Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
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.


On August 30, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with a customer to pay a slotting allowance of $1,000,000 payable in three annual installments of $333,334 on March 1, 2019, $333,333 on March 1, 2020 and $333,333 on March 1, 2021.


Future minimum lease and other commitments of the Company are as follows:


For the years ending
December 31,
  Building leases  
2021 (remaining)   $ 377,813  
2022     343,821  
2023     341,653  
2024     358,085  
Thereafter     89,521  
    $ 1,510,893  


The Company recorded rent expense of $216,550 and $206,088 for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The Company recorded a slotting expense of $83,334 and $83,334 for the three months ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.


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.


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 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 376,367 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 ToughBuiltToughBuilt’s motion for relief from the default judgment and directing the trial court to grant ToughBuiltToughBuilt’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 Minassaian 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 June 8, 2021.


Design 1st v. ToughBuilt Industries, Inc., American Arbitration Association


On November 26, 2019, Claimant Design 1st filed a Demand for Arbitration against ToughBuilt Industries 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. An arbitration hearing has not yet been scheduled by the arbitrator, Grant Kim, and discovery has not yet commenced. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Demand for Arbitration. 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.


The Company’s submission of its case brief outlining its claims and defense in full was due on December 11, 2020. Design 1st’s submission was due on January 9, 2021. The parties have the option to take depositions after January 9, 2021. The arbitration hearing occurred in April 2021, and the Company is currently awaiting the resolution.


Design 1st is seeking $169,094 based on a claim for breach of contract for failure to pay, and the Company seeks $394,956 on its counter claim for breach of contract and fraud. The subject contract also contains an attorney’s fees clause providing that the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs, the precise amount of which will not be known until the prevailing party submits its attorney’s fees and costs during or following trial.


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.