Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. DarkPulse, Inc.
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. et al
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 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.
Carebourn Capital et al v. 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 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.
41
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 matter.
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. v. FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC, et
al
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
of New York.
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 Defendants.
DarkPulse, Inc., et al v. Crown Bridge Partners,
LLC, et al
On or about September 23, 2022, the Company, Social
Life Network, Inc. and Redhawk Holdings Corp. (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
(“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 ”).
42
On August 19, 2024, the Second Circuit issued
its decision and found that the District Court erred when granting the Crown Bridge Defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result,
the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings
consistent with its decision.
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.
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.
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.