What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2023-06-23 compared with 2022-04-15 · 132 added, 143 removed, 19 unchanged (94% of the section changed)

2 unchanged sentences

Twitter, Inc.

On January 24, 2022, the Company filed a petition

in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York to compel a disclosure from Twitter, Inc.

The petition sought to compel

Twitter, Inc.

to disclose the owner and operator of the “Investor News” Twitter account (@newsfilterio) so the Company could

commence an action for damages arising from false, misleading, and untrue statements made by the Investor News.

On February 23, 2022, the Court ordered Twitter

to release information concerning the owner and operator of the Investor News account to the Company.

Company will continue to pursue and expose the identities of those individuals or groups and shall take any and all legal action to pursue

the violators .

As disclosed in greater detail in the Company’s

Form 10-Q, filed October 24, 2022, the Company is actively investigating potential claims against the @MIKEWOOD and @BullMeechum3 Twitter

There are no material updates to this matter.

Carebourn Capital, L.P.

1 unchanged sentence

As disclosed in greater detail in the Company’s

Form 10-Q, filed November 15, 2021, the Company remains in active litigation with Carebourn Capital, L.P.

(“ Carebourn ”).

The remainder of this disclosure will address all material updates since the aforementioned Form 10-Q.

On November 1, 2021, the Company filed a motion

to compel Carebourn to produce certain documents and supplement its responses to certain interrogatories.

On September 27, 2021, Carebourn filed a declaratory

judgment and a motion for declaratory judgment, dismissal of the Company’s claims, and summary judgment (the “ Dispositive

On February 15, 2022, the Court rendered its decision

on the aforesaid motions, denying the Dispositive Motion in its entirety and granting in part, and denying in part, the Company’s

motion to compel.

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling in the Company’s favor on its motion to compel, the Court has awarded the

Company attorneys’ costs and fees in connection with the successful portions of its motion to compel.

On January 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion

for enforcement of a protective order.

It is the Company’s position that Carebourn has violated a protective order that was entered

into by the parties and seeks to protect confidential information exchanged during the litigation.

The Court has not yet rendered a decision

on this motion.

On March 24, 2022, Carebourn filed a Motion to

Compel against DarkPulse, alleging that DarkPulse failed to fulfill its discovery obligations by not producing a privilege log.

contends that Carebourn’s motion is meritless and premature.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating

its claims for relief under the Exchange Act.

Form 10-Q, filed October 24, 2022, the Company remains in active litigation with Carebourn Capital, L.P.

(“Carebourn”) in

Minnesota state court.

The following discloses the material updates for this matter.

On April 21, 2023, the Minnesota state court granted

the Company’s motion for partial summary judgment on its affirmative defenses.

Specifically, the Court found that Carebourn is an

unregistered dealer, acting in violation of Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and, thus, the contracts between the

Company and Carebourn are now void pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act.

The Company is actively litigating its counterclaims

asserted under the Minnesota Uniform Securities Act.

More Capital, LLC v.

1 unchanged sentence

As disclosed in greater detail in the Company’s

Form 10-Q, filed November 15, 2021, the Company remains in active litigation with More Capital, LLC (“ More ”).

The remainder

of this disclosure will address all material updates since the aforementioned Form 10-Q.

On October 27, 2021, the Company served its initial

discovery requests, consisting of interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production, on More.

On November 24, 2021, More served its responses

to the Company’s initial discovery requests.

After reviewing More’s responses, it is the Company’s position that More’s

responses are false, misleading, untrue, and/or evasive.

On February 28, 2022, the Company filed its motion

to compel More to produce certain documents and supplement or otherwise modify its responses to certain interrogatories and requests for

DarkPulse’s motion will be heard on April 14, 2022.

On March 9, 2022, More filed a motion for summary

judgment against the Company.

The Company’s opposition was filed on or before March 23, 2022, and More’s motion will be heard

on April 6, 2022.

Form 10-Q, filed October 24, 2022, the Company remains in active litigation with More Capital, LLC (“More”) in Minnesota state

There are no material updates to this litigation.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating

its claims for relief under the Exchange Act.

its affirmative defenses and claims for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Minnesota Uniform Securities Act.

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,” and together with Carebourn, the “Noteholder Plaintiffs”) commenced an action 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 ”)

in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

The Noteholder Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges

the DPLS Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, are liable for attorneys’ fees pursuant

to the Company’s breach of securities contracts between the Company and, separately, Carebourn and More, and engaged in civil conspiracy,

fraudulent concealment, tortious interference with economic relations and conversion against the Noteholder Plaintiffs.

Thereafter, the TA Defendants and DPLS Defendants

separately moved to dismiss the Noteholder Plaintiffs’ complaint.

On February 10, 2023, the Court denied both motions without prejudice

and stayed the action pending the conclusion of enforcement action commenced by the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission against Carebourn

and its principal, Chip Rice, in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Company contends that the Noteholder Plaintiffs’

lawsuit is duplicative of the first-filed lawsuits commenced by the Noteholder Plaintiffs’ in Minnesota state court.

intends to vigorously defend itself against the Noteholder Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

Goodman et al.

