XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended | 12 Months Ended
--- | --- | ---
Sep. 30, 2021 | Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |  |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 9 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as set forth below, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. Complaint As disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on April 16, 2021, on October 11, 2019, Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. (“Power Up”) filed a complaint against the Company and Isaac Dietrich, a former officer and director of the Company, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The complaint alleged, among other things, (i) the occurrence of events of default in certain notes (the “Power Up Notes”) issued by the Company to Power Up, (ii) misrepresentations by the Company including, but not limited to, with respect to the Company’s obligation to timely file its required reports with the SEC and (iii) lost profits as a result of the Company’s failure to convert the Power Up Notes in accordance with the terms thereof. On April 30, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) with PowerUp by accepting an offer communicated to the Company via electronic mail. In accordance with the terms of the Settlement, PowerUp, the judgment creditor of a judgment against the Company and Isaac Dietrich, the Company’s former Chief Information Officer and director, in the total amount of $350,551.10 entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Nassau on February 23, 2021 (the “Judgement”), agreed to a settlement and filing of a satisfaction of judgment in consideration of receipt of the sum of $150,000.00 (the “Settlement Amount”) on April 30, 2021. The Company accepted the aforementioned offer by remitting the Settlement Amount timely and in full. Accordingly, a satisfaction of Judgment was filed by PowerUp with the Office of the Clerk of the County of Nassau on May 3, 2021. Sheppard Mullin’s Demand for Arbitration On December 1, 2020, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter& Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”), the Company’s former securities counsel, filed a demand for arbitration at JAMS in New York, New York against the Company, alleging the Company’s breach of an engagement agreement dated January 4, 2018, and a failure of the Company to pay $487,390.73 of outstanding legal fees to Sheppard Mullin. Sheppard Mullin was awarded $459,251 in unpaid legal fees, disbursements and interest on June 25, 2021. A judgement confirming the arbitration award was entered on September 8, 2021 in the Federal District Court located in Denver, Colorado. On September 23, 2021, the Company entered into a Resolution Agreement with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton concerning the $459,250.88 judgement entered against the Company. Under the terms of the Resolution Agreement, the Company was required to make a $25,000 initial payment by September 30, 2021 and is required to make $15,000 monthly payments from October 2021 to January 2023 with a final $10,000 payment due in February 2023. The Company has made both the September and October 2021 payments. Rother Investments’ Petition On October 28, 2020, Rother Investments, LLC (“Rother Investments”) filed a complaint in the District Court of 419th Judicial District, Travis County, Texas against the Company, alleging the Company’s default under a certain promissory note (the “Rother Investments Note”) in payment of the outstanding principal amount and interest under the Note, as described in the complaint. Rother Investments seeks to collect the amount of $124,750 as of the date of the complaint with late fees continuing to accrue on a daily basis, monetary relief of over $100,000 but not more than $200,000 pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(3), court’s costs and attorney’s fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. On May 19, 2021, Rother Investments, LLC received a default judgment against the Company in the amount of $144,950. On June 17, 2021, Greenwave filed a motion to set aside default and motion for new trial asserting it was improperly served. On July 20, 2021, the court granted the Company’s motion finding and ordered a new trial of the matter. Trawick’s Complaint As previously reported by the Company in its Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 16, 2021, on or about January 25, 2021, Travis Trawick (“Trawick”) filed a complaint (“Trawick’s Lawsuit”) against the Company and Isaac Dietrich, the Company’s former Chief Information Officer and director, in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia (the “Court”), asserting the Company’s failure to remit payments under the certain promissory note, as subsequently amended and modified, and ancillary documents thereto (collectively, the “Note”), and Mr. Dietrich’s failure to fulfill its obligations, as the guarantor, under the Note. On May 4, 2021, Trawick requested that the Clerk of the Court filed for entry an order to dismiss Trawick’s Lawsuit with prejudice. Iroquois Master Fund On June 30, 2021, the Company received an e-mail containing a demand (the “Demand”) for arbitration (the “Arbitration”) at American Arbitration Association in Denver, Colorado, by Iroquois Master Fund Ltd. (“Iroquois”) against the Company, Isaac Dietrich, a former officer and director, and Danny Meeks, the Company’s director, and Empire Services, Inc. (“Empire”). The Demand alleges breach of contract and various related state law claims against the defendants, and sought, inter alia, specific performance of the subject warrant, damages in an amount not less than $12 million, equitable relief, and attorney’s fees for the Company’s alleged failure to reserve more than 150 million shares of common stock that Iroquois is allegedly entitled to in connection with the exercise of a certain warrant issued by the Company on July 21, 2017, and subsequently purchased by Iroquois from an unrelated third party. As a result of a legal action commenced by Isaac Dietrich, Danny Meeks, and Empire (See – “Litigation” below), Iroquois informed the American Arbitration Association (the arbitral body overseeing the Arbitration) that it would (i) dismiss the Counterclaim Defendants from the Arbitration without prejudice, (ii) assert its claims against Isaac Dietrich, Danny Meeks, and Empire the in the action commended by them, and (iii) proceed with the Arbitration with respect to the Company only. Litigation On July 21, 2021, in response to the Demand, Isaac Dietrich, Danny Meeks, and Empire, filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Iroquois in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York alleging that the aforementioned plaintiffs were not