Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Company may be involved in legal proceedings, claims, and assessments arising in the ordinary course of business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. We believe there are no such matters that have a material financial impact on the consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2020, except as disclosed below.
During the quarter ended September 30, 2019, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to resolve all derivative suits then- and currently-pending against the Company and various directors and officers. In January 2020, the Company and the named defendant directors and officers executed a formal settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in all pending derivative lawsuits on specific final terms of settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, which was filed with the Court as an exhibit to an Amended Consent Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement on April 30, 2020, the Company will adopt certain corporate governance modifications, and the derivative plaintiffs will receive $200,000.00 from the Company’s insurer to cover their attorneys’ fees and a nominal service award. The Company has created a provision for $200,000 as of March 31, 2020. Shareholders were given notice of the proposed settlement through the Company’s filing of an SEC Form 8-K report, the issuance of a press release, publication in Investor’s Business Daily, and posting in the “Investors” section of the Company’s website, all of which were deemed by the court to constitute sufficient notice to shareholders of the settlement. Shareholders were given the opportunity to assert objections to the final settlement, and no objections were received by the parties to the derivative suit or filed with the court. On June 30, 2020, the Court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement and to determine whether the settlement will be approved. On July 6, 2020, the Court entered an order formally and finally approving the settlement and resolving all pending derivative suits.
As of March 31, 2020, the Company was a party to three shareholder lawsuits, as described below.
Shareholder Class Action Litigation
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03396 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda, Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants. On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi, (collectively, the “Class Action Defendants”), thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants. The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press release entitled “IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink Space” and related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had “executed a distribution and partnership agreement” for the sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well as through related public statements. The plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly disclosed the amount of damages they seek. On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the lead case. For the current state of affairs regarding the Tchatchou Class Action Litigation, please refer to Note 21 - Subsequent Events.
29
Table of Contents
On October 11, 2019, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated shareholder class action litigation on a number of grounds, including that the Class Action Defendants did not make any false or misleading statements or any materially false or misleading statements to the public; the Class Action Defendants did not act with any intent to deceive the public, nor did they recklessly do so; and that the Class Action Defendants’ alleged conduct did not cause any loss allegedly suffered by the class action plaintiffs. The motion to dismiss remains pending before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and the Company anticipates that a decision is likely to be issued during calendar 2020, although it can provide no assurances of the same.
Harris-Carr v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03408 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Gabe Harris-Carr instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi were named as defendants. On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions, including the Harris-Carr litigation, were consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation, described above, was designated as the lead case. On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an amended complaint, which becomes the operative complaint for the consolidated matter and supersedes the Harris-Carr complaint.
Shareholder Derivative Action Litigation
Erny v. Mukunda, et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03698 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). On November 30, 2018, IGC shareholder Gene Erny instituted a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of IGC in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Ram Mukunda, Claudia Grimaldi, Rohit Goel, Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants, and IGC was named as a nominal defendant. The Erny litigation represents a claim made by a shareholder on behalf of the Company (as opposed to against the Company). The complaint in the Erny litigation alleges that the Company should have filed suit against the individual defendants – Mukunda, Grimaldi, Goel, Prins, and Shenoy (collectively referred to as the “Individual Defendants”) – for securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff in Erny alleges that, through the individual defendants, the Company made false and misleading statements, and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, as follows: “Under the direction and watch of the Individual Defendants, the [Company’s] 2018 Proxy Statement failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had substantially discontinued the business it was conducting at the time that it was initially listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and was instead engaged in ventures or promotions that had not been developed to a commercial stage or the success of which is problematical; (2) the Company adapted its business model frequently and radically in an attempt to lure investors seeking to capitalize on market fads, such as blockchain and cannabinoids; (3) the benefits of the Company’s relationships with manufacturers, partners, and distributors were overstated in order to create a misleadingly positive impression of IGC’s potential commercial success; (4) DaMa Pharmaceutical does not have a long history of developing premier pharmaceutical products; (5) as a result of the foregoing, IGC’s stock would be suspended from the New York Stock Exchange and potentially delisted; (6) the Company failed to maintain internal controls; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.” The plaintiff in the Erny litigation further alleges that the “Individual Defendants also caused the [Company’s] 2018 Proxy Statement to be false and misleading with regard to executive compensation in that they purported to employ ‘pay-for-performance’ elements while failing to disclose that the Company’s share price was being artificially inflated by the false and misleading statements made by the Individual Defendants as alleged herein, and therefore any compensation based on the Company’s financial performance was artificially inflated. The false and misleading elements of the 2018 Proxy Statement led to the reelection of Defendant Prins, which allowed him to continue breaching his fiduciary duties to IGC.” Because the claims made in Erny are asserted against the individual defendants, as opposed to the Company, the Company is merely a nominal defendant.
On January 28, 2019, the court issued a consent order staying proceedings in the Erny litigation pending resolution of a motion to dismiss (which was then yet to be filed) by the Class Action Defendants in the Tchatchou matter, described above. On May 9, 2019, Erny and Hamdan, described below, were consolidated, and the Erny litigation was designated as the lead derivative case.
On July 31, 2019, the Company and the Individual Defendants reached a preliminary agreement with the plaintiffs in the derivative suits identified herein to resolve all derivative suits, including the Erny litigation and the Hamdan and Patel matters, described below. In January 2020, the Company and the named defendant directors and officers reached agreement with the plaintiffs in all pending derivative lawsuits on specific final terms of settlement, and all parties executed a mutually acceptable settlement agreement. Shareholders were given notice of the proposed settlement through the Company’s filing of an SEC Form 8-K report, the issuance of a press release, publication in Investor’s Business Daily, and posting in the “Investors” section of the Company’s website, all of which were deemed by the court to constitute sufficient notice to shareholders of the settlement. Shareholders were given the opportunity to assert objections to the final settlement, and no objections were received by the parties to the derivative suit or filed with the court. On June 30, 2020, the Court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement and to determine whether the settlement will be approved. On July 6, 2020, the Court entered an order formally and finally approving the settlement and resolving all pending derivative suits.
30
Table of Contents
Hamdan v. Mukunda, et al., Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-00493 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). On February 20, 2019, IGC shareholder Waseem Hamdan instituted a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of IGC in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Ram Mukunda, Claudia Grimaldi, Rohit Goel, Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants, and IGC was named as a nominal defendant. The allegations made by the plaintiff in the Hamdan litigation are substantially similar to the allegations made in Erny, and the claims against the individual director defendants are based on the same alleged transactions and/or occurrences as are the claims made in the Erny litigation. Because the claims made in Hamdan are asserted against the individual defendants, as opposed to the Company, the Company is merely a nominal defendant. On May 9, 2019, Erny and Hamdan were consolidated, with the Erny litigation, described above, designated as the lead case. As a result of the consolidation, the Hamdan litigation became subject to the January 28, 2019, order entered in the Erny litigation staying proceedings pending resolution of an anticipated motion to dismiss to be filed by the Class Action Defendants in the Tchatchou matter, described above.
The Hamdan litigation is subject to the same negotiated settlement described in Erny, above, and is resolved effective July 6, 2020.
Patel v. Mukunda, et al., Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-01673 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland). On June 6, 2019, IGC shareholder Dimple Patel instituted a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of IGC in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Ram Mukunda, Claudia Grimaldi, Rohit Goel, Richard Prins, Shajy Mathilakathu, and Sudhakar Shenoy (collectively, with reference to the Patel litigation, “Individual Defendants”) were named as defendants, and IGC was named as a nominal defendant. The Patel litigation represents a claim made by a shareholder on behalf of the Company (as opposed to against the Company). The complaint in the Patel litigation alleges that the Company should have filed suit against the Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants “violated their duty of good faith by knowingly causing and/or recklessly allowing the Company to make false and misleading statements and/or fail[ed] to disclose that: (i) [IGC] substantially discontinued the business that it conducted at the time it began trading on the NYSE; (ii) the Company had become engaged in ventures or promotions which have not developed to a commercial stage; (iii) cannabis-related products, including CBD-based beverages, are illegal in Malaysia; (iv) neither IGC nor Treasure Network was a licensed manufacturer of cannabis-based products in Malaysia; (v) CBD-infused Nitro G was not an approved and registered product under Malaysian law; (vi) Treasure Network, founded in 2017, was not “experienced”; (vii) Treasure Network was a distributor, not a manufacturer; (viii) at all relevant times, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise substantial control over Treasure Network; (ix) consequently, the Company was not an operating company for the purposes of continued trading and listing on the NYSE American; and (x) as a result, India Globalization’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.” Because the claims made in the Patel litigation are asserted against the individual Defendants, as opposed to the Company, the Company is merely a nominal defendant. The Patel litigation has not been consolidated with Erny and Hamdan to date.
The Patel litigation is subject to the same negotiated settlement described in Erny, above, and is resolved effective July 6, 2020. On July 8, 2020, the Court dismissed the Patel litigation with prejudice pursuant to the approved settlement.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
31
Table of Contents
PART II