1 unchanged sentence

As disclosed in greater detail in the Company’s

Form 10-Q, filed November 15, 2021, the Company remains in active litigation with Stephen Goodman (“ Goodman ”), Mark

Banash (“ Banash ”), and David Singer (“ Singer ”) (Goodman, Banash, and Singer together, the “ Series

D Plaintiffs ”).

The remainder of this disclosure will address all material updates since the aforementioned Form 10-Q.

On August 20, 2021, the Company and the Series

D Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation, pursuant to which the Company withdrew its motion to dismiss and the Company was provided with

an extended period of time to respond to the complaint.

On September 8, 2021, the Company filed its Answer

and Counterclaims, wherein the Company alleges counterclaims arising from various breaches of fiduciary duties by the Series D Plaintiffs

while they were employed as officers of the Company.

On December 9, 2021, the parties participated

in private mediation.

No understanding of settlement was reached at the conclusion thereof.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating

its claims and defenses against the Series D Plaintiffs.

Form 10-Q, filed October 24, 2022, on September 10, 2021, Stephen Goodman, Mark Banash, and David Singer (“Former Officers”)

commenced suit against the Company in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County.

As of the date hereof, the Company and Former

Officers have entered into a mutual settlement.

Thus, the Former Officers’ lawsuit against the Company has been dismissed with prejudice.

Any expenses or amounts awed have been recorded as of December 31, 2022 and are properly disclosed.

DarkPulse, Inc.

FirstFire Global Opportunities

Fund, LLC, and Eli Fireman (SDNY)

On December 31, 2021, the Company commenced an

action against FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“ FirstFire ”), and Eli Fireman (“ Fireman ”)

(FirstFire and Fireman together, the “ FirstFire Parties ”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District

The complaint alleges that FirstFire is an unregistered dealer acting in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act of

1934 and that the Company is entitled to rescissionary relief from certain convertible promissory notes and securities purchase agreements

entered into by the Company and FirstFire pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint also asserts claims against Fireman

for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment of FirstFire, and constructive trust against FirstFire.

On January 14, 2022, the Company moved for entry

of a temporary restraining order and award of a preliminary injunction against FirstFire to enjoin them from selling or attempting to

sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the 177,275,000 common shares the Company believed were in FirstFire’s possession pursuant

to the conversion of a certain note.

On January 14, 2022, the Court denied the Company’s

order to show cause seeking a temporary restraining order.

Following expedited briefing by the parties, on

January 21, 2022, the Court denied the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction.

On March 14, 2022, the FirstFire Parties filed

their letter request for a motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint.

The Company responded to the FirstFire Parties’ letter

on March 17, 2022.

As of the filing date, the Court has not yet issued a decision on the FirstFire Parties letter request to file its

motion to dismiss.

FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC v.

DarkPulse, Inc.

Chancery Court)

On December 13, 2021, FirstFire commenced an action

against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The complaint seeks declaratory judgment of the issuance of 177,375,000

shares of Company common stock pursuant to a certain convertible promissory note.

On January 4, 2022, the Company filed a motion

to dismiss FirstFire’s complaint.

On February 11, 2022, the Company filed its opening

memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss.

The Company’s memorandum argues that the issuance of the certain convertible

promissory note to FirstFire was made under is void ab initio as it violates New York’s criminal usury laws, and that FirstFire

improperly amended the governing law provision of the void convertible note to evade being declared void ab initio and, instead,

continue to enforce the unlawful transaction .

On March 14, 2022, FirstFire filed a notice of

voluntary dismissal of its complaint.

As of December 31, 2021, DarkPulse views the aforesaid

FirstFire Delaware Chancery matter as fully disclosed.

Fund, LLC, and Eli Fireman

As disclosed in greater detail in the Company’s

Form 10-Q, filed October 24, 2022, the Company remains in active litigation with FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“FirstFire”),

and Eli Fireman (“Fireman”) (FirstFire and Fireman together, the “FirstFire Parties”).

The following discloses

the material updates for this matter.

On January 17, 2023, the Court granted the FirstFire

Parties’ motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint.

Also on January 17, 2023, the Company appealed the trial court’s

decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Briefing is currently taking place on the Company’s appeal.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating

its claims for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

DarkPulse, Inc.

EMA Financial, LLC et al

On January 4, 2022, the Company commenced an action

against EMA Financial, LLC (“ EMA ”), EMA Group, Inc.

(“ EMA Group ”), and Felicia Preston (“ Preston ”)

(EMA, EMA Group, and Preston together, the “ EMA Parties ”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District

The complaint alleges that EMA is an unregistered dealer acting in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act and that

the Company is entitled to rescissionary relief from certain convertible promissory notes and securities purchase agreements entered into

by the Company and EMA pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint also asserts claims against Preston for control person

liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, unjust enrichment of EMA, EMA Group, and Preston, and constructive trust against the

On March 28, 2022, the Company filed its first

amended complaint against the EMA Parties.

The amended complaint alleges the same causes of action asserted in the initial complaint—(1)

that EMA is an unregistered dealer acting in violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act and, pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Exchange

Act, the Company is entitled to rescissionary relief from certain convertible promissory notes and securities purchase agreements entered

into by the Company and EMA, (2) that Preston is liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and (3) unjust enrichment—along

with two claims:

that the EMA Parties, first, violated and, second conspired to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

(RICO) Act for engaging in the collection of an unlawful debt.

As disclosed in greater detail in the Company’s

Form 10-Q, filed October 24, 2022, the Company remains in active litigation with EMA Financial, LLC (“EMA”), EMA Group, Inc.

(“EMA Group”), and Felicia Preston (“Preston”) (EMA, EMA Group, and Preston together, the “EMA Parties”).

The following discloses the material updates for this matter.

On March 1, 2023, the Court granted the EMA Parties’

motion to dismiss the Company’s claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied dismissal of the Company’s

claim asserted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

On or about May 15, 2023, the Company and the

EMA Parties reached an understanding of settlement, which was subsequently memorialized.

The action was subsequently dismissed on or

about June 14, 2023.

DarkPulse, Inc.

Brunson Chandler & Jones,

On July 8, 2022, the Company commenced litigation

against Brunson Chandler & Jones, PLLC (“Brunson Firm”), and Lance B.

Brunson (“Brunson,” and together with

the Brunson Firm, the “Brunson Parties”) through the filing of a complaint in the United States District Court for the District

The Company is alleging that the Brunson Parties have committed professional negligence and breach of contract.

On March 2, 2023, the Brunson Parties filed an

answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims to the Company’s complaint, wherein the Brunson Firm alleged claims for (i) breach

of contract against the Company, (ii) breach of contract against the Company’s subsidiary, DarkPulse Technologies, Inc., and (iii)

quantum meruit.

On June 5, 2023, the Company filed its answer

and affirmative defenses to the Brunson Firm’s counterclaims.

The Company remains committed to litigating its claims and affirmative

defenses against the Brunson Parties.

DarkPulse, Inc., et al v.

Crown Bridge Partners,

On September 23, 2022, the Company commenced an

action along with two other plaintiffs (“Crown Bridge Plaintiffs”) against Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, Soheil Ahdoot, and

Sepas Ahdoot (“Crown Bridge Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging

violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

On January 13, 2023, the Crown Bridge Defendants

filed a motion to dismiss.

As of May 16, 2023, the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully submitted to the court.

As of the date hereof, no decision has been made on the motion.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating

its claims for relief under the Exchange Act.

In addition to the foregoing Legal Proceedings,

the Company is also actively investigating potential legal claims, including but not limited to stock fraud, market manipulation, and/or

defamation, against certain Twitter accounts, websites, and social media channels.

The investigation is ongoing and should potential claims

be identified, the Company will evaluate commencing formal litigation proceedings.

From time to time, the Company may become involved

in litigation relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business.

To the best of the Company’s knowledge,

no governmental authority is contemplating any proceeding to which the Company is a party or to which any of the Company’s properties

are subject, which would reasonably be likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and

operating results.

From time to time, we may become involved in

litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business.

We are not currently involved in any pending

legal proceeding or litigation and, to the best of our knowledge, no governmental authority is contemplating any proceeding to which

we are a party or to which any of our properties is subject, which would reasonably be likely to have a material adverse effect on our

business, financial condition and operating results.

its RICO claims against the Crown Bridge Defendants.

Benner et al v.

DarkPulse, Inc.

On March 29, 2023, J.

Merlin Benner, Phillip J.

Benner, Benjamin P.

Benner, Jonas M.

Benner, and Angelica M.

Benner (collectively, the “Benner Parties”) commenced an action

in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Dennis O’Leary,

individually, alleging (i) the Company is in breach of contracts between the Company and the Benner Parties as it concerns Remote Intelligence,

LLC and Wildlife Specialists, LLC, (ii) violation of Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by the Company, and (iii) defamation by Mr.

Pursuant to a stipulation entered into by the

parties to this matter, the Company and Mr.

O’Leary are scheduled to file their answer to the Benner Parties’ complaint on

or before June 30, 2023.

GS Capital Partners, LLC v.

DarkPulse, Inc.

On June 2, 2023, GS Capital Partners, LLC (“GS

Capital”) commenced an action in the Supreme Court for New York County against the Company through the filing of motion for summary

judgment in lieu of a complaint.

The motion claims that the Company is in breach of a convertible promissory note, dated July 14, 2021,

and accompanying securities purchase agreement, dated the same.

The motion claims that GS Capital is entitled

to an award of $2,407,671, plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements.

The Company is currently looking to retain legal

counsel to represent it in this matter, and intends to vigorously defend itself against GS Capital.

From time to time, we may become involved

in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business.

We are not currently involved in any

pending legal proceeding or litigation and, to the best of our knowledge, no governmental authority is contemplating any proceeding to

which we are a party or to which any of our properties is subject, which would reasonably be likely to have a material adverse effect

on our business, financial condition and operating results.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

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-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings