What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2021-05-07 compared with 2020-11-12 · 137 added, 117 removed, 13 unchanged (95% of the section changed)

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

time to time, the Company may be involved in various litigation matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

is currently no litigation that management believes will have a material impact on the financial position of the Company.

or around January 30, 2019, RWJ Advanced Marketing, LLC, Greg Bauer, and Warren Jackson sued the Company and multiple third and

related parties in Superior Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles, General District in connection with the

acquisition of UGO in September 2017.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time,

the Company may be involved in various litigation matters, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

There is currently no litigation

that management believes will have a material impact on the financial position of the Company.

On or around January

30, 2019, RWJ Advanced Marketing, LLC, Greg Bauer, and Warren Jackson sued the Company and multiple third and related parties in Superior

Court of the State of California - County of Los Angeles, General District in connection with the acquisition of UGO in September 2017.

The case number is 19STCV03320 (the “Original Lawsuit”).

The complaint in the

Original Lawsuit alleges breach of contract, among other causes of action.

The Company answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint

against the plaintiffs in the case and third parties on or around February 15, 2019.

On or about September 10, 2020, the Company

through its agent of service was “served”

with a complaint (the Company contested service) that was recently filed

against the Company and third parties by Robert Warren Jackson and Gregory Bauer in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.:

(“Second Lawsuit”).

In the Original Lawsuit filed, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims that they were

filing a purported quasi-derivative lawsuit.

As such, in this current litigation, the plaintiff is now again claiming the action

is a derivative lawsuit.

In the Original lawsuit, the Company filed a cross complaint against the plaintiff and other third parties.

Recently, the court has scheduled various hearings and a trial date set for December 27, 2021.

It was the Company’s intention

to dividend its holdings of its wholly owned subsidiary Ugopherservices Corp.

The complaint in the Original Lawsuit alleges breach of contract,

among other causes of action.

The Company answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiffs in the case and third

parties on or around February 15, 2019.

On or about September 10, 2020, the Company through its agent of service was “served”

with a complaint (the Company contested service) that was recently filed against the Company and third parties by Robert Warren Jackson

and Gregory Bauer in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.:

20STCV32709 (“Second Lawsuit”).

In the Original Lawsuit filed,

the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims that they were filing a purported quasi-derivative lawsuit.

As such, in this current

litigation, the plaintiff is now again claiming the action is a derivative lawsuit.

On October 13, 2020, the Second Lawsuit was removed

by other defendants into Central District of California (CASE NO.

2:20−cv−09399−RGK−AGR).

On February 2, 2021

The Central District of California dismissed the entire Second Lawsuit based on “demand futility”.

In the Original lawsuit,

the Company filed a cross complaint against the plaintiff and other third parties.

Recently, the court has scheduled various hearings

and a trial date set for December 27, 2021.

It was the Company’s intention to dividend its holdings of its wholly owned subsidiary

Ugopherservices Corp.

(“UGO”).

As UGO is the main dispute

in the litigations described above, the Company has elected to sell UGO to a third party effective July 1, 2020 (See Note 3).

On September 17, 2020, the Company terminated Greg Bauer as consultant (resulting from the sale of UGO), which he confirmed in

On or about October 13, 2020, one of the defendants filed a motion to remove the Second Lawsuit from the Los Angeles

Superior Court to Federal court.

The Company was not served per federal rule as required per the removal.

the sale of UGO (See Note 3), the Company noticed third parties (including SURG, via its asset manager) to wire the UGO funds

to its new bank account.

SURG never answered the notice.

The Company intends to take legal actions to resolve this issue.

December 3, 2018, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) with Discover Growth Fund,

LLC (the “Investor”) pursuant to which the Company issued a Senior Secured Redeemable Convertible Debenture (the “Debenture”)

in the aggregate face value of $8,340,000.

In connection with the issuance of the Debenture and pursuant to the terms of the SPA,

the Company issued a Common Stock Purchase Warrant to acquire up to 225,000 shares of common stock for a term of three years (the

“Warrant”) on a cash-only basis at an exercise price of $100.00 per share with respect to 50,000 Warrant Shares, $75.00

with respect to 75,000 Warrant Shares and $50.00 with respect to 100,000 Warrant Shares.

