COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2021
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES||
NOTE 5 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
On January 3, 2017, the Company executed a non-cancellable operating lease for its principal office with the lease commencing February 1, 2017 for a five (5) year term. The Company paid a security deposit of $29,297. The lease required the Company to pay its proportionate share of direct costs estimated to be 22.54% of the total property, a fixed monthly direct cost of $6,201 for each month during the term of the lease, and monthly rental pursuant to the lease terms.
The Company entered into a lease for office space at 8669 Research Drive, in Irvine, CA, which is to replace the current corporate headquarters. The lease commenced on December 1, 2019 with no rent due until April 1, 2020. From April 1, 2020 through March 31, 2025, base rent will be due on the first of each month in the amount of $25,200 escalating annually on December 1 of each year to $29,480 beginning December 1, 2023. The Company paid an initial amount of $68,128 comprising the rent for April 2020, a security deposit and the amount due for property taxes, insurance and association fees.
Future minimum lease and other commitments of the Company are as follows:
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MINIMUM LEASE COMMITMENTS
The Company recorded rent expense of $222,384 and $121,806 and $438,937 and $327,894 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The Company recorded a slotting expense of $83,334 and $83,334 and $166,668 and $166,668 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, respectively.
Employment Agreements with Officers
On January 3, 2017, the Company entered into an employment agreement with its President and Chief Executive Officer for a -year term. The officer received a sign-on-bonus of $ and was entitled to an annual base salary of $350,000 to increase by 10% each year commencing on January 1, 2018. The officer was also granted a stock option to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $ per share.
On January 3, 2017, the Company entered into an employment agreement with its Vice-President of Design and Development for a -year term. Under the terms of this agreement, the officer received a sign-on-bonus of $ and is entitled to an annual base salary of $250,000 beginning on December 1, 2016 to increase by 10% each year commencing on January 1, 2018.
On January 3, 2017, the Company entered into an employment agreement with its Chief Operating Officer and Secretary for a -year term. Under the terms of this agreement, the officer is entitled to an annual base salary of $180,000 beginning on January 1, 2017 to increase by 10% each year commencing on January 1, 2018.
The Company’s former Chief Financial Officer was appointed on June 14, 2019, with whom the Company entered into a verbal consulting arrangement at $10,000 per month. Effective July 2, 2020 such former Chief Financial Officer resigned from the Company.
Effective July 1, 2020, the Company and the Chief Financial Officer agreed to a salary of $230,000 per annum.
The employment agreements also entitle the officers to receive, among other benefits, the following compensation: (i) eligibility to receive an annual cash bonus at the sole discretion of the Board and as determined by the Compensation Committee commensurate with the policies and practices applicable to other senior executive officers of the Company; (ii) an opportunity to participate in any stock option, performance share, performance unit or other equity based long-term incentive compensation plan commensurate with the terms and conditions applicable to other senior executive officers and (iii) participation in benefit plans, practices, policies and programs provided by the Company (including, without limitation, medical, prescription, dental, disability, employee life, group life, accidental death and travel accident insurance plans and programs) to the extent available to the Company’s other senior executive officers.
Litigation Costs and Contingencies
From time to time, the Company 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 business. Other than as set forth below, management is currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or operating results.
In the normal course of business, the Company incurs costs to hire and retain external legal counsel to advise it on regulatory, litigation and other matters. The Company expenses these costs as the related services are received. If a loss is considered and the amount can be reasonable estimated, the Company recognizes an expense for the estimated loss.
Edwin Minassian v. Michael Panosian and Toughbuilt Industries, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. EC065533.
On August 16, 2016, Plaintiff Edwin Minassian filed a complaint against Defendants ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) and Michael Panosian in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. EC065533. The complaint alleges breach of oral contracts to pay Plaintiff for consulting and finder’s fees, and to hire him as an employee. The complaint further alleged claims of fraud and misrepresentation relating to an alleged payment in exchange for stock in the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, declaratory relief, stock in the Company, and other relief according to proof.
On April 12, 2018, the Court entered judgments of default against the Company and Mr. Panosian in the amounts of $7,080 and $235,542, plus awarding Mr. Minassian a 7% ownership interest in the Company (the “Judgments”). Mr. Minassian served notice of entry of the judgments on April 17, 2018 and the Company and Mr. Panosian received notice of the entry of the default judgments on April 19, 2018.
The Company and Panosian satisfied the judgments on September 14, 2018 by payment of $252,949 to Plaintiff Minassian and by issuing Plaintiff Minassian shares of common stock of the Company. On October 18, 2018, the Company and Panosian filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order denying their motion for relief from the above-referenced default judgment.
On October 1, 2019, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued its opinion reversing the trial court’s order denying ToughBuilt’s motion for relief from the default judgment and directing the trial court to grant ToughBuilt’s motion for relief, including allowing Toughbuilt to file an Answer and contest Minassian’s claims.
The appellate court recently issued a remittitur officially transferring the matter from the appellate court back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling, and the Company and Panosian have filed an Answer to the Complaint. The trial court has not yet set a trial date, and discovery in this case is just now beginning. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Complaint and seek to recover the compensation and stock previously paid to satisfy the now vacated default judgment. The Company believes it has a strong position, but cannot quantify the likelihood that it will prevail in the above litigation, or any likely liability or recoveries, because of the current status of the case and the unpredictability of litigation.
Minassian seeks damages and stock based on a breach of an alleged oral agreement. Discovery is presently ongoing. In addition, Plaintiff Minassian is in violation of a court order for restitution and the Company is engaged in collection efforts to enforce that order. A trial date has been set for April 25, 2022.
Design 1st v. Toughbuilt Industries, Inc., American Arbitration Association
On November 26, 2019, Claimant Design 1st filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company seeking $169,094 in damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Claimant contends the Company breached a written contract by failing to pay for design services. The Company filed a Cross-Demand for Arbitration against Claimant seeking $394,956 in damages, plus attorney’s and costs alleging Claimant breached the same contract by performing negligent services, failing to meets its obligations under the contract, and fraudulent billing.
The arbitration hearing occurred in April 2021. On July 14, 2021, the arbitrator concluded that neither party was entitled to prevail on their respective claims and rejected all counterclaims. Both parties are required to bear all fees and incurred in connection with the arbitration.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef