LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
−Removed: Vaden Landers
−Removed: On January 19, 2021, we initiated a lawsuit in Bexar County, Texas against our former Chief Revenue Officer, Vaden Landers. 
−Removed: In the lawsuit, which is styled:
−Removed: Vaden Landers , Cause No.
−Removed: 2021CI01069, 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, we allege that Mr.
−Removed: Landers violated the provisions of his employment agreement dated September 1, 2017 - specifically his non-compete obligations. 
−Removed: The state court lawsuit only seeks injunctive relief against Landers. 
−Removed: We also instituted an action before the American Arbitration Association on February 2, 2021.
−Removed: Landers initially refused to participate in the arbitration proceeding. 
−Removed: After hearings in Bexar County state court proceeding, all of the parties' claims, excluding Mr.
−Removed: Lander's claims for defamation and tortious interference with contract, were ordered to be heard by the American Arbitration Association. 
−Removed: Landers’
−Removed: allegations and do not believe that his counterclaims have any merit.
−Removed: On or about April 27, 2021, Mr.
−Removed: Landers filed his answering statement and counterclaim against us in the arbitration proceeding.
−Removed: Landers alleged a variety of defenses to our claim that Landers violated the non-compete provisions of his employment agreement. 
−Removed: Landers also asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment finding the non-compete provisions are unenforceable. 
−Removed: Landers further alleged that we breached the terms of his employment agreement because Mr.
−Removed: Landers' resignation was for good reason thus entitling Mr.
−Removed: Landers to deferred compensation. 
−Removed: Landers' allegations.
−Removed: Through our investigation, we have learned that Mr.
−Removed: Landers committed other violations of his employment agreement and we intend to pursue those claims in arbitration. 
−Removed: Both the state court litigation and the arbitration are in their initial stages.
−Removed: We have obtained certain documents from Mr.
−Removed: Landers in the state court proceeding.
−Removed: In the arbitration, the parties have both submitted motions to the arbitration panel on the initial legal question of whether the non-compete is enforceable. 
−Removed: On September 16, 2021, the arbitration panel ruled the non-competition provisions in Mr.
−Removed: Landers' employment agreement were enforceable. 
−Removed: The panel reserved ruling on the scope of the restrictions contained therein pending discovery. 
−Removed: The arbitration panel held that the non-compete provisions need to be reformed to more specifically set forth the competition restrictions applicable to Mr.
−Removed: On February 7, 2022, we and Mr.
−Removed: Landers, resolved the state court litigation pending in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas and the separate litigation pending before the American Arbitration Association, both of which related to certain conduct by Mr.
−Removed: Landers both prior to and after his resignation.
−Removed: Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Landers paid us $13,742.50, which represents one-half of our costs incurred in the arbitration proceedings. 
−Removed: In exchange for this payment, both parties dismissed their respective claims with prejudice without the admission of any liability. 
−Removed: On September 1, 2021, KDHM, LLC sued PDS Acquisition Corp, now known as Usio Output Solutions, Inc., claiming a breach of the asset purchase agreement executed by the parties on December 14, 2020.
+Added: On September 1, 2021, KDHM, LLC sued PDS Acquisition Corp, now known as Usio Output Solutions, Inc., in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas claiming a breach of the asset purchase agreement executed by the parties on December 14, 2020.
The lawsuit alleges that due to a mistake, accident, or inadvertence, certain customer deposits in the amount of $317,000 were improperly transferred to us.
4 unchanged sentences
Therein, we allege that neither KDHM nor its principals disclosed that KDHM was not accounting for the customer deposits in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. 
−Removed: Yet, KDHM, and third-party defendants its principals Henry Minten and Thomas Dowe, affirmatively represented and warranted in section 3.1(e) of the agreement that “[t]Annual Financial Statements and the Interim Financial Statements have been prepared from the books and records of Seller in accordance with GAAP applied on a consistent basis.” 
+Added: Yet, KDHM, and third-party defendants its principals Henry Minten and Thomas Dowe, affirmatively represented and warranted in section 3.1(e) of the agreement that “[the]Annual Financial Statements and the Interim Financial Statements have been prepared from the books and records of Seller in accordance with GAAP applied on a consistent basis.” 
We also discovered that KDHM by and through its principals failed to disclose that $305,000 in additional customer deposits existed and these deposits were not conveyed to us as required by the agreement. 
6 unchanged sentences
In our counterclaims and third-party petition, we assert causes of action for fraud, breach of contract and conversion. 
−Removed: At this time, the parties have not engaged in any written discovery or depositions and no trial date has been set.
+Added: At this time, the parties are engaging in written discovery and working on scheduling the depositions of the parties.
We consider the risk of loss as remote related to this lawsuit.
−Removed: Aside from these proceedings described above, we may be involved in legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time.
+Added: Aside from these proceedings above, the Company may be involved in legal matters arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time.
While we believe that such matters are currently not material, there can be no assurance that matters arising in the ordinary course of business for which we are or could become involved in litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
2 unchanged sentences
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.