The holder may not exercise any portion

of the Warrants to the extent that the holder would own more than 4.99% of the Company’s outstanding common stock immediately

after exercise.

The outstanding principal amount may be converted at any time into shares of the Company’s common

stock at a conversion price equal to 95% of the Market Price less $5.00 (the conversion price is lowered by 10% upon the

occurrence of each Triggering Event –

the current conversion price is 75% of the Market Price less $5.00).

The Market Price

is the average of the 5 lowest individual daily volume weighted average prices during the period the Debenture is outstanding.

On May 28, 2019, the Investor delivered to the Company a “Notice of Default and Notice of Sale of Collateral”

“Notice”).

On December 23, 2019, in arbitration between the Company and the Investor, an Interim Award was entered

in favor of the Investor.

On January 31, 2020, the Company was informed that a final award was entered (the “Final Award”).

The Final Award affirms that certain sections of the Debenture constitute unenforceable liquidated damages penalties and

were stricken.

Further, it was determined that the Investor was entitled to recovery of their attorney’s fees.

Consequently,

the arbitrator awarded Investor an award of $4,034,444 plus interest of 7.25% accrued from May 15, 2019 and costs in the amount

On February 18, 2020, the Company filed a motion with the United States District Court District of Nevada (the “Nevada

Court”) to confirm the Final Award and a motion to consolidate Investor’s application to confirm the Final Award filed

As UGO is the main dispute in the litigations described above, the Company has elected to

sell UGO to a third-party effective July 1, 2020.

On September 17, 2020, the Company terminated Greg Bauer as consultant (resulting from

the sale of UGO), which he confirmed in writing.

Following the sale

of UGO, the Company noticed third parties (including SURG, via its asset manager) to wire the UGO funds to its new bank account.

never answered the notice.

The Company noticed certain third parties that it intends to take legal actions to resolve this issue.

November 12, 2020 the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court –

District of Nevada - Case 2:20-cv-02078 against

Jackson and against W.L.

Petrey Wholesale Company Inc for fraud, breach of contract, Unjust Enrichment and other

On December 3, 2018,

the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) with Discover Growth Fund, LLC (the “Investor”)

pursuant to which the Company issued a Senior Secured Redeemable Convertible Debenture (the “Debenture”) in the aggregate

face value of $8,340,000.

In connection with the issuance of the Debenture and pursuant to the terms of the SPA, the Company issued a

Common Stock Purchase Warrant to acquire up to 225,000 shares of common stock for a term of three years (the “Warrant”) on

a cash-only basis at an exercise price of $100.00 per share with respect to 50,000 Warrant Shares, $75.00 with respect to 75,000 Warrant

Shares and $50.00 with respect to 100,000 Warrant Shares.

The holder may not exercise any portion of the Warrants to the extent that

the holder would own more than 4.99% of the Company’s outstanding common stock immediately after exercise.

The outstanding principal

amount may be converted at any time into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price equal to 95%

of the Market Price less $5.00 (the conversion price is lowered by 10% upon the occurrence of each Triggering Event –

conversion price is 75% of the Market Price less $5.00).

The Market Price is the average of the 5 lowest individual daily volume weighted

average prices during the period the Debenture is outstanding.

On May 28, 2019, the Investor delivered to the Company a “Notice

of Default and Notice of Sale of Collateral”

(the “Notice”).

On December 23, 2019, in arbitration between the Company

and the Investor, an Interim Award was entered in favor of the Investor.

On January 31, 2020, the Company was informed that a final award

was entered (the “Final Award”).

The Final Award affirms that certain sections of the Debenture constitute unenforceable

liquidated damages penalties and were stricken.

Further, it was determined that the Investor was entitled to recovery of their attorney’s

Consequently, the arbitrator awarded Investor an award of $4,034,444 plus interest of 7.25% accrued from May 15, 2019 and costs

in the amount of $55,613.

On February 18, 2020, the Company filed a motion with the United States District Court District of Nevada (the

“Nevada Court”) to confirm the Final Award and a motion to consolidate Investor’s application to confirm the Final

Award filed in the U.S.

District Court of the Virgin Islands (Case No:

3 :20-cv-00012-CVG-RM) (the “Virgin Island Court”).

February 27, 2020, the Nevada Court denied the Company’s motion to confirm the Final Award and motion to consolidate and

further decided that the confirmation of the Final Award should be litigated in the Virgin Island Court.

