XML 33 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 15 - Commitments and Contingencies

Pursuant to the terms of that certain Share Purchase Agreement between the Company and GEM Global Yield LLC SCS (“GEM Yield”) and GEM Yield Bahamas Limited (“GYBL,” and collectively, “GEM”), dated December 1, 2022 (the “GEM Agreement”), we are required to indemnify GEM for any losses it incurs as a result of a breach by us or of our representations and warranties and covenants under the GEM Agreement or for any misstatement or omission of a material fact in a registration statement registering those shares pursuant to the GEM Agreement. Also, GEM is entitled to be reimbursed for legal or other costs or expenses reasonably incurred in investigating, preparing, or defending against any such loss. To date, we have not raised any capital pursuant to the GEM Agreement and we may not raise any capital pursuant to the GEM Agreement prior to its expiration. Restrictions pursuant to terms of our future financings may also affect our ability to raise capital pursuant to the GEM Agreement.

The Company maintains indemnification agreements with our directors and officers that may require the Company to indemnify these individuals against liabilities that arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers, except as prohibited by law.

Contingent Consideration and Compensation

Acquisition Agreement – Naamche

The Company’s agreement with Naamche includes deferred payment provisions representing potential milestone payments for Naamche’s former owners. The provisions are made up of two general types of arrangements, contingent compensation and contingent consideration. The contingent compensation arrangement is contingent on the former owner’s future employment with the Company and the related amounts are recognized over the required employment period. The contingent consideration is not contingent on employment and was recorded as purchase consideration in other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets at the time of the initial acquisition based on the fair value of the estimated liability. The amounts are paid over a three-year period, contingent on the achievement of certain revenue milestones.

Acquisition Agreement – Debt Does Deals, LLC (dba “Be My Neighbor”)

The Company’s agreement with Be My Neighbor includes deferred payment provisions representing potential milestone payments for its former owners. The provisions are made up of contingent consideration. The contingent consideration is not contingent on employment and was recorded as purchase consideration in other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets at the time of the initial acquisition based on the fair value of the estimated liability. The amounts are paid over a three-year period, contingent on the achievement of certain revenue and EBITDA milestones.

The Company primarily determines the contingent consideration liability based on the forecasted probability of achieving the respective milestones. The contingent consideration liability is measured at fair value each reporting period and changes in estimates of fair value are recognized in earnings.

As of December 31, 2024, the Company’s contingent consideration liabilities related to acquisitions are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy. Contingent consideration was valued at December 31, 2024 using unobservable inputs, primarily internal revenue forecasts. Contingent consideration was valued at the time of acquisitions and have included using the Monte Carlo simulation model. The development and determination of the unobservable inputs for Level 3 fair value measurements and fair value calculations are the responsibility of the Company’s management with the assistance of a third-party valuation specialist.

As of December 31, 2024, the Company’s contingent consideration liabilities, non-current balances were as follows:

		As of December 31, 2024
		Contingent consideration at Purchase Date				Consideration Paid				Changes in Fair Value				Fair Value				Contingent Consideration
Level 3:
Contingent consideration, non-current - Naamche		$	137,000			$	-			$	-			$	137,000			$	137,000
Contingent consideration, non-current - BMN			949,000				-				-				949,000				949,000
Total contingent consideration		$	1,086,000			$	-			$	-			$	1,086,000			$	1,086,000

Legal Matters

India Proceeding Involving Giri Devanur

In 2006, Mr. Devanur became the CEO of an India-based company named Gandhi City Research Park, Private Limited (“Gandhi City Research Park”). Gandhi City Research Park was liquidated as a result of the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2009. In 2010, an investor in Gandhi City Research Park filed a fraud complaint with the Cubbon Park Police Station in Bengaluru, India, against, among others, Mr. Devanur. In 2014, the Cubbon Park Police dismissed all claims. Subsequently, in 2015 the investor appealed the Cubbon Park Police’s decision before the Lower Court. In November 2018, the Lower Court issued a criminal summons against, among others, Mr. Devanur. Mr. Devanur petitioned the High Court to quash the summons. By order dated March 27, 2023, the High Court granted Mr. Devanur’s petition and ordered the Lower Court to reconsider the investor’s appeal. On August 3, 2023, the Lower Court decided to uphold the Cubbon Park Police’s decision and close the criminal case against Mr. Devanur. On December 4, 2023, Mr. Devanur received a petition to challenge the Lower Court’s order to uphold the Cubbon Park Police’s decision and close Mr. Devanur’s criminal case. Mr. Devanur is vigorously contesting this petition.

Malpractice Lawsuit

On July 13, 2023, the Company filed a complaint in Franklin County, Ohio, against Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC (“Buchanan”), Rajiv Khanna (“Khanna”) and Brian S. North (“North,” together with Buchanan and Khanna, the “Buchanan Legal Counsel”). The complaint alleges that the Buchanan Legal Counsel failed to provide proper and timely legal advice during the Company’s Tier 2 Regulation A offering, resulting in late Blue Sky notice filings with all required states prior to the Company offering and selling securities in those states. As a result, the Company was subject to a number of inquiries, investigations, and subpoenas by the various states, incurring significant legal fees and fines, lost opportunity due to pausing its Regulation A campaign, in addition to the loss of a $20 million institutional investment. The Company is seeking the forfeit of all legal fees associated with this matter, the award of legal fees to bring this matter to action, and further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. In response to the counterclaims filed by the Buchanan Legal Counsel on August 16, 2023, the Company has denied the allegations made therein, asserting that they lack merit and are either insufficiently supported or entirely untrue. The Company contends that any damages claimed by the defendants arise from their own negligence and failure to meet their contractual obligations. At this time, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration, or outcome of the lawsuit.

GEM Yield Bahamas Limited Litigation

On November 1, 2024, we filed a lawsuit against GYBL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) in which we have asserted two causes of action: (i) rescission of the GEM Warrants issued pursuant to the GEM Agreement, pursuant to Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) due to GYBL’s underlying violation of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act for effecting the GEM Warrants as an unregistered dealer, and (ii) in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that the exercise price adjustment calculation of the GEM Warrants is governed by the terms provided in the GEM Warrants, rather than the terms of the GEM Agreement.

On March 14, 2025, the Court granted GYBL’s motion to dismiss our complaint relating to the lawsuit against GYBL. We are currently evaluating the Court’s decision and all legal rights available to us, including, but not limited to, appealing the Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There is no assurance that any such appeal would be successful.