What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-04-14 compared with 2025-04-14 · 101 added, 189 removed, 15 unchanged (95% of the section changed)

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Carebourn Capital, L.P.

DarkPulse, Inc.

On or about January 29, 2021, Carebourn Capital,

(“ Carebourn ”) commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court.

Carebourn alleged that the Company

was in breach of certain securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about July 17, 2018 and

July 24, 2018.

On or about August 31, 2021, the Company answered

Carebourn’s complaint and interposed affirmative defenses, including that Carebourn was an unregistered “dealer,” as

such term is defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“ Exchange Act ”) and, therefore, all contracts between

the parties arising from or related to the securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about

July 17, 2018 and July 24, 2018 were void pursuant to the Exchange Act.

The Company also asserted counterclaims against Carebourn under

the Minnesota Securities Act.

On or about April 21, 2023, the State Court ruled

in the Company’s favor on its motion for partial summary judgment on its Exchange Act defense, holding that (i) Carebourn is

a “dealer” under the Exchange Act in violation of the mandatory registration requirement imposed thereby, and (ii) all

contracts between the parties are void.

On or about November 17, 2023, the State Court

ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for summary judgment on its Minnesota Securities Act counterclaims against Carebourn

and awarded damages for Carebourn’s violation of Minn.

§ 80A.76(d) in the amount of $124,012.91, attorney’s

fees in the amount of $239,923.33 and costs in the amount of $23,757.24 (or a total award in the amount of $387,693.48).

As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains

unsatisfied by Carebourn.

DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts

awarded should Carebourn fail to voluntarily pay the same.

On or about January 29, 2021, Carebourn Capital, L.P.

(“ Carebourn ”)

commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court.

Carebourn alleged that the Company was in breach of two convertible

promissory notes sold to Carebourn on or about July 17, 2018 and July 24, 2018.

Thereafter, the Company answered Carebourn’s complaint

and asserted counterclaims under the Minnesota Securities Act.

On or about November 17, 2023, the State Court ruled in

the Company’s favor on, among other things, its counterclaim for damages pursuant to Minnesota Securities Act and awarded the Company

damages in the amount of $124,012.91, attorney’s fees in the amount of $239,923.33 and costs in the amount of $23,757.24 (or a total

award in the amount of $387,693.48).

As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains unsatisfied

by Carebourn.

DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded should

Carebourn fail to voluntarily pay the same.

More Capital, LLC v.

DarkPulse, Inc.

On or about June 29, 2021, More Capital, LLC (“ More ”)

commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court.

More alleged that the Company was in breach of a certain securities

purchase agreement and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018.

On or about September 3, 2021, the Company answered

More’s complaint and interposed affirmative defenses, including that More was an unregistered “dealer,” as such term

is defined in the Exchange Act and, therefore, all contracts between the parties arising from or related to the securities purchase agreement

and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018 were void pursuant to the Exchange Act.

The Company also asserted

counterclaims against More under the Minnesota Securities Act.

On or about December 11, 2023, the Minnesota State

Court ruled in the Company’s favor on its motion for summary judgment on its (a) Exchange Act defense, holding that (1) More

is a “dealer” under the Exchange Act in violation of the mandatory registration requirement imposed thereby, and (ii) all

contracts between the parties are void, and (b) Minnesota Securities Act counterclaims against More and awarded damages for More’s

violation of Minn.

§ 80A.76(d) in the amount of $300,809.39, attorney’s fees in the amount of $110,029.00 and costs

in the amount of $210.25 (or a total award in the amount of $412,048.64).

As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains

unsatisfied by More.

DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded

should More fail to voluntarily pay the same.

On or about June 29, 2021, More Capital, LLC

(“ More ”) commenced an action against the Company in Minnesota State Court.

More alleged that the Company was in breach

of a certain securities purchase agreement and convertible promissory note sold to More on or about August 20, 2018.

Thereafter, the

Company answered More’s complaint and asserted counterclaims under the Minnesota Securities Act.

On or about December 11, 2023, the Minnesota State Court

ruled in the Company’s favor on, among other things, its counterclaim for damages pursuant to Minnesota Securities Act and awarded

the Company damages in the amount of $300,809.39, attorney’s fees in the amount of $110,029.00 and costs in the amount of $210.25

(or a total award in the amount of $412,048.64).

As of the date hereof, the final judgment remains unsatisfied

DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available to it to collect the amounts awarded should

More fail to voluntarily pay the same.

Carebourn Capital et al v.

Standard Registrar

and Transfer et al

On or about May 20, 2022, Carebourn and More (More,

together with Carebourn, the “ Noteholders ”) commenced an action against the Company, certain members of the Company’s

executive team and board of directors and Standard Registrar and Transfer Company, Inc., the Company’s transfer agent, in the United

States District Court for the District of Utah.

The Noteholders’ complaint alleged various causes of action arising from certain

securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes the Company sold to the Noteholders.

On or about November 1, 2023, the Noteholders

moved to dismiss the action.

