AZIO AI HOLDINGS, INC. 10-Q

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 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. 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. 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 Greenpower and GP Greenpower Industries Inc. Additionally, Greenpower and GP Greenpower Industries Inc. also advance claim 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 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 rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has 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. Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class representative. On October 27, 2020, we answered the fourth amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead Securities (together the “Underwriters”) filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for the Company’s initial public offering (the “Underwriting Agreement”). On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the Underwriters’ cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. 28 Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020, we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort’s cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed its motion for class certification. On March 17, 2021, the court held a case management conference. At the case management conference, the court set a tentative schedule for class discovery and briefing on the motion for class certification. On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI filed a stipulation extending the deadline for class certification discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class discovery on September 28, 2021; defendants’ opposition to the motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021; plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021; a case management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification. Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort. The Underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains on the primary claims in this matter. All defendants are maintaining their cross claims against each other. On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains’ counsel moved to be relieved as counsel. The court will hear this motion on August 23, 2021. We believe that the purported class action 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 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, (iii) 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. Trial is currently set for November 1, 2021. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. On February 3, 2020, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of Ebus in a foreclosure sale through a credit bid in the amount of $582,000, representing the amount then owed by Ebus to the Company evidenced by a secured promissory note. Following the Company’s successful credit bid at the foreclosure sale, Ebus’s obligations under the note were extinguished and the Company was entitled to take possession of substantially all of the assets of Ebus. While the Company was able to take possession of some of the assets, Ebus prevented the Company from taking possession of all of the assets purchased at the foreclosure sale. As a result, on April 13, 2020, the Company filed a complaint captioned ADOMANI, Inc. v. Ebus, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20ST CV 14275, against Ebus and certain of its insiders and affiliates seeking to recover the remainder of the assets and related damages. On January 14, 2021, a cross-complaint was filed against the Company by Ebus, Inc. and Anders B. Eklov for Unjust Enrichment and Conversion of Domain Name, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Company intends to pursue its claims set forth in the complaint and defend the claims set forth in the cross-complaint. 29 ITEM 1A. RI SK FACTORS Except as set forth below, there were no material changes from the risk factors previously disclosed in the audited financial statements of Envirotech Drive Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2020 included in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on April 22, 2021, or as described in Part II, Item 7 of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, as filed with the SEC on March 31, 2021, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, as filed with the SEC on April 28, 2021. ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS None. ITEM 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES None. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES Not applicable.