COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 8 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02 (Topic 842). Topic 842 amended several aspects of lease accounting, including requiring lessees to recognize leases with a term greater than one year as a right-of-use asset and corresponding liability, measured at the present value of the lease payments. In July 2018, the FASB issued supplemental adoption guidance and clarification to Topic 842 within ASU 2018-10 “Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases” and ASU 2018-11 “Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements.” The new guidance aims to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by requiring lessees to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and requiring disclosure of key information about leasing arrangements. A modified retrospective application is required with an option to not restate comparative periods in the period of adoption.

We adopted ASC 842 as of July 1, 2019. We had an operating lease principally for both Franklin Wireless Corp. and Franklin Technologies Inc., in accordance with ASC 842. Adoption of the standard resulted in the initial recognition of operating lease right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and operating lease liabilities of $1,501,203 and $1,507,367, respectively, as of July 1, 2019, with the difference due to the existing lease liabilities of $6,164.

We determine whether an arrangement contains a lease at inception. A lease is a contract that provides the right to control an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration. Operating leases are recorded in the balance sheet as right-of-use asset (“ROU asset”) and operating lease obligation. ROU assets represent the Company’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent our obligation to make lease payment arising from the lease ROU assets and operating lease liabilities are recognized at the commencement date of the lease and measure based on the present value of lease payment over the lease term. The ROU asset also includes deferred rent liabilities. Our lease arrangement generally does not provide an implicit interest rate. As a result, in such situations, we use its incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at commencement date in determining the present value of lease payments. We include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that it will exercise that option in the measurement of its ROU assets and liabilities. Lease expense for operating lease is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. We are also electing not to apply the recognition requirements to short-term leases of twelve months or less and instead will recognize lease payments as expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

On September 9, 2015, we signed a lease for new office space consisting of approximately 12,775 square feet, located in San Diego, California, which commenced on October 28, 2015. In addition to monthly rent, the new lease includes payment for certain common area costs. The term of the lease for the new office space was four years from the lease commencement date and was then extended at a monthly rent of $25,754, by an additional fifty months to December 31, 2023. Our facility is covered by an appropriate level of insurance, and we believe it to be suitable for our use and adequate for our present needs.

Our Korea-based subsidiary, FTI, leases approximately 10,000 square feet of office space, at a monthly rent of approximately $8,000, and additional office space consisting of approximately 2,682 square feet at a monthly rent of approximately $2,700, both located in Seoul, Korea. These leases expired on August 31, 2023, and were extended by an additional twelve months to August 31, 2024. In addition to monthly rent, the leases provide for periodic cost of living increases in the base rent and payment for certain common area costs. These facilities are covered by an appropriate level of insurance, and we believe them to be suitable for our use and adequate for our present needs. We lease one corporate housing facility, located in Seoul, Korea, primarily for our employees who travel, under a non-cancelable operating lease that expired on September 4, 2023, and were extended by an additional twelve months to September 4, 2024. Short-term leases with initial terms of twelve months or less are not capitalized, and our leases of the South Korean offices and corporate housing facility have been considered as short-term lease.

The components of lease expense and supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the years ended June 30, 2023, and 2022 are as follows:

As of June 30, 2023, we used discount rates of 4.0% in determining our operating lease liabilities for the office spaces in San Diego, California. This rate represented our incremental borrowing rates at that time. Short-term leases with initial terms of twelve months or less are not capitalized, and our lease of the South Korean offices has been considered as short-term lease. Our San Diego office lease was extension of previous lease and did not contain any further extension provisions. Rent expenses for the years ended June 30, 2023, and 2022 were $445,548 and $446,057, respectively. In accordance with ASC 842, the components of the lease expense were as follows: 

	Years ended June 30,
	2023		2022
Operating lease expense	$	309,053	$	328,650
Short term lease cost		136,495		117,407
Total lease expense	$	445,548	$	446,057

Remaining lease term-operating leases	0.5 year
Discount rate-operating lease	4%

In accordance with ASC 842, maturity of operating lease liabilities as of June 30, 2023, was as follows:

		Payments due by June, 30
		2024		Total
Administrative office, San Diego, CA	$	160,965	$	160,965
Total Obligations	$	160,965	$	160,965

		Operating Leases
Fiscal 2024	$	160,965
Total lease payments		160,965
Less imputed interest		(1,861	)
Total	$	159,104

Litigation

We are from time to time involved in certain legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business.

Verizon Jetpack Recall

On April 8, 2021, Verizon issued a press release announcing that it was working with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to conduct a voluntary recall of certain Verizon Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspot devices, indicating that the lithium-ion battery in the devices can overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard. According to the CPSC release, the recall affects approximately 2.5 million devices. We import the devices and supply them to Verizon.

Verizon first advised us of one alleged Jetpack device failure at the end of February 2021. We immediately began meeting with Verizon and requested access to the device. We also began internal testing to evaluate device performance. We did not receive any further incident information until the last week of March 2021. On April 1, 2021 we issued a press release announcing that we had received reports from Verizon about potential issues with the batteries in the devices. On April 9, 2021 we issued a press release announcing the voluntary recall by Verizon.

As of the date of this report, we have been unable to recreate any device failures of the type identified by Verizon. All internal testing conducted to date has confirmed that the Jetpack devices are performing within normal parameters. We are not currently aware of any aspect of the Jetpack design that could cause the devices to fail in the way described in Verizon’s recall notice.

Future Impact on Financial Performance

We are striving to avoid any litigation with Verizon arising from the recall and have not been served with any legal action by Verizon relating to the products covered by the recall. We are not currently able to estimate the financial impact of the recall on our future operations. At this time, we do not have information that identifies the cause of the alleged incidents. We also do not have any specific legal claims or theories of causation for device failure incidents that would help us estimate the cost of potential future litigation. No liability has been recorded for this litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time.

Franklin v. Anydata, Inc.

We entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Anydata Corp. (“Anydata”) for the product ACT233F Smart Link OBD device on May 5, 2017, for a minimum purchase commitment of 250,000 units. We delivered approximately 25,000 units and 7,000 units during our second and fourth quarters of fiscal 2018, respectively, and an additional 18,000 units during our first quarter of fiscal 2019. Sales to Anydata were approximately $1.8 million for the year ended June 30, 2019. We received information that Anydata may not be able to fulfill the entire purchase commitment for which parts have already been ordered with our main vendor, Quanta. We believe that the Company will be able to supply some of the products to another customer and we received personal guarantees from the ownership group of Anydata. As of June 30, 2019, the remaining unfulfilled purchase commitment was approximately $3.1 million. The total product purchase commitment with Quanta was approximately $2.9 million. We have not recorded a receivable from Anydata, nor a liability owed to Quanta. Management believes that, at this time, a loss contingency is reasonably possible but not estimable as to how much ultimately would be paid to Quanta. As of June 30, 2020, we paid $100,000 for the right to call on inventory and recorded an additional $49,580 as a prepaid expense related to pricing adjustments, which has been agreed with Quanta for other products to ensure demand is met, and for the quarter ended December 31, 2020, the prepaid expense of $149,580 has been recorded as a cost of goods sold. As of June 30, 2023, there is a reasonable possibility we may incur a loss; however, the amount is not estimable at this time. On January 25, 2021, we commenced legal action against Anydata and its principal officers in San Diego Superior Court, case number 37-2021-00003468-CU-BC-CTL. Subsequent to June 30, 2023, a confidential settlement has been reached between the parties for an immaterial amount and as of the date of this report, the action is expected to be dismissed within the next 30 days.

Shareholder Litigation

Ali

A shareholder action, Ali vs. Franklin Wireless Corp. et al. Case #3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) on April 16, 2021, alleging, among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the Verizon recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. The Class and Defendants have executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement under which the Class releases all claims against Defendants in exchange for a payment by Defendants of $2.4 million (the “Settlement Amount”), which is reflected in liabilities under “accrued legal contingency expense” with a corresponding charge to “loss from a legal contingency”. The Class has submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court has not yet ruled on. If and when the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, Defendants will be required to deposit the Settlement Amount into an escrow account established to administer the Settlement.

Harwood / Martin

A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, by Stephen Harwood, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. O.C. Kim, et al., Case #21cv01837-AJB-MSB, on or about October 29, 2021, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims.

A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, by Debra Martin, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. O.C. Kim, et al., Case #21cv2091-AJB-MSB, on or about December 15, 2021, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims.