On or about November 2, 2023, the Company moved

for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record.

On or about December 4, 2023, the Court entered

an order granting dismissal of the Noteholders’ claims with prejudice.

The Court acknowledged that notwithstanding its dismissal

of the Noteholders’ claims, the Court continues to retain jurisdiction over the Noteholders because of DarkPulse’s pending

motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their attorneys.

On September 10, 2024, the Court entered an order

granting in part the Company’s motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record.

As of the date hereof, the Court has not yet rendered

its decision on the amount sanctions that will be imposed against the Noteholders and their counsel of record and awarded to the Company.

Standard Registrar and Transfer et al

On or about May 20, 2022, the Carebourn Capital, L.P.

(“ Carebourn ”)

and More Capital, LLC (“ More ,” and together with Carebourn, the “ Noteholders ”) commenced an action

against the Company, certain members of the Company’s executive team and board of directors and Standard Registrar and Transfer

Company, Inc., the Company’s transfer agent, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

The Noteholders’

complaint alleged various causes of action arising from certain securities purchase agreements and convertible promissory notes the Company

sold to the Noteholders.

On or about November 1, 2023, the Noteholders moved to dismiss the

On or about November 2, 2023, the Company moved for sanctions

against the Noteholders and their counsel of record.

On or about December 4, 2023, the Court entered an order

granting dismissal of the Noteholders’ claims with prejudice.

The Court acknowledged that notwithstanding its dismissal of the Noteholders’

claims, the Court continues to retain jurisdiction over the Noteholders because of DarkPulse’s pending motion for sanctions against

the Noteholders and their attorneys.

On September 10, 2024, the Court entered an order granting in part

the Company’s motion for sanctions against the Noteholders and their counsel of record.

On July 15, 2025, the Court entered an order ordering the

Noteholders and their counsel to pay the sum of $70,840 to the Company.

On September 30, 2025, the Court entered Final Judgment in this

As of the date hereof, the Noteholders and their

counsel have not paid the awarded amount to the Company.

DarkPulse intends to continue to exercise all legal rights and remedies available

to it to collect the amounts awarded.

DarkPulse, Inc.

FirstFire Global Opportunities

Fund, LLC, and Eli Fireman

On or about December 31, 2021, the Company commenced

an action against FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“ FirstFire ”) and its control person, Eli Fireman (“ Fireman ,”

FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC, et

On or about December 31, 2021, the Company commenced an action against

FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC (“ FirstFire ”) and its control person, Eli Fireman (“ Fireman ,”

and together with FirstFire, the “ FirstFire Defendants ”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District

On or about May 5, 2022, the Company amended its

complaint against the FirstFire Defendants.

The amended complaint alleges that the FirstFire Defendants were liable to the Company for

rescission of certain convertible promissory notes and transitions effected thereunder and damages pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act (“ RICO ”).

On or about January 17, 2023, the Court granted

the FirstFire Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s operative pleading.

On the same day, the Company appealed the Court’s

decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“ Second Circuit ”).

On March 28, 2024, the Second Circuit issued its

decision and found that the District Court (a) properly found that the Delaware forum-selection clause was enforceable but, thereafter,

(b) improperly made a ruling on the merits of the Company’s claims for relief.

As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the

District Court’s decision in part, vacated in part and remanded the case back to the District Court for transferring to the United

States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On September 9, 2024, the FirstFire Defendants

filed their opening memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss.

Shortly thereafter, the Company opposed the FirstFire Defendants’

motion and the FirstFire Defendants filed their reply in further support.

As of the date hereof, the Court has not scheduled

oral arguments on the FirstFire Defendants’ motion to dismiss or rendered its decision thereon.

The Company remains committed to

actively litigating its claims for relief against the FirstFire Defendants.

On or about May 5, 2022, the Company amended its complaint

against the FirstFire Defendants.

The amended complaint alleges that the FirstFire Defendants were liable to the Company for rescission

of certain convertible promissory notes and transitions effected thereunder and damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(“ Exchange Act ”) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“ RICO ”).

On or about January 17, 2023, the Court granted the FirstFire Defendants’

motion to dismiss the Company’s operative pleading.

Later during the same day, the Company appealed the Court’s decision to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“ Second Circuit ”).

On March 28, 2024, the Second Circuit issued its decision and found

that the District Court

(a) properly found that the Delaware forum-selection

clause was enforceable but, thereafter,

(b) improperly made a ruling on the merits of

the Company’s claims for relief.

As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in part, vacated in

part and remanded the case back to the District Court for transferring to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

On September 30, 2025, the Delaware Court granted

the FirstFire Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

On October 14, 2025, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Delaware

Court’s September 30th decision.

As of the date hereof, the Delaware Court has not ruled on

DarkPulse’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating its claims for relief against the FirstFire

DarkPulse, Inc., et al v.

Crown Bridge Partners,

On or about September 23, 2022, the Company, Social

Life Network, Inc.

Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, et al

On or about September 23, 2022, the Company, Social Life Network, Inc.

and Redhawk Holdings Corp.

commenced an action against Crown Bridge Partners, LLC (“ Crown Bridge ”)

and its control persons, Soheil Ahdoot and Sepas Ahdoot (collectively, the “ Crown Bridge Defendants ”) in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Crown Bridge Defendants are liable to each

of the plaintiffs for damages pursuant to RICO.

On or about September 29, 2023, the Court granted

the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.

On October 23, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the

Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“ Second Circuit ”).

(together, the “ Crown Bridge Plaintiffs ”) commenced an action against Crown Bridge Partners,

LLC (“ Crown Bridge ”) and its control persons, Soheil Ahdoot and Sepas Ahdoot (collectively, the “ Crown Bridge

Defendants ”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Crown

Bridge Defendants are liable to each of the plaintiffs for damages pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

On or about September 29, 2023, the Court granted the Crown Bridge

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.

On October 23, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the Court’s

decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“ Second Circuit ”).

On August 19, 2024, the Second Circuit issued

2 unchanged sentences

consistent with its decision.

On September 30, 2024, the District Court entered

a scheduling order, setting forth deadlines for discovery and dispositive motion practice.

The Company is actively litigating its claims

for relief against the Crown Bridge Defendants.

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.

On July 27, 2023, the Company moved to set aside

the default judgment entered in favor of GS Capital and against the Company on July 25, 2023.

GS Capital’s opposition thereto is

due on or before August 31, 2023.

Thereafter, DarkPulse’s reply is due on or before September 6, 2023.

Oral arguments are currently

not scheduled on the Company’s motion.

On or about September 27, 2023, the Company and

GS Capital confidentially settled the dispute.

On or about October 3, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation with the court to vacate the

judgment entered against the Company and in favor of GS Capital, vacate the motion filed by the Company, and discontinue the action.

On or about October 9, 2023, the court vacated

the judgment and the action was dismissed.

The Company defaulted upon the settlement and,

on July 24, 2024, the Company and GS Capital entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the Company entered into a confession

of judgment in favor of GS Capital in the amount of $2,673,423.19 (the “ Balance ”).

Upon approval of the court on August

19, 2024, the Company will issue to GS Capital free-trading and unrestricted shares of Common Stock pursuant to drawdown requests in the

amounts determined by GS Capital, subject to a 4.99% beneficial ownership limitation.

The shares will be issued a price per share equal

to the average of the three lowest VWAPs for the five prior trading days.

GS Capital will be allowed to sell, the greater of (1) in one

week, no more than 1% of the total outstanding shares of the Company on a non-cumulative basis at the “ask” price, and (2)

15% of the daily trading volume of the Common Stock on any single trading day.

Each drawdown will reduce the Balance.

The Company is required

to reserve 2,500,000,000 shares of Common Stock.

TJM West, Inc v Thomas J McCarthy Family

Limited Partnership

On or about July 25, 2023, TJM West filed an action

in Maricopa court against its landlord for illegal lockout from the company’s facilities.

On or about August 18, 2023, TJM West’s

motion for Temporary Restraining Order was granted.

September 27, 2023, TJM West counsel motion to

withdraw was accepted.

On or about October 6, 2923, TJM West hired new

counsel to assist with a short deadline to file answers to landlords motion.

On or about November 6, 2023, TJM West and its

counsel mutually agreed to a withdrawal.

On or about November 6, 2023, TJM West engaged

On or about May 8, 2024, TJM West dropped its

motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

On or about May 24, 2024, TJM West counsel filed

motion to continue discovery.

On or about May 24, 2024, TJM West’s counsel

left the firm handling the litigation it was determined in the best interest of the company to terminate its relationship with the law

As of the date hereof, the Company is interviewing new counsel and evaluating its claims against landlord to determine if it’s

financially responsible to incur additional fees related to exercising TJM’s rights against the landlord for terminating the lease.

On or about June 28, 2024, the Company discussed

with possible new counsel the feasibility of recovering its damages utilizing the courts.

At that time, it appeared the cost of recovery

would exceed the recoverable amount should the Company be successful in its litigation.

TJM West is awaiting updates from the court in

Maricopa County as to the status of the case.

The facilities in question had served as TJM West’s

manufacturing facility and is located at 2640 W Medtronic Way Tempe, AZ 85281.

Currently, we do

not have access to the facility nor have we signed a new lease signed with the landlord.

In addition to the foregoing Legal Proceedings,

we are 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,

we will evaluate commencing formal litigation proceedings.

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.

On July 16, 2024, the parties submitted final briefing on their

respective motions for summary judgment and/or dismissal to the Court.

As of the date hereof, the Court has not issued

a ruling on the parties’ respective motions.

The Company remains committed to actively litigating its claims for relief against

the Crown Bridge Defendants.

Unasserted Matters

We are unfamiliar with any unasserted claims held by the Company as

of December 31, 2025.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.

1 unchanged sentence

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