parties to the warrant the Demand based on, and as such, the Demand could not have brought against them. Declaratory relief and injunctive relief were sought in the Complaint. On August 20, 2021, Iroquois submitted an answer with counterclaims stating that Iroquois informed the American Arbitration Association (the arbitral body overseeing the Arbitration) that it would (i) dismiss the Counterclaim Defendants from the Arbitration without prejudice, (ii) assert its claims against Isaac Dietrich, Danny Meeks, and Empire the in the action commended by them, and (iii) proceed with the Arbitration with respect to the Company only. In its answer, Iroquois made allegations substantially similar to the claims made in the Arbitration, asserted defenses, and requested an award in not less than $12 million against Demand, Isaac Dietrich, Danny Meeks, and Empire, an entry of an award of a constructive trust against them, and costs and expenses, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in prosecuting said action and the Arbitration. Settlement On September 30, 2021, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Iroquois; Dietrich; Meeks; and Empire. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for terminating any duties owed by the Company to Iroquois under the Warrant, the Company agreed to pay, on its own behalf and on behalf of Dietrich, Meeks, and Empire, one million dollars ($1,000,000) and issue shares of the Series Z Convertible Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Series Z”), sufficient in number such that if they are converted into the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”) by Iroquois, such shares of Common Stock will be equal in number to 9.99% of the issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock at the time of such conversion. Accordingly, on September 30, 2021, 250 Series Z Preferred Shares were issued to the investor (See Note 12). The payment of $1,000,000 was made to Iroquois on October 5, 2021 due to an administrative delay. | NOTE 11 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCES From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as set forth below, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. Complaint On October 11, 2019, Power Up Lending Group, Ltd. (“Power Up”) filed a complaint against the Company and Isaac Dietrich, an officer and director of the Company, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The complaint alleges, among other things, (i) the occurrence of events of default in certain notes (the “Power Up Notes”) issued by the Company to Power Up, (ii) misrepresentations by the Company including, but not limited to, with respect to the Company’s obligation to timely file its required reports with the SEC and (iii) lost profits as a result of the Company’s failure to convert the Power Up Notes in accordance with the terms thereof. In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things, that Mr. Dietrich took affirmative steps to deliberately cause the Company to breach its financial obligations. As a result of the foregoing, Power Up has requested: (i) the greater of $312,000 and the “parity value” as such term is defined in the Power Up Notes together with $2,000 per day until the Company issues shares upon conversion of the Power Up Notes together with applicable interest thereon; (ii) $165,000 as a result of the misrepresentations; (iii) an amount of lost profits to be determined by the court, but in no event less than $312,000; (iv) $312,000 as against Mr. Dietrich; (v) an award for reasonable legal fees and costs of litigation; (vi) a judgment awarding specific performance under the Power Up Notes; and (vii) the costs and disbursement of the action, pre-judgment interest, default interest and such other further relief as the court deems proper. On August 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau adjourned a hearing on Power Up’s motion for default judgment with respect to the complaint filed by Power Up on October 11, 2019, against the Company and Mr. Dietrich until September 14, 2020. On September 14, 2020, Power-Up filed a motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the Company and Mr. Dietrich, alleging that the defendants failed to appear and did not establish a meritorious defense to the claims made or a reasonable excuse for the delay in interposing their answer. On February 9, 2021, a motion for default judgment was granted and the default judgment in the total amount of $350,551.10 was entered against the Company and Mr. Dietrich jointly and severally. Sheppard Mullin’s Demand for Arbitration On December 1, 2020, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”), the Company’s former securities counsel, filed a demand for arbitration at JAMS in New York, New York against the Company, alleging the Company’s breach of an engagement agreement dated January 4, 2018, and a failure of the Company to pay $487,390.73 of outstanding legal fees to Sheppard Mullin. Sheppard Mullin seeks to collect the entirety of the amount owed by the Company in accordance with said engagement agreement. Rother Investments’ Petition On October 28, 2020, Rother Investments, LLC (“Rother Investments”) filed a complaint in the District Court of 419th Judicial District, Travis County, Texas against the Company, alleging the Company’s default under a certain promissory note (the “Rother Investments Note”) in payment of the outstanding principal amount and interest under the Note, as described in the complaint. Rother Investments seeks to collect the amount of $124,750.00 as of the date of the complaint with late fees continuing to accrue on a daily basis, monetary relief of over $100,000 but not more than $200,000.00 pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(3), court’s costs and attorney’s fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Trawick’s Complaint On or about January 25, 2021, Travis Trawick (“Trawick”) filed a complaint against the Company and Isaac Dietrich, an officer and director of the Company, in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, asserting the Company’s failure to remit payments under the certain promissory note, as subsequently amended and modified, and ancillary documents thereto (collectively, the “Note”), and Mr. Dietrich’s failure to fulfill its obligations, as the guarantor, under the Note. Trawick demands a judgment in his favor in the amount exceeding $130,336.15, the exact amount to be proven at trial including pre and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, other taxable costs, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 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 http://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 http://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