Settlements	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Settlements
Settlements	Note 11 – Settlements 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 from the consolidated federal securities cases discussed below (In re YayYo Securities Litigation) only by a few words and some random punctuation marks, and are therefore virtually identical. The State Cases litigation was stayed pending the outcome of the federal securities cases, as to which, as noted below, the parties announced a settlement in principle last year. Please see the disclosure concerning In re YayYo Securities Litigation immediately below for further information regarding the final disposition of the State Cases litigation. 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. 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. On July 12, 2022, the district court presiding over In re YayYo Securities Litigation signed an order and final judgment with respect to the settlement described herein. The plaintiffs in the State Cases were bound by this settlement and therefore the State Cases were subject to dismissal by operation of law. On October 19, 2022, the court presiding over the State Cases signed the order of dismissal. 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 complaint was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and assigned as a related case to the judge in In re YayYo Securities Litigation. This case was a purported shareholder derivative action, in which the Company was 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. Upon the settlement and dismissal of In re YayYo Securities Litigation, this case was also subject to dismissal, which the district court granted upon motion of the plaintiffs on September 19, 2022.

Settlements

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Note 11 – Settlements

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 from the consolidated federal securities cases discussed below (In re YayYo Securities Litigation) only by a few words and some random punctuation marks, and are therefore virtually identical. The State Cases litigation was stayed pending the outcome of the federal securities cases, as to which, as noted below, the parties announced a settlement in principle last year. Please see the disclosure concerning In re YayYo Securities Litigation immediately below for further information regarding the final disposition of the State Cases litigation.

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. 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.

On July 12, 2022, the district court presiding over In re YayYo Securities Litigation signed an order and final judgment with respect to the settlement described herein. The plaintiffs in the State Cases were bound by this settlement and therefore the State Cases were subject to dismissal by operation of law. On October 19, 2022, the court presiding over the State Cases signed the order of dismissal.

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 complaint was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and assigned as a related case to the judge in In re YayYo Securities Litigation. This case was a purported shareholder derivative action, in which the Company was 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. Upon the settlement and dismissal of In re YayYo Securities Litigation, this case was also subject to dismissal, which the district court granted upon motion of the plaintiffs on September 19, 2022.