Note 10 - Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

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.

GreenPower Actions:

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, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, against Phillip Oldridge, his trust, EVTDS and certain other companies affiliated therewith. The notice of civil claim alleges that Mr. Oldridge breached certain fiduciary duties owed to GreenPower by working with certain parties in direct competition with and at the expense of GreenPower. GreenPower alleges that the Company conspired with Mr. Oldridge to build its business, competing products and unfairly compete with GreenPower. GreenPower seeks general damages, special damages and punitive damages, plus interest and costs against EVTDS. On February 2, 2020, the Company and the other companies affiliated therewith named in the notice of civil claim filed a response to the civil claim in which they denied certain of the allegations and asserted that certain other facts were outside of their knowledge. Fact discovery, through document disclosure and examinations for discoveries, in this matter remain ongoing. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

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 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint names the Company and the following affiliated entities, officers, or directors: Phillip Oldridge, Envirotech Electric Vehicles Inc., Envirotech Drive Systems Incorporated US, Envirotech Drive Systems Incorporated Canada, Sue Emry, David Oldridge, S&P Financial and Corporate Services, Inc. GreenPower also named the Philip Oldridge Trust and a purported entity called EVT Motors, Inc., but has since dismissed those parties. The complaint alleges (i) RICO violations, (ii) conspiracy to commit RICO violations, (iii) breach of fiduciary duties, (iv) breach of an employment contract, (v) conversion of GreenPower property, (vi) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and (vii) violations of California’s Business and Profession Code. The complaint seeks an undisclosed amount of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to prevent the alleged anti- Competitive behavior, restitution for harm, an award of treble damages, and associate fees and costs. The complaint’s allegations are centered around the same assertions in the pending Canadian litigation.

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. While hearing on this Motion was set for October 7, 2022, on October 4 the Court cancelled the hearing and indicated it would rule on the Motion without argument. The Court’s ruling on the Motion is still pending. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

Mollick/Electric DriveTrain 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 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 (“Electric Drivetrains”). Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class representative. On October 27, 2020, the Company answered the fourth amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains’ counsel moved to be relieved as counsel and on August 23, 2021, the court granted this motion. 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. Over the tenure of the action, Electric Drivetrain has dismissed all defendants in the action except for the Company and two former Company executives. Any and all pending cross claims between or among defendants have been resolved and dismissed.

On August 31, 2022, Electric Drivetrains filed its Fifth Amended Complaint, which: 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. On October 6, 2022, the Company and remaining defendants filed their respective answer denying the allegations and asserting counterclaims. On the same day, the Company cross claimed against Electric Drivetrains and its managing member. The Court has set a trial setting conference on December 21, 2022. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

On June 19, 2019, Alan K. Brooks, an ADOMANI investor, filed a complaint, captioned Alan K. Brooks v. ADOMANI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-CV-349153 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain of the Company’s executive officers and directors, two of the underwriters of the Company’s offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017, and certain of the underwriters’ personnel, among others (the “Brooks Case”). The complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants breached the terms of an agreement between Mr. Brooks and the Company by refusing to release 1,320,359 shares of ADOMANI, Inc. stock to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks seeks damages of $13,500,000.00 plus interest and attorney’s fees. On September 20, 2019, Mr. Brooks filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) reasserting his breach of contract claim and alleging five additional claims for (i) violations of Cal. Corp. Code Section 25401, (ii) fraud, negligent misrepresentation, (iv) elder abuse, and (v) unfair competition. We answered the FAC on November 12, 2019, generally denying the allegations in the FAC and asserting affirmative defenses. Fact discovery in this matter remains ongoing. On August 10, 2021, we filed a motion for summary judgement and dismissal of plaintiff’s FAC. The parties participated in two days of mediation with Mark LeHocky. Mr. LeHocky provided the parties with a mediator’s proposal. Both parties accepted the proposal and reduced the proposal to a written settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs $197,500 in cash and $197,500 in shares of common stock. In addition, the Company’s insurance carrier has agreed to pay plaintiffs $170,000. On January 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for an order approving the fairness of the terms of the settlement agreement. On March 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order approving the settlement and the parties are in the process of effectuating its terms. On April 5, 2022, the Company and Boustead resolved Boustead’s cross claim for indemnification in the Brooks action. This settlement is still subject to court approval. There are no further claims pending in the Brooks action and, if and when the Court approves the settlement, it should be dismissed.