XML 25 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 8 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Leases In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02 (Topic 842). Topic 842 amended several aspects of lease accounting, including requiring lessees to recognize leases with a term greater than one year as a right-of-use asset and corresponding liability, measured at the present value of the lease payments. In July 2018, the FASB issued supplemental adoption guidance and clarification to Topic 842 within ASU 2018-10 “Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases” and ASU 2018-11 “Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements.” The new guidance aims to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by requiring lessees to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and requiring disclosure of key information about leasing arrangements. A modified retrospective application is required with an option to not restate comparative periods in the period of adoption. The Company, effective July 1, 2019 has adopted the provisions of the new standard. The Company decided to use the practical expedients available upon adoption of Topic 842 to aid the transition from current accounting to provisions of Topic 842. The package of expedients will effectively allow the Company to run off existing leases, as initially classified as operating and classify new leases after implementation under the new standard as the business evolves. The Company has an operating lease principally for both Franklin Wireless Corp. and Franklin Technologies Inc. Management evaluates each lease independently to determine the purpose, necessity to its future operations in addition to other appropriate facts and circumstances. The Company adopted Topic 842 using a modified retrospective approach for its existing lease at July 1, 2019. The adoption of Topic 842 impacted the Company’s balance sheet by the recognition of the operating lease right-of-use assets and the liability for operating leases. The lease liability is based on the present value of the remaining lease payments, discounted using a market based incremental borrowing rate as the effective date of July 1, 2019 using current estimates as to lease term including estimated renewals for each operating lease. On September 9, 2015, we signed a lease for new office space consisting of approximately 12,775 square feet, located in San Diego, California, which commenced on October 28, 2015. In addition to monthly rent, the new lease includes payment for certain common area costs. The term of the lease for the new office space was four years from the lease commencement date and was then extended at a monthly rent of $25,754, by an additional fifty months to December 31, 2023. Our facility is covered by an appropriate level of insurance, and we believe it to be suitable for our use and adequate for our present needs. Our Korea-based subsidiary, FTI, leases approximately 10,000 square feet of office space, at a monthly rent of approximately $8,000, and additional office space consisting of approximately 2,682 square feet at a monthly rent of approximately $2,700, both located in Seoul, Korea. These leases expired on August 31, 2022 but extended by an additional twelve months to August 31, 2023. In addition to monthly rent, the leases provide for periodic cost of living increases in the base rent and payment for certain common area costs. These facilities are covered by an appropriate level of insurance, and we believe them to be suitable for our use and adequate for our present needs. We lease one corporate housing facility, located in Seoul, Korea, primarily for our employees who travel, under a non-cancelable operating lease that expired on September 4, 2022, and extended by an additional twelve months to September 4, 2023. Rent expense for the years ended June 30, 2022, and 2021 was $446,057 and $446,614, respectively. Future minimum payments under operating leases are as follows:
Schedule of Future Minimum Rental Payments for Operating Leases |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | Payments due by June 30, |  |  |  |
|  | 2023 |  |  | 2024 |  |  | Total |
Administrative office, San Diego, CA |  | $ | 321,930 |  |  | $ | 160,965 |  |  | $ | 482,895 |
Total Obligations |  | $ | 321,930 |  |  | $ | 160,965 |  |  | $ | 482,895 |
As of June 30, 2022, we used discount rates of 4.0% in determining our operating lease liabilities for the office spaces in San Diego, California. This rate represented our incremental borrowing rates at that time. Short-term leases with initial terms of twelve months or less are not capitalized, and our lease of the South Korean offices has been considered as short-term lease. Our San Diego office lease was extension of previous lease and did not contain any further extension provisions. Future minimum payments under operating leases are as follows:
Maturities of lease liabilities |  |  |  |
|  | Operating Leases |
Fiscal 2023 |  | $ | 321,930 |
Fiscal 2024 |  |  | 160,965 |
Total lease payments |  |  | 482,895 |
Less imputed interest |  |  | (14,957 | )
Total |  | $ | 467,938 |
Litigation We are from time to time involved in certain legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Verizon Jetpack Recall On April 8, 2021, Verizon issued a press release announcing that it is working with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to conduct a voluntary recall of certain Verizon Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspot devices, indicating that the lithium-ion battery in the devices can overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard. According to the CPSC release, the recall affects approximately 2.5 million devices. We import the devices and supply them to Verizon. Verizon first advised us of one alleged Jetpack device failure at the end of February 2021. We immediately began meeting with Verizon and requested access to the device. We also began internal testing to evaluate device performance. We did not receive any further incident information until the last week of March 2021. On April 1, 2021 we issued a press release announcing that we had received reports from Verizon about potential issues with the batteries in the devices. On April 9, 2021 we issued a press release announcing the voluntary recall by Verizon. As of the date of this report, we have been unable to recreate any device failures of the type identified by Verizon. All internal testing conducted to date has confirmed that the Jetpack devices are performing within normal parameters. We are not currently aware of any aspect of the Jetpack design that could cause the devices to fail in the way described in Verizon’s recall notice. Future Impact on Financial Performance We are striving to avoid any litigation arising from the recall and have not been served with any legal action relating to the products covered by the recall. We are not currently able to estimate the financial impact of the recall on our future operations. At this time, we do not have information that identifies the cause of the alleged incidents. We also do not have any specific legal claims or theories of causation for device failure incidents that would help us estimate the cost of potential future litigation. No liability has been recorded for this litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. Shareholder Litigation Ali A shareholder action, Ali vs. Franklin Wireless Corp. et al. Case #3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) on April 16, 2021, alleging, among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims. Discovery is ongoing at this time. Harwood / Martin A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Stephen Norwood Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. OC Kim, Et al., Case #21cv01837-JAH-DEB, on or about October 29, 2021, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims. A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, by Debra Martin, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. OC Kim, Et al., Case #21cv2091-CAB-KSC, on or about December 15, 2021, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims. The Harwood and Martin actions have recently been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) titled “In re Franklin Wireless Corp. Derivative Litigation”, Case No.: 21cv1837-AJB (MSB). Discovery is ongoing at this time. Pape A legal action was filed in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada in the County of Washoe against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Barbara Pape, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. OC Kim, Et al., Case # CV22-00471, on or about March 21, 2022, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims. The Company will vigorously defend such shareholder litigation and proceedings. No liability has been recorded for these litigations because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. “Short-Swing” Profits Litigation A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Nosirrah Management LLC v. Franklin Wireless et al. Case # 3:21-cv-01316-CAB-JLB, on or about July 22, 2021, claiming that our Chief Executive Officer, OC Kim, violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for receiving “short-swing” profits from a sale and purchase of Franklin shares, in violation of that Act. We believe the allegations are not supported by the facts and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. No liability has been recorded for this litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. Franklin v. Anydata, Inc. We entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Anydata Corp. (“Anydata”) for the product ACT233F Smart Link OBD device on May 5, 2017, for a minimum purchase commitment of 250,000 units. We have delivered approximately 25,000 units and 7,000 units during our second and fourth quarters of fiscal 2018, respectively, and an additional 18,000 units during our first quarter of fiscal 2019. Sales to Anydata were approximately $1.8 million for the year ended June 30, 2019. We have received information that Anydata may not be able to fulfill the entire purchase commitment for which parts have already been ordered with our main vendor, Quanta. We believe that the Company will be able to supply some of the products to another customer and has received personal guarantees from the ownership group of Anydata. As of June 30, 2019, the remaining unfulfilled purchase commitment was approximately $3.1 million. The total product purchase commitment with Quanta was approximately $2.9 million. We have not recorded a receivable from Anydata, nor a liability owed to Quanta. Management believes that, at this time, a loss contingency is reasonably possible but not estimable as to how much ultimately would be paid to Quanta. As of June 30, 2020, we paid $100,000 for the right to call on inventory and recorded an additional $49,580 as a prepaid expense related to pricing adjustments, which has been agreed with Quanta for other products to ensure demand is met, and for the quarter ended December 31, 2020, the prepaid expense of $149,580 has been recorded as a cost of goods sold. As of March 31, 2022, there is a reasonable possibility we may incur a loss; however, the amount is not estimable at this time. On January 25th, 2021, we commenced legal action against Anydata and its principal officers in San Diego Superior Court, case number 37-2021-00003468-CU-BC-CTL. As of the date of this report, litigation is continuing, and the action is not yet resolved. COVID-19 In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) as a pandemic which continues to spread throughout the United States. On March 19, 2020, the Governor of California declared a health emergency and issued an order to close all nonessential businesses until further notice. As a maker of wireless connectivity devices, we are deemed to be an essential business. Nonetheless, out of concern for our workers and pursuant to the government order, we reduced the scope of our operations and, where possible, certain workers began telecommuting from their homes. The continued spread of COVID-19 may result in a period of business disruption, including delays or disruptions in our supply chain. The spread of COVID-19, or another infectious disease, could also negatively affect the operations at our third-party manufacturers, which could result in delays or disruptions in the supply of our products. While we expect this situation may increase demand for its products, the related impact cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Change of Control Agreements On October 1, 2020, we entered into Change of Control Agreements with OC Kim, our President, and Yun J. (David) Lee, our Chief Operating Officer. Each Change of Control Agreement provides for a lump sum payment to the officer in case we experience a change of control. The term includes the acquisition of our Common Stock resulting in one person or company owning more than 50% of the outstanding shares, a significant change in the composition of the Board of Directors during any 12-month period, a reorganization, merger, consolidation or similar transaction resulting in the transfer of ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of our outstanding Common Stock, or a liquidation or dissolution or sale of substantially all of our assets. The Change of Control Agreement with Mr. Kim calls for a payment of $5 million upon a change of control, and the agreement with Mr. Lee calls for a payment of $2 million upon a change of control. International Tariffs We believe that our products are currently exempt from international tariffs upon import from our manufacturers to the United States. If this were to change at any point, a tariff of 10%-25% of the purchase price would be imposed. If such tariffs are imposed, they could have a materially adverse effect on sales and operating results. Customer Indemnification Under purchase orders and contracts for the sale of our products we may provide indemnification to our customers for potential intellectual property infringement claims for which we may have no corresponding recourse against our third-party licensors. This potential liability, if realized, could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration