XML 33 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2023
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 18 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ASC 450.20 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulation, 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. Under this standard an event is probable when it is likely to occur. ​ 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 disclose 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. As required by ASC 450 we do not record liabilities when the likelihood is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. 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. ​ DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC, Drawbridge Investments LLC v. Mullen Automotive Inc. ​ In June 2022, Mullen entered into a letter agreement with DBI Lease Buyback Servicing LLC (“DBI”) wherein it agreed 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. ​ On March 2, 2023, DBI and Drawbridge Investments LLC (collectively, “Drawbridge”) filed a complaint in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Mullen. The complaint asserts three claims arising out of an alleged Series E option agreement by which Drawbridge allegedly would be able to purchase to-be-created Series E preferred shares and obtain warrants for Mullen’s common stock in exchange for, inter alia, a $3.5 million discount on a promissory note held by Drawbridge. Specifically, Drawbridge asserts claims for: (1) specific performance of the alleged agreement; (2) money damages (in an amount exceeding $100 million) arising out of Mullen’s alleged breach of the alleged agreement; and (3) declaratory judgment setting forth Drawbridge’s rights and Mullen’s obligations under the alleged agreement. ​ Drawbridge also commenced an action by Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) whereby it, inter alia, sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (a) enjoining Mullen from (i) increasing the number of designated shares for any outstanding stock and (ii) issuing new preferred stock; and (b) requiring Mullen to maintain at least 500,000,000 in authorized common stock (post reverse splits). On March 14, 2023, the Court vacated the TRO and entered an Order on March 15, 2023 whereby the TRO was vacated and denied. At the April 18, 2023 hearing for the preliminary injunctive relief sought by Drawbridge in the OSC and after reviewing Mullen’s opposition and hearing oral argument from both sides, the Court reserved decision on Drawbridge’s motion. ​ Mullen moved to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, on May 9, 2023. The Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) was fully submitted on or about June 27, 2023. The Court has not scheduled oral argument on Mullen’s MTD and it is currently sub judice. The Company does not have a reasonable estimate of possible loss (if any) as of June 30, 2023. ​ Mullen Technologies Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd. (“Qiantu”) related to the engineering, design, support, and homologation of Qiantu’s K50 vehicle by Mullen. ​ On March 14, 2023, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement providing for full settlement of all pending litigation between Mullen and Qiantu. The parties also released all claims against each other arising from or in connection with the matters and claims that were subject to the legal proceedings. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (1) the parties agreed to enter into an IP Agreement (as defined and described below) and (2) in connection with the settlement of the Legal Proceedings and for the privilege of entering into the IP Agreement, the Mullen paid $6 million to Qiantu. In connection with the execution of the Settlement Agreement, on March 14, 2023, Mullen entered into an Intellectual Property and Distribution Agreement ( “IP Agreement”) with Qiantu, and two of Qiantu’s affiliates (collectively “Qiantu”). Pursuant to the IP Agreement, Qiantu granted Mullen the exclusive license to use certain of Qiantu’s trademarks and the exclusive right to assemble, manufacture, and sell the homologated vehicles based on the Qiantu K-50 model throughout North America (including Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America) and South America for a period of five (5) years, which period does not start until Mullen has successfully homologated vehicles based on terms of the IP Agreement ( “Five Year Period”). During the Five-Year Period, Mullen is also obligated to purchase a certain number of vehicle kits every year from Qiantu. These rights shall be obtained and the commitment shall only be effective upon Mullen’s assessment of feasibility and profitability of the project within 150 days as provided for by the IP Agreement. As consideration for Mullen’s entry into the IP Agreement, (1) Mullen issued to Qiantu USA warrants to purchase up to 333,333 shares of Mullen’s common stock (the “Qiantu Warrants”) as described below; (2) Mullen additionally paid Qiantu $2,000,000 for deliverable items under the IP Agreement; and (3) in exchange, Mullen will pay Qiantu a royalty fee of $1,200 for each homologated vehicle sold in North America and South America during the term of the IP Agreement. The Qiantu Warrants were issued upon execution of the IP Agreement and are exercisable at Qiantu USA’s discretion commencing at any time from September 30, 2023 up to and including September 30, 2024 at 110% of the market price of Mullen’s common stock at the close of trading on the earlier of (a) when Mullen completes its obligations to its Series D Preferred Stock investors; or (b) June 15, 2023 (for more information on the warrants, see note 8). As Mullen continues analysis of the homologation costs, Mullen believes it would be in its best interest to also acquire licensing rights in additional territories. In that regard, the Mullen is currently in negotiations with Qiantu for the licensing rights to the European territory. International Business Machines (“IBM”) This claim was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 7, 2019. This matter arises out of a contract dispute between Mullen and IBM related to a joint development and technology license agreement, patent license agreement, and a logo trademark agreement. On November 9, 2021, the court, pursuant to an inquest order, awarded damages in favor of IBM and on December 1, 2021, the court entered a judgment in favor of IBM in the amount of $5,617,192. 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 an Appeal on April 8, 2022. 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 18, 2022, and the hearing of the matter was set for July 25, 2022. The Court took the same under submission, and a decision has still not been issued. The Appeal remains pending. The GEM Group On September 21, 2021, the GEM Group filed an arbitration demand and statement of claim against Mullen seeking declaratory relief and damages. This matter arises out of an alleged breach of a securities purchase agreement dated November 13, 2020. On June 7, 2023, the arbitrator held oral argument on issues related to liability. The arbitrator has not yet issued his decision on issues related to liability. Briefing and oral argument on issues of damages, if necessary, will be schedule after the arbitrator issues its decision on liability. ​ On June 13, 2023, the GEM Group requested a procedural order seeking “Interim Measures” based on its belief that Mullen may not be able to satisfy its obligations should the Arbitrator rule in the GEM Group’s favor. The arbitrator, despite Mullen’s objections, authorized the GEM Group to file an application. On July 12, 2023, the GEM Group filed an Application for Interim Award Relief. Mullen filed its response on July 19, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the arbitrator issued his Decision and Order on Application for Interim Measures requiring Mullen to deposit $7,000,000 into an interest-bearing escrow account with a commercial bank or brokerage firm within 30 days of his Decision and Order. All interest earned on the escrow account shall become the property of the party determined by the arbitration to be the principal and the amounts held in escrow shall only be released upon further order of the arbitrator, a court of competent jurisdiction, or by agreement of the parties. ​ The Company does not have a reasonable estimate of possible loss (if any) as of June 30, 2023. ​ 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, TOA Trading LLC and Munshibari LLC (“Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Mullen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 18, 2022, Mullen filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 1, 2022 and Mullen filed its reply on June 8, 2022. The court took the Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue under submission. Plaintiffs filed a Notification of Ninety Days Expiring on February 1, 2023 notifying the court that Mullen’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue had been fully briefed for a period of time exceeding 90 days. On March 22, 2023, the Court issued a ruling denying Mullen’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue. Accordingly, Mullen filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint on April 7, 2023. The Parties have engaged in written and oral discovery. Mediation is scheduled for September 7, 2023. Trial is set for February 12, 2024. The Company does not have a reasonable estimate of possible loss as of June 30, 2023. Mullen Stockholder Litigation Margaret Schaub v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. – Securities Class Action On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court Central District of California against Mullen Automotive, Inc. (the “Company”), as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the “Schaub Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. 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 her Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended 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. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 22, 2022. 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. David Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc. On May 12, 2022, David Gru, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Mr. Michery, and Mr. Firer (the “Gru Lawsuit”). This lawsuit was brought by Gru both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The Gru Lawsuit sought to declare the action to be a class action, and sought monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On August 4, 2022, the Court consolidated this action into the Schaub Lawsuit, and ordered this action administratively closed. ​ 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 current or former Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Lawsuit”). The Witt 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 Lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. ​ On November 8, 2022, the Court consolidated this matter and the Morsy Lawsuit (see below) into one case, and on November 30, 2022 stayed the consolidated derivative action pending (1) dismissal of the consolidated securities class action (the Schaub Lawsuit discussed above), or (2) the filing of an answer in the consolidated securities class action and notice by any party that they no longer consent to the voluntary stay of this consolidated derivative action. The case currently remains stayed. ​ 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. ​ 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 seeks monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On November 8, 2022, the Court consolidated this matter and the Witt Lawsuit (see above) into one case, and stayed the consolidated action (as discussed above). 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. Thomas Robbins v. David Michery, et al.; Patrick V.P. Foley, Jr. and Jeffrey Pudlinski v. David Michery, et al. ​ On December 7, 2022, Thomas Robbins, a purported stockholder, filed a putative stockholder class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, Mr. Michery, and current or former Company directors Mr. Novoa, Ms. Winter, Mr. Betor, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Miltner, Mr. Puckett, and Mr. New (the “Robbins Lawsuit”). On December 13, 2022, a second putative stockholder class action was filed in the Court of Chancery, styled as Foley v. Michery, et al., (the “Foley Lawsuit” and, together with the Robbins Lawsuit, the “Stockholder Actions”). The Stockholder Actions seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to the vote on a series of proposal at a special meeting of Company stockholders that was held on December 23, 2022, and asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all Company directors (except Mr. New). The consolidated lawsuit also seeks an award of fees and costs related to this action. ​ On December 16, 2022, the Court entered a limited status quo order in the Robbins Lawsuit (the “Status Quo Order”), with respect to the vote of shares at the Company’s December 23, 2022, special meeting (or any adjournment thereof), pending final disposition of this action. On January 5, 2023, the Court consolidated the Robbins Lawsuit with the Foley Lawsuit, appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On February 3, 2023, the Court entered an order dismissing the consolidated action as moot and retaining jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for attorneys’ fees and expenses by lead plaintiffs, as well as the form of notice to stockholders relating to any fee application or agreed-upon fee. ​ On March 10, 2023, lead plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On June 1, 2023, the Court entered an order awarding lead plaintiffs $1,004,731 in attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company satisfied the award on June 30, 2023. ​ Chosten Caris v. David Michery ​ On April 27, 2023, Chosten Caris, a purported stockholder, filed a complaint against Mr. Michery in the Eighth Judicial Circuit In and For Alachua County, Florida (the “Caris Lawsuit”). This lawsuit purports to seek damages for claims arising under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Caris Lawsuit also seeks punitive damages. On May 17, 2023, Mr. Michery removed the Caris Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Mr. Michery filed a Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) the Caris Lawsuit on June 20, 2023. ​ On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Conclusion” and another entitled “Memorandum Summary.” The court, on July 25, 2023, entered an order in response to Plaintiff’s “Conclusion” advising that the document did not constitute a sufficient filing because it was not in the proper format, did not include a certificate of service, was not signed, and was not responsive to the MTD. The court additionally, expanded Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the MTD from July 21, 2023 to August 8, 2023 and deferred its ruling on the MTD as a result of the extended filing deadline. ​ On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Demand” requesting certain relief from the court. The court, on July 28, 2023, issued an order denying “Plaintiff’s Demand”, advising that no action will be taken on Plaintiff’s July 21, 2023 “Memorandum Summary”, and further deferring a ruling on the MTD. Plaintiff filed his response to the MTD on August 3, 2023. No reply is permitted in this court. To date, the court has not issued an order with respect to the MTD. ​ 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. ​

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration