Creatd, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. 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 set forth below, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. On or about June 25, 2020, Home Revolution, LLC (“Home Revolution”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Home Revolution, LLC, et al . v. Jerrick Media Holdings, Inc. et al ., Case No. 2:20-cv-07775-JMV-MF. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Creatd, Inc. breached the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, as modified, and ancillary transaction documents in connection with the acquisition of Seller’s Choice, LLC, from Home Revolution in September 2019. The Complaint additionally alleges violation of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, fraud, equitable accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. After filing the Complaint but prior to our Answer date, Home Revolution moved by order to show cause to have a receiver appointed by the Court to take over Creatd’s operations. We submitted an opposition, and after oral arguments on August 13, 2020, the Court denied the receiver request in its entirety. We then filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 14, 2020 on a number of grounds, the most significant of which is that this is a simple (alleged) breach of Promissory Note case. Creatd is current on all payments under the Note, and because both parties are New Jersey entities a mere breach of contract and/or collection-based case is not appropriately venued in federal court. Upon receipt of our Motion to Dismiss, Home Revolution submitted an Amended Complaint, presumably in an effort to cure the problems with the Complaint which we identified in the Motion to Dismiss. Home Revolution has subsequently initiated a series of atypical procedures and, as a result, has (without following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) moved for both default and to submit yet another newly Amended Complaint (the one precludes the other and vice versa). After we submitted a motion to clear up the above, the Court reinstated the matter to the docket and permitted Plaintiff to file the Second Amended Complaint (we had no objection). We have filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That will take some time to be decided. We expect no major event to occur for the next 12 months. Finally, we believe the lawsuit lacks merit and will vigorously challenge the action. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES Not Applicable. 26 PART II