Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. DarkPulse, Inc.
On July 11, 2022, the Court denied Carebourn’s
motion to compel DPLS to produce a privilege log. On July 15, 2022, the Court denied Carebourn’s motion to disqualify or, in the
alternative, seek limited discovery of DPLS’ legal counsel, consisting of the Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP and The Basile
Law Firm P.C. On July 27, 2022, Carebourn paid $18,858.18 for attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the Court’s April 14, 2022
decision on the Company’s motion to compel Carebourn.
The Company remains committed to actively litigating
its claims for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More Capital, LLC
v. DarkPulse, Inc. et al
On July 11, 2022, the
Court denied More’s motion for summary judgment against the Company and granted DarkPulse’s motion to compel More. The Court
directed More to produce all responsive documents to certain requests for production served by DarkPulse within seven days thereof.
The Company remains committed
to actively litigating its claims for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
DarkPulse, Inc.
v. FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC, and Eli Fireman (SDNY)
On May 26, 2022, the
FirstFire Parties filed their motion to dismiss the Company’s first amended complaint, filed on May 5, 2022, and opening memorandum
of law in support thereof. On June 16, 2022, the Company filed its memorandum of law in opposition to the FirstFire Parties’ motion
to dismiss, and on June 30, 2022, the FirstFire Parties filed their memorandum of law in reply and further support of their motion to
dismiss.
As of the date hereof,
the FirstFire Parties’ motion to dismiss is fully submitted to the Court.
On May 26, 2022, the
FirstFire Parties requested oral arguments on their motion to dismiss. As of the date hereof, oral arguments have not been scheduled and,
further, no decision has been rendered
on the FirstFire Parties’
motion to dismiss.
The Company remains committed
to actively litigating its claims for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
DarkPulse, Inc.
v. EMA Financial, LLC et al
On June 22, 2022, the
EMA Parties filed their motion to dismiss the Company’s first amended complaint, filed on March 28, 2022, and opening memorandum
of law in support thereof. On July 13, 2022, the Company filed its memorandum of law in opposition to the EMA Parties’ motion to
dismiss, and on July 22, 2022, the EMA Parties filed their memorandum of law in reply and further support of their motion to dismiss.
As of the date hereof, no decision has been on the EMA Parties’ motion to dismiss.
The Company remains committed
to actively litigating its claims for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.
34
Carebourn Capital
et al v. Standard Registrar and Transfer et al
On May 20, 2022, Carebourn
Capital, L.P. (“Carebourn”) and More Capital, LLC (“More”) (Carebourn and More, together, the “MN Noteholders”)
commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against (i) Standard Registrar and Transfer Co., Inc.
(“Standard”), (ii) Amy Merrill (“Merrill”) (Standard and Merrill, together, the “TA Defendants”),
(iii) DarkPulse, Inc., (iv) Dennis O’Leary (“O’Leary”), (v) Thomas Seifert (“Seifert”), (vi) Carl
Eckel (“Eckel”), (vii) Anthony Brown (“Brown”), and (viii) Faisal Farooqui (“Farooqui”) (DarkPulse,
O’Leary, Seifert, Eckel, Brown, and Farooqui, collectively, the “DPLS Defendants”). The MN Noteholders’ complaint
alleges, among other things, that the TA Defendants and DPLS Defendants conspired together and acted in unison to preclude the MN Noteholders’
from receiving the benefits of the convertible note transactions between Carebourn, More, and DarkPulse.
On July 5, 2022, the
TA Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the MN Noteholders’ complaint. Pursuant to the local rules of the U.S. Dist. Court for
the District of Utah, the MN Noteholders must reply to the TA Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before August 2, 2022. As of the
date hereof, the DPLS Defendants have not been served and, thus, no deadline exists by which the DPLS Defendants must answer or otherwise
respond to the MN Noteholders’ complaint.
The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the MN Noteholders’ lawsuit.
DarkPulse, Inc.
v. Brunson Chandler Jones et al
On July 8, 2022, the
Company commenced an action against the law firm of Brunson Chandler & Jones, PLLC and Lance B. Brunson (“Chandler Defendants”)
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The Company’s claims, consisting of professional negligence/malpractice
and breach of contract, arise from the legal services and relationship between DarkPulse and the Chandler Defendants and in connection
with the merger between DarkPulse, DarkPulse Technologies Inc., and Klever Marketing, Inc.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.