What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2026-05-12 compared with 2025-11-13 · 34 added, 7 removed, 1 unchanged (98% of the section changed)

Legal Proceedings.

From time to time, we may become involved in various

lawsuits and legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of business.

However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties,

and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm business.

We are not involved in any pending or threatened

legal proceedings that it believes could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results

of operations, or cash flows.

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal

Other than as described below, we are not currently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that, in the opinion of

our management, are likely to have a material adverse effect on our business.

Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact

on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

The Company has been made aware of a complaint (the “Complaint”)

filed by William Reny (“Plaintiff”), a greater than five percent (5%) holder of the Company’s outstanding common stock,

par value $0.0001 per share, against SEE ID, Charles Maddox and Ed Nabrotzky, each a director of SEE ID, and Does 1-20 (collectively with

Maddox and Mr.

Nabrotzky, the “Defendants”), in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, (a) breach of Plaintiff’s

employment agreement, and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in respect thereof, by SEE ID by (i) terminating Mr.

employment for “cause,” (ii) not paying Plaintiff certain compensation and benefits, (iii) not permitting Plaintiff to transfer

shares to a third party, and (iv) otherwise harming Plaintiff;

(b) tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with prospective

economic advantage and conspiracy/concert of action by Messrs.

Maddox and Nabrotzky with respect to a contract Plaintiff had with a third

party to purchase a home by not permitting Mr.

Reny to transfer shares to a third party;

under NRS chapter 78 or unjust enrichment by one or more of the Defendants.

Plaintiff seeks direct damages, interest, statutory damages

and penalties, records production, injunctive relief as appropriate, an accounting, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and punitive

damages in excess of $50,000.

On October 23, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss several

causes of action and requested that the court dismiss all claims in their entirety.

On December 15, 2025, the District Court of Clark

County, Nevada denied the Company’s motion to dismiss with respect to the former employee’s claims for intentional interference

with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, civil conspiracy/concert of action and conversion, and granted

the motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim.

The Company and the Defendants continue to vigorously defend the action and are

pursuing available legal remedies, including seeking dismissal of claims.

Except as required by law, the Company does not intend to comment

further on this 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

Item 1. Legal Proceedings