As such, on February

27, 2020, the Company filed a Notice of Entry of Order as well as a Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award, address the outstanding

issues regarding whether Investor’s rights are subordinated to other creditors and, thereafter, oversee a commercially reasonable

foreclosure sale (Case No:

On February 27, 2020, the Nevada Court denied the Company’s motion to confirm the Final Award and motion to consolidate and further

decided that the confirmation of the Final Award should be litigated in the Virgin Island Court.

As such, on February 27, 2020, the Company

filed a Notice of Entry of Order as well as a Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award, address the outstanding issues regarding whether

Investor’s rights are subordinated to other creditors and, thereafter, oversee a commercially reasonable foreclosure sale (Case

3 :20-cv-00012-CVG-RM).

It was the Company’s position that the Final Award must first be confirmed

and all questions regarding the rights of Investor relative to those of other creditors must be determined before any foreclosure

sale can proceed.

It is further the position of the Company that the previously disclosed foreclosure sale scheduled by Investor

is being conducted in a commercially unreasonable manner and that if Discover proceeded forward with the foreclosure sale it did

so at its own risk.

Nevertheless, on February 28, 2020, Investor advised that it conducted a sale of the Company’s assets.

As the date of this report Investor failed to present a deed of sale for the alleged sale that allegedly took place as noticed.

The Company filed with Virgin Island Court the motions disputing the validity of the alleged sale.

On July 28, 2020, Investor

filed in the State of Nevada a motion for attorneys $48,844 and costs $716.

It was the Company’s position that the Final Award must first be confirmed and all questions regarding

the rights of Investor relative to those of other creditors must be determined before any foreclosure sale can proceed.

It is further

the position of the Company that the previously disclosed foreclosure sale scheduled by Investor is being conducted in a commercially

unreasonable manner and that if Discover proceeded forward with the foreclosure sale it did so at its own risk.

Nevertheless, on February

28, 2020, Investor advised that it conducted a sale of the Company’s assets.

As the date of this report Investor failed to present

a deed of sale for the alleged sale that allegedly took place as noticed.

The Company filed with Virgin Island Court the motions disputing

the validity of the alleged sale.

On July 28, 2020, Investor filed in the State of Nevada a motion for attorneys $48,844 and costs $716.

The Company filed an answer on August 11, 2020.

October 16, 2020, Investor motion for attorneys $48,844 and costs $716 was denied.

Technologies, S.A.

September 14, 2018, the Company entered into an Exclusive Intellectual Property License and Royalty Agreement (the “GBT

License Agreement”) with GBT-CR, a fully compliant and regulated crypto currency exchange platform that currently operates

in Costa Rica as a decentralized crypto currency platform, pursuant to which, among other things, the Company granted to GBT-CR

an exclusive, royalty-bearing right and license relating intellectual property relating to systems and methods of converting electronic

transmissions into digital currency as reflected in that certain patent filed with the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office

on or about June 14, 2018 (EFS ID:

On October 16, 2020, Investor motion for attorneys and costs was denied.

GBT Technologies,

September 14, 2018, the Company entered into an Exclusive Intellectual Property License and Royalty Agreement (the “GBT License

Agreement”) with GBT-CR, a fully compliant and regulated crypto currency exchange platform that currently operates in Costa Rica

as a decentralized crypto currency platform, pursuant to which, among other things, the Company granted to GBT-CR an exclusive, royalty-bearing

right and license relating intellectual property relating to systems and methods of converting electronic transmissions into digital

currency as reflected in that certain patent filed with the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office on or about June 14, 2018 (EFS

Application Number:

1 unchanged sentence

Confirmation Number:

6787)(collectively, the “Digital Currently Technology”).

Pursuant to the GBT License Agreement, the Company granted

GBT-CR an exclusive worldwide license to use the Digital Currency Technology to make, use, sell, lease or otherwise commercialize

and dispose of products and devices utilizing the Digital Currently Technology.

Under the terms of the GBT License Agreement,

the Company is entitled to receive a royalty payment of 2% of gross revenue of each licensed product sold by GBT-CR during the

period starting in which revenue is first generated using the licensed products and continuing for five years thereafter.

signing the GBT-CR License Agreement, GBT-CR paid the Company $300,000 which is nonrefundable.

