We previously recorded a $4.5 million liability associated with a lawsuit with IBM, in which IBM contended that we had not fulfilled our obligations pursuant to a contract entered into during 2017. On April 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted summary judgment in favor of IBM’s claim for breach of contract. The Court, however, found that a trial (inquest) was required to determine the damages to which IBM is entitled. We proposed an offer in settlement to resolve the matter, with the parties proceeding under the Joint Development and Technology License Agreement and all rights restored to us under the Trademark License Agreement. On December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of New York entered a judgment of $5.6 million to IBM. On December 2, 2021, we filed a Notice of Appeal. As a result, we recorded an additional charge, increasing the liability to the adjudicated amount.
On February 2, 2022, IBM filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment it had obtained to add Mullen Automotive and Ottava as Judgment Debtors. Mullen filed its Appeal on April 8, 2022. Settlement efforts were undertaken, and a settlement was reached in which Mullen paid the full amount of the Judgment with interest, for a total of approximately $5.9 million, but maintained its Appeal rights. IBM then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal based on Mullen’s payment of the Judgment. Mullen filed an Opposition to the same on July 18th, 2022, and the hearing of the matter was set for July 25th, 2022. The Court took the same under submission, and a decision has still not been issued. The Appeal is still pending.
TOA Trading LLC Litigation
This claim arises out of an alleged breach of contract related to an unpaid finder’s fee. On April 11, 2022, Plaintiffs TOA Trading LLC and Munshibari LLC filed a complaint against Mullen Automotive, Inc. and Mullen Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 18, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 3, 2022. The Company filed its reply on June 8, 2022. The court has taken the motions under submission. The Company expects a ruling in the second quarter 2023.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability from this claim, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Therefore, no liability has been reflected on the condensed consolidated financial statements.
Mullen Stockholder Litigation
Margaret Schaub v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.
On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub filed a complaint against Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc, David Michery, and Oleg Firer in the United States District Court Central District of California on (Case No. 2:22-cv-03026). The complaint alleges violation of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of claims made in the Hindenburg article. On June 16, 2022, the Company’s insurance company (AXIS) accepted coverage for this lawsuit.
On July 5, 2022, movants Duy Nguyen, Mejgan Mirbaz, and David Reed filed motions to consolidate this matter and the Gru matter (see below) into one case and for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Subsequently, Plaintiff Nguyen withdrew his motion and Plaintiff Reed filed notice that he did not oppose Plaintiff Mirbaz’ motion. On August 4, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff Mirbaz’ unopposed motion to consolidate the case and for appointment as lead plaintiff/counsel. The court further vacated the August 5, 2022, hearing on the motions to consolidate.
On August 4, 2022, the Court issued an order consolidating the Schaub Lawsuit with the later-filed Gru Lawsuit (discussed below), and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On September 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company, Mr. Michery, and the Company’s predecessor, Mullen Technologies, Inc., premised on the same purported violations of the