide DBI with a right to purchase up to $25 million worth of a to-be-issued Series E Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants. The option and its terms have not been finalized.

On March 2, 2023, DBI and Drawbridge Investments LLC (collectively, “Drawbridge”) filed a complaint in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Mullen. The complaint asserts three claims against Mullen arising out of an alleged Series E option agreement by which Drawbridge allegedly would be able to purchase to-be-created Series E preferred shares and obtain warrants for Mullen’s common stock in exchange for, inter alia, a $3.5 million discount on a promissory note held by Drawbridge. Specifically, Drawbridge asserts claims for: (1) specific performance of the alleged agreement; (2) money damages (in an amount exceeding $100 million) arising out of Mullen’s alleged breach of the alleged agreement; and (3) declaratory judgment setting forth plaintiff’s rights and Mullen’s obligations under the alleged agreement.

Drawbridge also commenced an action by Order to Show Cause whereby plaintiffs, inter alia, sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (a) enjoining Mullen from (i) increasing the number of designated shares for any outstanding stock and (ii) issuing new preferred stock; and (b) requiring Mullen to maintain at least 500 million in authorized common stock. On March 14, 2023, the Court vacated the TRO and entered an Order on March 15, 2023 whereby the TRO was vacated and denied. At the April 18, 2023 hearing for the preliminary injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs in the Order to Show Cause and after reviewing Mullen’s opposition and hearing oral argument from both sides, the Court reserved decision on plaintiffs’ motion.

The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March 31, 2023.

Mullen Technologies Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd.

This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. (“Qiantu Suzhou”) related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen.

On March 14, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement providing for full settlement of all pending litigation between the Company and Qiantu Suzhou. The parties also released all claims against each other arising from or in connection with the matters and claims that were subject to the legal proceedings. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (1) the parties agreed to enter into an IP Agreement (as defined and described below) and (2) in connection with the settlement of the Legal Proceedings and for the privilege of entering into the IP Agreement, the Company paid $6 million to Qiantu Suzhou.

In connection with the execution of the Settlement Agreement, on March 14, 2023, the Company entered into an Intellectual Property and Distribution Agreement (the “IP Agreement”) with Qiantu Suzhou, and two of Qiantu Suzhou’s affiliates (herein “Qiantu”). Pursuant to the IP Agreement, Qiantu granted the Company the exclusive license to use certain

of Qiantu’s trademarks and the exclusive right to assemble, manufacture, and sell the homologated vehicles based on the Qiantu K-50 model throughout North America (including Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America) and South America for a period of five (5) years, which period does not start until the Company has successfully homologated vehicles based on terms of the IP Agreement (the “Five Year Period”). During the Five Year Period, the Company is also obligated to purchase a certain number of vehicle kits every year from Qiantu. These rights shall be obtained and the commitment shall only be effective upon the Company’s assessment of feasibility and profitability of the project within 150 days as provided for by the IP Agreement.

As consideration for the Company’s entry into the IP Agreement, (1) the Company issued to Qiantu USA warrants to purchase up to 3,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Qiantu Warrants”) as described below; (2) the Company will pay Qiantu $2,000,000 for deliverable items under the IP Agreement; and (3) the Company will pay Qiantu a royalty fee of $1,200 for each homologated vehicle sold in North America and South America during the term of the IP Agreement. The Qiantu Warrants were issued upon execution of the IP Agreement and are exercisable at Qiantu USA’s discretion commencing at any time from September 30, 2023 up to and including September 30, 2024 at 110% of the market price of the Company’s common stock at the close of trading on the earlier of (a) when the Company completes its obligations to its Series D Preferred Stock investors; or (b) June 15, 2023 (for more information on the warrants, see note 7).

International Business Machines (“IBM”)

This claim was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 7, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and IBM related to a joint development and technology license agreement, patent license agreement, and a logo trademark agreement. On November 9, 2021, the court, pursuant to an inquest order, awarded damages in favor of IBM and on December 1, 2021, the court entered a judgment in favor of IBM in the amount of $5,617,192, which the Company paid.

On February 2, 2022, IBM filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment it had obtained to add Mullen Automotive and Ottava as Judgment Debtors. Mullen filed an Appeal on April 8, 2022. A settlement was reached in which Mullen paid the full amount of the Judgment with interest, for a total of approximately $5.9 million, but maintained its Appeal rights. IBM then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal based on Mullen’s payment of the Judgment. Mullen filed an Opposition to the same on July 18, 2022, and the hearing of the matter was set for July 25, 2022. The Court took the same under submission, and a decision has still not been issued. The Appeal remains pending.

Federal and State Tax Liabilities

During the third quarter of 2022, the Company entered into an instalment agreement with the IRS to pay $45,000 per month related to unpaid federal payroll liabilities plus accrued interest and penalties. In addition to the payment plan, the IRS also collected $725,817 when the Company sold property IRS had liened. As of March 31, 2023, we had an accrued liability of $185,873 related to IRS liabilities.

The GEM Group

On September 21, 2021, the GEM Group filed an arbitration demand and statement of claim against Mullen seeking declaratory relief and damages. This matter arises out of an alleged breach of a securities purchase agreement dated November 13, 2020. On April, 20, 2023, at the direction of the sole arbitrator, closing arguments for the arbitration previously scheduled for April 28, 2023, were rescheduled for May 18, 2023. The Company does not have an estimated of possible loss as of March 31, 2023.

TOA Trading LLC Litigation

This claim arises out of an alleged breach of contract related to an unpaid finder’s fee. On April 11, 2022, TOA Trading LLC and Munshibari LLC, filed a complaint against Mullen Automotive Inc. and Mullen Technologies Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 18, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or in

the Alternative, Transfer Venue, which has not yet been ruled upon. The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March 31, 2023.

Mullen Stockholder Litigation

Margaret Schaub v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. – Securities Class Action

On May 5, 2022, Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the “Schaub Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 22, 2022. On April 13, 2023, the court took the April 14, 2023 hearing off calendar after determining that oral argument was not necessary. The Company’s motion to dismiss has been taken under submission. The Company does not have an estimate of possible loss as of March 31, 2023.

Jeff Witt v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.; Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al. - Consolidated Derivative Action

On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and current or former Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Lawsuit”). On September 30, 2022, Hany Morsy, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, former Company officer and director, Jerry Alban, and Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Morsy Lawsuit”). On November 8, 2022, the court consolidated the Witt Lawsuit and Morsy Lawsuit into one case. The consolidated lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The consolidated lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

On November 30, 2022, the court stayed this consolidated derivative action pending (1) dismissal of the consolidated securities class action (the Schaub Lawsuit discussed above), or (2) the filing of an answer in the consolidated securities class action and notice by any party that they no longer consent to the voluntary stay of this consolidated derivative action. The case currently remains stayed.

Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability from this claim, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Therefore, no liability has been reflected on the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Thomas Robbins v. David Michery, et al.; Patrick V.P. Foley, Jr. and Jeffrey Pudlinski v. David Michery, et al.

On December 7, 2022, Thomas Robbins, a purported stockholder, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, Mr. Michery, and current or former Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Betor, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Miltner, Mr. Puckett, and Mr. New (the “Robbins Lawsuit”). On December 13, 2022, a second putative stockholder class action was filed in the Court of Chancery, styled as Foley v. Michery, et al., (the “Foley Lawsuit” and, together with the Robbins Lawsuit, the “Stockholder Actions”). The Stockholder Actions seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to the vote on a series of proposal at a special meeting of Company stockholders that was held on December 23, 2022, and asserts claims for breach

of fiduciary duty against all Company directors (except Mr. New). The consolidated lawsuit also seeks an award of fees and costs related to this action.

On February 3, 2023, the Court entered a stipulated order pursuant to which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Stockholder Actions with prejudice as to themselves only and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of deciding any application of plaintiffs’ counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On March 3, 2023, plaintiffs’ counsel filed their motion for an award of attorneys’ fee and expenses for benefits they contend were conferred on the Company and its stockholders in connection with the Stockholder Actions (the “Fee Application”), seeking an award of attorneys’ fee and expenses in the amount of $3.0 million. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the Fee Application on May 25, 2023.