The Harwood and Martin actions have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) titled “In re Franklin Wireless Corp. Derivative Litigation”, Case No.: 21cv1837-AJB (MSB). Discovery is ongoing at this time.

Pape

A legal action was filed in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada in the County of Washoe against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Barbara Pape, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. O.C. Kim, et al., Case # CV22-00471, on or about March 21, 2022, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims.

The Company will vigorously defend such shareholder litigation and proceedings. No liability has been recorded for these litigations because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time.

“Short-Swing” Profits Litigation

A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Nosirrah Management LLC v. Franklin Wireless et al., Case # 3:21-cv-01316-RSH-JLB, on or about July 22, 2021, claiming that our Chief Executive Officer, O.C. Kim, violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for receiving “short-swing” profits from a sale and purchase of Franklin shares, in violation of that Act. We believe the allegations are not supported by the facts and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. No liability has been recorded for this litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time.

Change of Control Agreements

On October 1, 2020, we entered into Change of Control Agreements with OC Kim, our President, and Yun J. (David) Lee, our Chief Operating Officer. Each Change of Control Agreement provides for a lump sum payment to the officer in case we experience a change of control. The term includes the acquisition of our Common Stock resulting in one person or company owning more than 50% of the outstanding shares, a significant change in the composition of the Board of Directors during any 12-month period, a reorganization, merger, consolidation or similar transaction resulting in the transfer of ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of our outstanding Common Stock, or a liquidation or dissolution or sale of substantially all of our assets.

The Change of Control Agreement with Mr. Kim calls for a payment of $5 million upon a change of control, and the agreement with Mr. Lee calls for a payment of $2 million upon a change of control. The Change in Control Agreements, dated October 1, 2020, have been extended through September 30, 2024.

Severance Agreement

On November 10, 2022 the Company and OC Kim, its President, entered into an amendment of the employment letter agreement dated September 7, 2021. The amendment provides for a severance payment of $3 million if Mr. Kim voluntarily terminates his employment by the Company or if he voluntarily terminates his employment due to a “change in circumstances,” generally defined as a material breach by the Company of its salary and benefit obligations or a significant reduction in Mr. Kim’s title or responsibilities. In the case of a termination of employment by the Company for cause (generally defined as conviction of a felony, or a misdemeanor where imprisonment is imposed, commission of any act of theft, fraud, dishonesty, or material falsification of any employment or Company records, or improper disclosure of the Company's confidential or proprietary information), the Company is to make a severance payment of $1,500,000. In either case, any unvested options become immediately vested.

In the amendment, Mr. Kim also agrees that, for a period of two years after termination, he will not disparage the Company or its officers, solicit any of its employees to terminate their employment, or disclose any of the Company’s proprietary information.

In addition, the amendment provides for the payment of an incentive bonus to Mr. Kim of $125,000 for each calendar quarter during the remaining four year term of the employment letter, with the first such bonus due on December 31, 2022.

Loan Agreement with Subsidiary

On March 21, 2022, Franklin Wireless Corp. (the “Company”) entered into a Loan Agreement with Franklin Technology Incorporation, a Republic of Korea corporation (“FTI”), under which the Company agreed to loan US$10,000,000 to FTI. The Company owns a majority of the outstanding equity of FTI. FTI’s primary business is providing design and development services to the Company for our wireless products. As part of the loan transaction, FTI delivered a $10 million Promissory Note to the Company (the “Note”).

The purpose of the loan is to allow FTI to purchase a facility in South Korea to house its operations, and to provide it with additional working capital. The purchase of such a facility with the loan proceeds is subject to the Company’s reasonable approval. Upon acquisition of the facility, FTI is required to grant the Company a mortgage on it to secure payment of the Note.

The Note is for a term of five years, provides for annual payments of interest at 2% per annum, and is due and payable upon maturity. The Note and Loan Agreement include customary provisions for default and acceleration upon default, and a default interest rate of 7% per annum.

International Tariffs

We believe that our products are currently exempt from international tariffs upon import from our manufacturers to the United States. If this were to change at any point, a tariff of 10%-25% of the purchase price would be imposed. If such tariffs are imposed, they could have a materially adverse effect on sales and operating results.

Customer Indemnification

Under purchase orders and contracts for the sale of our products we may provide indemnification to our customers for potential intellectual property infringement claims for which we may have no corresponding recourse against our third-party licensors. This potential liability, if realized, could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.