The Company has recognized the

$300,000 as revenue during the years ended December 31, 2018.

Upon GBT-CR making available for sale (the “Commercial Event”)

an ICO (Initial Coin Offering) (the “Coin”), GBT-CR will make a payment to the Company in the amount of $5,000,000.

Further, upon the Commercial Event, GBT-CR will grant the Company the ability to acquire 30% of the Coin at a 30% discount of

such offering price of the Coin.

The GBT License Agreement commenced as of the signing date and, unless terminated in accordance

with the termination provisions of the GBT License Agreement, shall remain in force until the expiration of the patent pertaining

to the Digital Currency Technology;

provided that the right to use trade secrets shall survive the expiration of the GBT License

Agreement provided the Company has not terminated.

6787)(collectively, the “Digital

Currently Technology”).

Pursuant to the GBT License Agreement, the Company granted GBT-CR an exclusive worldwide license to use

the Digital Currency Technology to make, use, sell, lease or otherwise commercialize and dispose of products and devices utilizing the

Digital Currently Technology.

Under the terms of the GBT License Agreement, the Company is entitled to receive a royalty payment of 2%

of gross revenue of each licensed product sold by GBT-CR during the period starting in which revenue is first generated using the licensed

products and continuing for five years thereafter.

Upon signing the GBT-CR License Agreement, GBT-CR paid the Company $300,000 which

is nonrefundable.

The Company has recognized the $300,000 as revenue during the years ended December 31, 2018.

Upon GBT-CR making available

for sale (the “Commercial Event”) an ICO (Initial Coin Offering) (the “Coin”), GBT-CR will make a payment to

the Company in the amount of $5,000,000.

Further, upon the Commercial Event, GBT-CR will grant the Company the ability to acquire 30%

of the Coin at a 30% discount of such offering price of the Coin.

The GBT License Agreement commenced as of the signing date and, unless

terminated in accordance with the termination provisions of the GBT License Agreement, shall remain in force until the expiration of

the patent pertaining to the Digital Currency Technology;

provided that the right to use trade secrets shall survive the expiration of

the GBT License Agreement provided the Company has not terminated.

Prior to the signing of the GBT License Agreement, GBT-CR advanced

$200,000 to the Company, which the parties have agreed will be applied toward the $5,000,000 fee when it becomes due.

The $200,000 is recorded

as unearned revenue at December 31, 2018 and reclassified to accrued expense at December 31, 2019.

On February 27, 2020 GBT Technologies,

S.A., as successor in interest to Hermes Roll, LLC had notified the Company that it was in default on its Amended and Restated

Territorial License Agreement (“ARTLA”) dated June 15, 2015 and that the ARTLA had been cancelled and rescinded.

or about October 14, 2020, AltCorp together with Stanley filed a complaint against SURG and its transfer agent in District Court,

Clark county, Nevada.

The case number is A-20-823039-B.

The complaint seeking default cure, damages and appointment of a receiver

to SURG for default on SURG liabilities per contract (See Note 5 to the financial statements).

SURG and their transfer agent been

served with said lawsuit.

The $200,000 was

recorded as unearned revenue at December 31, 2018 and reclassified to accrued expense at December 31, 2020 and 2019.

On February 27,

2020 GBT Technologies, S.A., as successor in interest to Hermes Roll, LLC had notified the Company that it was in default on its Amended

and Restated Territorial License Agreement (“ARTLA”) dated June 15, 2015 and that the ARTLA had been cancelled and rescinded.

In connection with

SURG Exchange Agreement - On November 4, 2020, Altcorp and Stanley filed an Ex Parte Motion in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada

A-20-823039-B, in Dep No:

43) to appoint receiver and issue a temporary restraining Order against SURG and its transfer agent

for alleged defaults on prior exchange agreement.

On December 4, 2020, the parties entered an interim agreement which set the material

terms of the settlement.

A final settlement was achieved per the interim agreement terms on January 1, 2021.

On March 4, 2021 the Company

filed a motion to enforce settlement agreements, as the Company alleged that SURG owes an additional $240,000 which is due and owing

under the settlement agreements.

Risk Factors.

a smaller reporting company, we are not required to provide the information required by this item.

As a smaller reporting

company, we are not required to provide the information required by this item.

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-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings