Flux Power Holdings, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 3 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company 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 any legal proceedings that may arise from time to time may harm the Company’s business. To the best of its knowledge, except for the legal proceedings disclosed below, there are no other material legal proceedings pending against the Company. Securities Class Action On November 1, 2024, plaintiff Asfa Kassam filed a federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, captioned Kassam v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-02051), against the Company, our former Chief Executive Officer, Ronald F. Dutt, and our former Chief Financial Officer, Charles A. Scheiwe. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 11, 2022 and September 30, 2024, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On January 14, 2025, the court granted an unopposed motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California for all further proceedings (Case No. 3:25-cv-00113-JO-DDL). On February 20, 2025, the court appointed Brandon Paulson to act as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 21, 2025, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 12, 2025, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. 34 Table of Contents Following a mediation, on July 11, 2025, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) to fully resolve the class action litigation. The settlement was subsequently memorialized in a definitive settlement agreement, executed on August 27, 2025, which was filed with the Court on August 28, 2025 in connection with an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 23, 2025, the Court held a preliminary hearing on plaintiff’s motion, but continued the hearing until December 4, 2025, pending certain supplemental submissions by the parties. Following the December 4, 2025 hearing, on December 10, 2025 the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a final approval hearing for April 2, 2026. On April 7, 2026, the Court issued its Order and Final Judgement affirming its preliminary order and approving the proposed plan of allocation as fair and reasonable. The Court entered its judgement and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Separately on April 7, 2026, the Court entered its order awarding attorneys’ fees and reimbursement to plaintiff’s counsel. The settlement provides for, among other things, the final dismissal of the litigation and a release of claims against the Defendants in exchange for the Company establishing a $1.75 million escrowed settlement fund to cover payments to the settlement class, attorneys’ fees and settlement administration expenses. Our liability insurers directly funded the full $1.75 million settlement amount, which was released from the escrowed settlement fund pursuant to the Order and Final Judgement. The settlement class consists of all persons or entities who purchased publicly traded common stock of the Company between November 15, 2021 and February 14, 2025, but will exclude (i) persons who suffered no compensable losses; and (ii) the Defendants; present and former officers, directors, or control persons of the Company at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, or assigns; present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, and predecessors of the Company; and any entity in which any of the persons excluded hereunder has or had a controlling or majority ownership interest in the Company at any time. The plaintiff’s motion seeks certification of the settlement class, and, for settlement purposes only, Defendants will not object to certification of the action as a class action. In settling the class action, the Company is not admitting any liability and neither the Term Sheet nor the definitive settlement agreement constitutes an admission of liability or an admission regarding the accuracy of any allegation made by the plaintiffs. Stockholder Derivative Action On January 7, 2025, plaintiff Ronald Pearl filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, captioned Pearl v. Dutt, et al . (Case No. 2:25-cv-00042), against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally arises out of the same allegations contained in the Kassam securities class action and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and related claims. The action purports to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Company and seeks damages and other various relief. On February 19, 2025, the court granted an unopposed motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California for all further proceedings (Case No. 3:25-cv-00373-W-JLB). On March 27, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the derivative action pending the underlying class action, which motion was granted on May 1, 2025. On April 1, 2025, the Court transferred the matter to Judge Ohta, as related to the Kassam securities class action (now captioned Case No. 3:25-cv-00373-JO-DDL). Following a mediation, on July 11, 2025 the parties reached an agreement to resolve the derivative complaint in exchange for the Company implementing and maintaining certain corporate governance reforms and enhancements. In connection with the settlement, defendants agreed not to oppose payment of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses for plaintiff’s counsel, and a service award for plaintiff in the total amount of $425,000, subject to Court approval. On August 13, 2025, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 23, 2025, the Court held a preliminary hearing on plaintiff’s motion, but continued the hearing until December 4, 2025, pending certain supplemental submissions by the parties. Following the December 4, 2025 hearing, on December 10, 2025 the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a final approval hearing for April 2, 2026. On April 7, 2026, the Court issued its Order and Final Judgement affirming its preliminary order and thereby dismissed all claims with prejudice. In settling the derivative complaint, the defendants are not admitting any liability, and the settlement does not constitute an admission regarding the accuracy of any allegation made by the plaintiffs. Final settlement remains subject to, among other things, court approval. The Company’s liability insurers directly funded approximately $187,000 of the agreed upon attorneys’ fees. The Company contributed approximately $238,000 of the agreed upon attorneys’ fees as its remaining retention/deductible related to its insurance policy. 35 Table of Contents Employment-Related Actions On April 30, 2024, a former employee (the “Employee”) filed a class action complaint against the Company and Insperity, its third-party payroll service provider, in San Diego County Superior Court for claims including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay wages at separation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to produce employment records and unfair competition, which he has purported to assert on behalf of himself and all other individuals who worked for the Company or Insperity, as non-exempt employees in California between April 30, 2020 and the present (the “Employment Proceeding”). On July 1, 2024, the Company filed an answer to the complaint that none of the asserted claims possessed any merit, contended that many of the asserted claims were subject to immediate dismissal, and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to binding arbitration. On July 5, 2024, the Employee filed a representative action complaint against the Company and Insperity in San Diego County Superior Court for Violation of Private Attorneys’ General Act (“PAGA”), seeking an unspecified amount of penalties and attorneys’ fees based on allegations that the Company violated certain California employment laws (the “PAGA Proceeding”). On August 8, 2024, the Company filed an answer to the complaint in which the Company denied that any of the asserted claims possessed any merit and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to binding arbitration. On October 14, 2024, the Employee elected to dismiss Insperity from the action without prejudice. On December 10, 2024, the Company and the Employee stipulated to the consolidation of Employment Lawsuit and the PAGA Action. As of the date hereof, both proceedings are currently pending consolidation by the court. Upon consolidation, the Company intends to move to have the Employee’s action claims dismissed, the Employee’s individual claims compelled to binding arbitration and the Employee’s representative PAGA claims stayed pending the arbitration of his individual claims. On October 22, 2024, the Employee elected to dismiss Insperity from the action without prejudice. The plaintiff’s Class Action lawsuit and Plaintiff’s PAGA lawsuit have now been consolidated by the Court. Plaintiff has refused to dismiss his Class Action claims or submit his individual claims, including his individual PAGA claims, to binding arbitration. Accordingly, at the January 24, 2025 Case Management Conference in this matter, the Court authorized the Company to proceed with the filing of a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Motion to Compel Arbitration was granted and arbitration was scheduled for March 26, 2026 wherein the parties agreed to a settlement of $164,000. Final settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval of such agreement. If the settlement does not obtain approval, the parties agree that the settlement class will be decertified without prejudice, and that all the parties will revert to their pre-settlement positions. ITEM 4 - MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES Not applicable. 36 Table of Contents PART II