What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2026-04-15 compared with 2026-04-15 · 20 added, 36 removed, 35 unchanged (62% of the section changed)

1 unchanged sentence

time to time, Arrive AI Inc.

(the “Company) may be subject to various claims, lawsuits and other legal and administrative proceedings

arising in the ordinary course of business.

Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and

The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation

can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

than as set forth below, Arrive AI is not presently a party to any litigation the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would

in our estimation, have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition.

The following

is a summary of the Company’s ongoing legal proceedings:

(the “Company) may be subject to various claims, lawsuits and other legal and administrative

proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.

Defending such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on

management and employees.

The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the

outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and

other factors.

Other than as set forth below, Arrive AI is not presently a party to any litigation the outcome of which, if

determined adversely to us, would in our estimation, have a Material Adverse Effect on our business, operating results, cash flows

or financial condition.

The following is a summary of the Company’s ongoing legal proceedings:

Management, Inc.

28 unchanged sentences

the company in this matter.

Although plaintiff’s allegations amount to approximately $29 million in total damages, it is not possible

at this time to ascertain an exact figure upon the outcome of this litigation through a court’s final decision, or if any damages

may be granted at all.

The Company firmly believes there is no unpaid salary since there was no written or oral contract of employment.

The potential stock issue was never completed.

Any partial vesting required a small purchase which never happened in Ohrn’s case,

therefore Ohrn held no stock upon termination.

Even though plaintiff’s allegations amount to approximately $29 million in total

damages, plaintiff’s allegations have no merit, it is not possible at this time to ascertain an exact figure upon the outcome of

this litigation through a court’s final decision, or if any damages may be granted at all, in the opinion of the company’s

management and litigation counsel, such allegations may not proceed given the facts presented before the court, such as the breach of

the plaintiff’s obligations under the agreement and the termination of the agreement by the Company for cause.

initial Cease and Desist letter on Arrive AI’s trademark from Arrive Logistics was received July 19, 2023.

1 unchanged sentence

is ongoing between counsel.

September 9, 2025, the Company was named as a defendant in Case No.

3:2025cv00721, pending in U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District

Plaintiffs John Doan and Jami Town claim the Company is in breach of contract for loans made to AirBox Technologies (“AirBox”).

The loans were for $25,000 extended to AirBox before the Company purchased its assets in 2023.

Damage claims and fees have increased

that amount to $45,082.

The Company explicitly acquired only the assets of AirBox and therefore does not believe it is liable for any

of its previous liabilities.

The Company has filed for removal from the claim.

The plaintiffs have filed to have the case remanded back

to Virginia state court, where it was originally filed on August 13, 2025.

Since this matter is still in its initial stages, the Company

is unable to predict the outcome at this time.

October 2, 2025, the Company was the plaintiff in a lawsuit Case No.

1:2025cv02026 filed in federal court in the Southern District of

Indiana for misappropriation of US federal and Indiana trade secrets.

The defendants are former consultants, Myron Wright, an individual,

and Wright Flyer Consulting Group Inc., a Kentucky corporation.

The Company is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees

and costs as well as permanent injunctive relief against the defendants requiring the immediate cessation of all transactions utilizing

the Company’s Trade Secrets and return of materials constituting the Trade Secrets.

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP is representing

the Company in the matter.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q/A

Item 1. Legal Proceedings