Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 11 – Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with total confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any legal proceedings or potential claims against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows, other than those described below. Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi A complaint was filed on March 5, 2020, in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Anthony Davis, who was hired by the Company as its CEO and as a director on or about December 2016. Mr. Davis’s employment with the Company ended after several months. As part of his compensation, Mr. Davis alleges that he expected to receive stock options in the Company. In his pleadings, Mr. Davis admits that he resigned from his executive officer and director positions, but asserts that he did not receive certain compensation in the form of stock options (he has also included a claim for wage and hour violations). The Company denies liability and has asserted that it has paid Mr. Davis all amounts due to him under his employment agreement, while also asserting that Mr. Davis failed to exercise his stock options before they expired on December 31, 2018. The Company filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, which the Superior Court granted in part and denied in part on September 8, 2021. The Plaintiff since filed a second amended complaint, to which the Company has filed an answer. The Company’s position is that the lawsuit entirely lacks merit, and the Company intends to defend it vigorously. Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 and Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066 (Vanbecelaere)(hereafter the “State Cases”) On July 22 and July 23, 2020, respectively, two actions were filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaints underlying the State Cases differ only by a few words and some random punctuation marks, and are therefore virtually identical. Plaintiffs Ivan Rung and Michael Vanbecelaere each claimed to have purchased the Common Stock as part of the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”); they purport to bring a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the Common Stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and distributed in connection with the Company’s IPO, which was launched on November 14, 2019. The State Case complaints allege misrepresentations and material omissions in the SEC filings in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The Company has and continues to vigorously deny any and all liability and asserts that the State Cases are baseless. It is the Company’s firm position that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and circumstances in its SEC filings relating to the IPO, and subsequently in its periodic SEC reports, including those that were potentially adverse to the Company’s operations and business prospects. The State Cases litigation is presently stayed pending the outcome of the federal securities case discussed below (Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc.), as to which, as noted below, the parties have announced a “settlement in principle,” which is subject to court approval in the district court. The Company anticipates filing motions to dismiss the purported class actions in Superior Court on the basis of the anticipated approval of the federal settlement. Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW) and William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8591 (SVW)(now consolidated as “In re YayYo Securities Litigation”) These two actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and September 18, 2020, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin and William Koch each claim to have purchased the Common Stock as part of the IPO and, like the plaintiffs in the State Cases, purport to bring a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as and Section 17(a) and 10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) on behalf of all purchasers of the Common Stock in the IPO. The first amended complaint, like the State Cases, alleges false statements and material omissions of material fact in connection with the SEC filings distributed in connection with the IPO. The defendants include directors of the Company and the underwriters of the IPO, WestPark Capital, Inc. (“WestPark”) and Aegis Capital Corp. The federal court consolidated the two matters for all practical purposes. As with the State Cases, the Company denied liability and asserted that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and circumstances in its SEC filings, and that the complaint’s alleged violations of securities laws are baseless. The parties to the federal court litigation announced on October 21, 2021 that they had reached a settlement, which received preliminary approval by the district court on January 13, 2022, allowing the notice of the proposed settlement to be distributed to all class members, who unless they object or drop out, will be bound by the multi-million dollar settlement. The Company’s portion of the settlement was $1 million paid out in equal installments every three months over the course of 2022. These payments have been and will continue to be timely made. Executive Chairman Terren Peizer provided his personal guarantee for the whole amount due to the plaintiffs. The district court has set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for June 6, 2022 in an order that stated: “the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement and of the notification procedures as detailed in the parties’ proposed order, ECF No. 168-2,” with the court setting dates for persons to file objections or comments to the settlement prior the hearing which was “set for June 6, 2022 at 1 :30p.m.” EVmo, Inc. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements For Year Three Months Ended March 31, 2022 and 2021 (unaudited) Konop v. El-Batrawi, et al., 1:20-cv-1379- MN (Filed in Del. District Court) On October 12, 2020 a complaint was filed in Delaware District Court, which has since been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and assigned as a related case to the judge in the pending federal securities action described immediately above. This case is a purported shareholder derivative action, in which the Company is a nominal defendant, alleging that the Company’s executive officers and directors at the time of its IPO made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s business, operations, and future prospects and that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in doing so. The Company believes that the allegations of the complaint are spurious and will vigorously defend the case at trial. Bellridge Capital, LP, v. EVmo, Inc., 1:21-cv-07091-PGG (Filed in Southern District of New York) In the first half of 2021 a warrant holder, Bellridge Capital, LP, sought to exercise a warrant for 1,500,000 shares for a nominal amount, claiming that an anti-dilution adjustment had been triggered in 2020, which had reduced the exercise price to such amount. The Company rejected the exercise, on the basis that the warrant had previously been amended to remove the anti-dilution adjustment provisions and fix the exercise price at $4.00. In September 2021, the warrant holder brought suit for damages in the Southern District of New York. It is the Company’s position that the lawsuit is without merit. This lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 11 – Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with total confidence. The Company is currently not aware of any legal proceedings or potential claims against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows, other than those described below.

Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi

A complaint was filed on March 5, 2020, in the Los Angeles Superior Court by plaintiff Anthony Davis, who was hired by the Company as its CEO and as a director on or about December 2016. Mr. Davis’s employment with the Company ended after several months. As part of his compensation, Mr. Davis alleges that he expected to receive stock options in the Company. In his pleadings, Mr. Davis admits that he resigned from his executive officer and director positions, but asserts that he did not receive certain compensation in the form of stock options (he has also included a claim for wage and hour violations). The Company denies liability and has asserted that it has paid Mr. Davis all amounts due to him under his employment agreement, while also asserting that Mr. Davis failed to exercise his stock options before they expired on December 31, 2018. The Company filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, which the Superior Court granted in part and denied in part on September 8, 2021. The Plaintiff since filed a second amended complaint, to which the Company has filed an answer. The Company’s position is that the lawsuit entirely lacks merit, and the Company intends to defend it vigorously.

Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 and Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066 (Vanbecelaere)(hereafter the “State Cases”)

On July 22 and July 23, 2020, respectively, two actions were filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaints underlying the State Cases differ only by a few words and some random punctuation marks, and are therefore virtually identical. Plaintiffs Ivan Rung and Michael Vanbecelaere each claimed to have purchased the Common Stock as part of the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”); they purport to bring a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the Common Stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and distributed in connection with the Company’s IPO, which was launched on November 14, 2019. The State Case complaints allege misrepresentations and material omissions in the SEC filings in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The Company has and continues to vigorously deny any and all liability and asserts that the State Cases are baseless. It is the Company’s firm position that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and circumstances in its SEC filings relating to the IPO, and subsequently in its periodic SEC reports, including those that were potentially adverse to the Company’s operations and business prospects. The State Cases litigation is presently stayed pending the outcome of the federal securities case discussed below (Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc.), as to which, as noted below, the parties have announced a “settlement in principle,” which is subject to court approval in the district court. The Company anticipates filing motions to dismiss the purported class actions in Superior Court on the basis of the anticipated approval of the federal settlement.

Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW) and William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8591 (SVW)(now consolidated as “In re YayYo Securities Litigation”)

These two actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and September 18, 2020, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin and William Koch each claim to have purchased the Common Stock as part of the IPO and, like the plaintiffs in the State Cases, purport to bring a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as and Section 17(a) and 10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) on behalf of all purchasers of the Common Stock in the IPO. The first amended complaint, like the State Cases, alleges false statements and material omissions of material fact in connection with the SEC filings distributed in connection with the IPO. The defendants include directors of the Company and the underwriters of the IPO, WestPark Capital, Inc. (“WestPark”) and Aegis Capital Corp. The federal court consolidated the two matters for all practical purposes. As with the State Cases, the Company denied liability and asserted that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and circumstances in its SEC filings, and that the complaint’s alleged violations of securities laws are baseless. The parties to the federal court litigation announced on October 21, 2021 that they had reached a settlement, which received preliminary approval by the district court on January 13, 2022, allowing the notice of the proposed settlement to be distributed to all class members, who unless they object or drop out, will be bound by the multi-million dollar settlement. The Company’s portion of the settlement was $1 million paid out in equal installments every three months over the course of 2022. These payments have been and will continue to be timely made. Executive Chairman Terren Peizer provided his personal guarantee for the whole amount due to the plaintiffs. The district court has set a hearing for final approval of the settlement for June 6, 2022 in an order that stated: “the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement and of the notification procedures as detailed in the parties’ proposed order, ECF No. 168-2,” with the court setting dates for persons to file objections or comments to the settlement prior the hearing which was “set for June 6, 2022 at 1 :30p.m.”

EVmo, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

For Year Three Months Ended March 31, 2022 and 2021 (unaudited)

Konop v. El-Batrawi, et al., 1:20-cv-1379- MN (Filed in Del. District Court)

On October 12, 2020 a complaint was filed in Delaware District Court, which has since been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and assigned as a related case to the judge in the pending federal securities action described immediately above. This case is a purported shareholder derivative action, in which the Company is a nominal defendant, alleging that the Company’s executive officers and directors at the time of its IPO made false and misleading statements relating to the Company’s business, operations, and future prospects and that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in doing so. The Company believes that the allegations of the complaint are spurious and will vigorously defend the case at trial.

Bellridge Capital, LP, v. EVmo, Inc., 1:21-cv-07091-PGG (Filed in Southern District of New York)

In the first half of 2021 a warrant holder, Bellridge Capital, LP, sought to exercise a warrant for 1,500,000 shares for a nominal amount, claiming that an anti-dilution adjustment had been triggered in 2020, which had reduced the exercise price to such amount. The Company rejected the exercise, on the basis that the warrant had previously been amended to remove the anti-dilution adjustment provisions and fix the exercise price at $4.00. In September 2021, the warrant holder brought suit for damages in the Southern District of New York. It is the Company’s position that the lawsuit is without merit. This lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made.

+ References + Details