CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS
CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS	NOTE 18 – CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulatory, tax and other matters. The accounting standard defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and “the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.” From time to time, we are subject to asserted and actual claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Company management reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We establish accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and it discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our consolidated financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, management evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. We do not record liabilities when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. Mullen Technologies, Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. This claim was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-01979-W-DEB) on October 11, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen. On July 1, 2020, the court ordered this matter to arbitration. It was submitted to the American Arbitration Association on February 9, 2020, for arbitration in Denver, Colorado. Mullen filed its Demand for Arbitration on February 16, 2021. Arbitration proceedings were then stayed for 90 days to accommodate settlement discussions. On November 3, 2021, Qiantu filed an Arbitration Answering Statement and Counterclaim or Joinder/Consolidation Request. Mullen filed its response on January 28, 2022. On February 11, 2022, the parties exchanged their Initial Requests for Documents. The August 1, 2022, arbitration hearing in this matter was rescheduled to October 17, 2022, to allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations. The parties agreed to reschedule the October 17, 2022, arbitration hearing to a future date while discovery and settlement negotiations continued. In November 2022, the parties agreed to further extend the Arbitration hearing date to February 13^th -17^th,2023. All associated pre-hearing dates were also extended. In early December, the parties reached an agreement in principle for resolution of the Arbitration proceedings which includes the acquisition of the Qiantu IP and the provision of a license to manufacture and sell the K-50 automobile in various territories. The parties are currently negotiating the terms of the proposed Settlement and License Agreement. 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. 4Wall Entertainment, Inc. v. Mullen Technologies, Inc. This claim was filed in the Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 30-2021-01191251-CU-BC-CJC) on March 23, 2021. The matter arises out of the alleged breach of an equipment lease. Mullen filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 6, 2021. On September 29, 2022, the parties settled this matter for $25,000 and filed a Notice of Settlement on September 30, 2022. Series E Preferred Stock Purchase Option We entered into a letter agreement with DBI wherein we are committed to provide DBI with a right to purchase up to $25 million worth of a to-be-issued Series E Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants. The option and its terms have not been finalized (see Note 21 – Restatement). ASC GEM Equity Line Financing This claim arises out of an alleged breach of the contract in the Securities Purchase Agreement dated November 13, 2020. On November 9, 2021, the parties appointed an arbitrator. On January 7, 2022, GEM filed a letter brief with the arbitrator requesting leave to file a dispositive motion addressing a threshold legal issue regarding a defined term within a contract executed by the parties. Mullen filed a response to the letter brief on January 12, 2022. On January 21, 2022, the arbitrator issued a procedural order granting GEM’s request to file a dispositive motion. GEM filed its dispositive motion on February 14, 2022. Mullen filed its opposition to the dispositive motion on March 3, 2022. On April 4, 2022, the court denied GEM’s dispositive motion. The parties exchanged discovery requests on May 10, 2022. Responses were served on June 14, 2022. The follow up hearing with the arbitrator set for June 22, 2022, was adjourned. The parties recently served amended responses along with supplemental document productions on August 2, 2022, as required by the arbitrator at the July 27, 2022, hearing related to ongoing discovery issues. The parties expect a ruling from the arbitrator regarding the issue shortly. All party depositions have been scheduled. Federal and State Tax Liabilities We have recorded a liability associated with past due amounts owed to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Employment Development Department of California (“EDD”) for failing to remit payroll taxes associated with the Company and the Company’s employees. As of June 30, 2022, the Company had a current accrued liability of $0.3 million for accrued payroll taxes related to California EDD liabilities, which was paid in July 2022. On April 14, 2022, the Company entered into an installment plan with the IRS to pay $45,000 per month related to past due unpaid federal payroll liabilities plus accrued interest and penalties. As of September 30, 2022, and September 30, 2021 the Company’s past due accrued liability was $1.7 million and 3.9 million, respectively. Raymond James and Associates (“RJA”) – Investment Banking Services Agreement On May 5, 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with Raymond James & Associates for public offering and placement agent services. The agreement called for payment of a cash retainer of $50,000, which remains unpaid. Upon the closing of any public offering, regardless of whether RJA procured the agreement regarding the offering, we are obligated to pay a financing fee of equal to the greater of a) 6.0% of aggregate gross proceeds and b) $3,000,000. International Business Machines (“IBM”) 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 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees and expenses. David Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff David Gru 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 (Case No. 8:22-cv-976). 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. The Company has not been served with the complaint. On August 4, 2022, the court consolidated this action into the Schaub action (see above). As a result, the court ordered this matter to be administratively closed. Ram Hari Khadka v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. On June 23, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by Ram Hari Khadka, a stockholder, against the Company and its current directors, as defendants (the “Action”). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the defendants based on alleged disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement (the “Proxy Statement”) filed by the Company on June 10, 2022, relative to the vote at the Company’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders that was to be held on July 26, 2022 (the “2022 Stockholder Meeting”) seeking stockholder approval of issuance of shares under the Performance Stock Award Agreement (the “CEO Performance Award”) granted to David Michery, the Company’s chief executive officer, president and chairman of the board of directors. The complaint sought various remedies, including a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vote at the 2022 Stockholder Meeting to approve the issuance of shares for the CEO Performance Award. The Company filed a supplement to the Proxy Statement on July 13, 2022 addressing the alleged disclosure claims to moot plaintiff’s claims in the action. On August 5, 2022, the Chancery Court approved a stipulation under which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Action with prejudice as to itself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Chancery Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Proxy Supplement. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $995,000 to plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Action. The Chancery Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness. A stipulation to that effect was filed on September 19, 2022. Jeff Witt v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Action”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Witt Action seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. 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 in the consolidated financial statements. Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al. On September 30, 2022, Hany Morsy, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, former Company officer and director, Jerry Alban, and Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Morsy Lawsuit”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Morsy Lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and also seeks monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses. 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. Linghang Boao Group, LTD In November 2019, we entered into a three-year Strategic Cooperation Agreement (“SCA”) with Linghang Boao Group LTD to co-develop a Solid- State Battery Management system with a 480 to 720 mile Driving Range. The Company’s total financial commitment under the SCA was $2,196,000. The contractual target dates and milestones were severely disrupted due to the occurrence COVID-19. As a result, our management believed the COVID-19 pandemic represented a Force Majeure event (that is, the pandemic has impacted our and Linghang Boao Group LTD’s ability to meet their respective contractual obligations due to restriction in movement, stoppage of production, increase in costs due to scarcity of raw materials components, labor shortages, shortage of funds, disruption in the supply chains, U.S. governmental closures of ports/borders and travel restrictions). Based on the foregoing, we believe there was no breach of contract due to our failure of performance. Unfortunately, we sustained a loss of $390,000 at September 30, 2020, due to contract nonperformance and force majeure. There are no accrued liabilities recorded for any remaining milestone payments at September 30, 2022, and 2021. Our management notified Linghang Boao Group of the decision to invoke the force majeure provision of the Strategic Cooperation Agreement due to the inability of the parties to perform caused by the global Pandemic.

CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS

12 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

NOTE 18 – CONTINGENCIES AND CLAIMS

ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulatory, tax and other matters. The accounting standard defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and “the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.”

From time to time, we are subject to asserted and actual claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. Company management reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. We establish accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and it discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if such disclosure is necessary for our consolidated financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, management evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. We do not record liabilities when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

Mullen Technologies, Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd.

This claim was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-01979-W-DEB) on October 11, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen. On July 1, 2020, the court ordered this matter to arbitration. It was submitted to the American Arbitration Association on February 9, 2020, for arbitration in Denver, Colorado. Mullen filed its Demand for Arbitration on February 16, 2021. Arbitration proceedings were then stayed for 90 days to accommodate settlement discussions. On November 3, 2021, Qiantu filed an Arbitration Answering Statement and Counterclaim or Joinder/Consolidation Request. Mullen filed its response on January 28, 2022. On February 11, 2022, the parties exchanged their Initial Requests for Documents. The August 1, 2022, arbitration hearing in this matter was rescheduled to October 17, 2022, to allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations. The parties agreed to reschedule the October 17, 2022, arbitration hearing to a future date while discovery and settlement negotiations continued. In November 2022, the parties agreed to further extend the Arbitration hearing date to February 13^th -17^th,2023. All associated pre-hearing dates were also extended.

In early December, the parties reached an agreement in principle for resolution of the Arbitration proceedings which includes the acquisition of the Qiantu IP and the provision of a license to manufacture and sell the K-50 automobile in various territories. The parties are currently negotiating the terms of the proposed Settlement and License Agreement.

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.

4Wall Entertainment, Inc. v. Mullen Technologies, Inc.

This claim was filed in the Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 30-2021-01191251-CU-BC-CJC) on March 23, 2021. The matter arises out of the alleged breach of an equipment lease. Mullen filed its Answer to the Complaint on May 6, 2021. On September 29, 2022, the parties settled this matter for $25,000 and filed a Notice of Settlement on September 30, 2022.

Series E Preferred Stock Purchase Option

We entered into a letter agreement with DBI wherein we are committed to provide DBI with a right to purchase up to $25 million worth of a to-be-issued Series E Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants. The option and its terms have not been finalized (see Note 21 – Restatement).

ASC GEM Equity Line Financing

This claim arises out of an alleged breach of the contract in the Securities Purchase Agreement dated November 13, 2020. On November 9, 2021, the parties appointed an arbitrator. On January 7, 2022, GEM filed a letter brief with the arbitrator requesting leave to file a dispositive motion addressing a threshold legal issue regarding a defined term within a contract executed by the parties. Mullen filed a response to the letter brief on January 12, 2022.

On January 21, 2022, the arbitrator issued a procedural order granting GEM’s request to file a dispositive motion. GEM filed its dispositive motion on February 14, 2022. Mullen filed its opposition to the dispositive motion on March 3, 2022. On April 4, 2022, the court denied GEM’s dispositive motion. The parties exchanged discovery requests on May 10, 2022. Responses were served on June 14, 2022. The follow up hearing with the arbitrator set for June 22, 2022, was adjourned. The parties recently served amended responses along with supplemental document productions on August 2, 2022, as required by the arbitrator at the July 27, 2022, hearing related to ongoing discovery issues. The parties expect a ruling from the arbitrator regarding the issue shortly. All party depositions have been scheduled.

Federal and State Tax Liabilities

We have recorded a liability associated with past due amounts owed to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the Employment Development Department of California (“EDD”) for failing to remit payroll taxes associated with the Company and the Company’s employees. As of June 30, 2022, the Company had a current accrued liability of $0.3 million for accrued payroll taxes related to California EDD liabilities, which was paid in July 2022.

On April 14, 2022, the Company entered into an installment plan with the IRS to pay $45,000 per month related to past due unpaid federal payroll liabilities plus accrued interest and penalties. As of September 30, 2022, and September 30, 2021 the Company’s past due accrued liability was $1.7 million and 3.9 million, respectively.

Raymond James and Associates (“RJA”) – Investment Banking Services Agreement

On May 5, 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with Raymond James & Associates for public offering and placement agent services. The agreement called for payment of a cash retainer of $50,000, which remains unpaid. Upon the closing of any public offering, regardless of whether RJA procured the agreement regarding the offering, we are obligated to pay a financing fee of equal to the greater of a) 6.0% of aggregate gross proceeds and b) $3,000,000.

International Business Machines (“IBM”)

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.

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

Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees and expenses.

David Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.

On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff David Gru 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 (Case No. 8:22-cv-976). 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. The Company has not been served with the complaint. On August 4, 2022, the court consolidated this action into the Schaub action (see above). As a result, the court ordered this matter to be administratively closed.

Ram Hari Khadka v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.

On June 23, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by Ram Hari Khadka, a stockholder, against the Company and its current directors, as defendants (the “Action”). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the defendants based on alleged disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement (the “Proxy Statement”) filed by the Company on June 10, 2022, relative to the vote at the Company’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders that was to be held on July 26, 2022 (the “2022 Stockholder Meeting”) seeking stockholder approval of issuance of shares under the Performance Stock Award Agreement (the “CEO Performance Award”) granted to David Michery, the Company’s chief executive officer, president and chairman of the board of directors. The complaint sought various remedies, including a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vote at the 2022 Stockholder Meeting to approve the issuance of shares for the CEO Performance Award.

The Company filed a supplement to the Proxy Statement on July 13, 2022 addressing the alleged disclosure claims to moot plaintiff’s claims in the action. On August 5, 2022, the Chancery Court approved a stipulation under which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Action with prejudice as to itself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Chancery Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Proxy Supplement.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $995,000 to plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Action. The Chancery Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness. A stipulation to that effect was filed on September 19, 2022.

Jeff Witt v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.

On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Action”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Witt Action seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al.

On September 30, 2022, Hany Morsy, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, former Company officer and director, Jerry Alban, and Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Betor, Mr. Miltner, and Mr. New (the “Morsy Lawsuit”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Morsy Lawsuit seeks to direct the Company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, and also seeks monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses.

Linghang Boao Group, LTD

In November 2019, we entered into a three-year Strategic Cooperation Agreement (“SCA”) with Linghang Boao Group LTD to co-develop a Solid- State Battery Management system with a 480 to 720 mile Driving Range. The Company’s total financial commitment under the SCA was $2,196,000.

The contractual target dates and milestones were severely disrupted due to the occurrence COVID-19. As a result, our management believed the COVID-19 pandemic represented a Force Majeure event (that is, the pandemic has impacted our and Linghang Boao Group LTD’s ability to meet their respective contractual obligations due to restriction in movement, stoppage of production, increase in costs due to scarcity of raw materials components, labor shortages, shortage of funds, disruption in the supply chains, U.S. governmental closures of ports/borders and travel restrictions). Based on the foregoing, we believe there was no breach of contract due to our failure of performance. Unfortunately, we sustained a loss of $390,000 at September 30, 2020, due to contract nonperformance and force majeure. There are no accrued liabilities recorded for any remaining milestone payments at September 30, 2022, and 2021.

Our management notified Linghang Boao Group of the decision to invoke the force majeure provision of the Strategic Cooperation Agreement due to the inability of the parties to perform caused by the global Pandemic.