Commitements and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitements and Contingencies [Abstract]

COMMITEMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 8 – COMMITEMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

In March 2021, the company signed a five-year lease for a 13,000 square foot laboratory/office space in Tucson. The initial base rent was $6.7626 per rentable square foot for year one and escalated to $9.2009 per rentable square foot in year two. It is to further escalate to $11.4806 per rentable square foot in year three, $13.1740 per rentable square foot in year four and $14.9306 per rentable square foot in year five, in addition to certain operating expenses and taxes.

The company incurred lease expense for its operating leases of $148,526 which was included in general and administrative expenses in the statements of operation for the year ended December 31, 2022. During the year ended December 31, 2022, the company made cash lease payments in the amount of $112,613.

At December 31, 2022, we had approximately $143,000 in future minimum lease payments due in less than a year. The below table presents the future minimum lease payments due reconciled to lease liabilities.

	Operating Lease
For the fiscal years ending December 31, 2022:	$
2023		143,325
2024		168,577
2025		191,778
2026		66,536
Thereafter		-
Total undiscounted lease payments		570,216
Present value discount, less interest		63,029
Lease Liability	$	507,187

Guarantees

The company agrees to indemnify its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences arising as a result of the officers or directors serving in such capacity. The maximum amount of future payments that the company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. However, the company maintains a director’s and officer’s liability insurance policy that limits its exposure and enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result, it believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal because of its insurance coverage, and it has not recognized any liabilities for these agreements as of December 31, 2022 and 2021.

Litigation

On July 3, 2019, Gusrae, Kaplan & Nusbaum and its partner, Ryan Whalen filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, its directors, officers, attorneys and a consultant. The action alleged libel, securities fraud and related claims. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 24, 2019. On December 13, 2019, Gusrae Kaplan and Mr. Whalen filed an opposition to the company’s motion. On January 10, 2020, the company filed a reply brief. On August 5, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On January 15, 2021, the company filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Gusrae, Kaplan & Nusbaum and Ryan Whalen for malpractice and breach of New York Rules of Professional Conduct by both parties as former counsel to the company. On May 28, 2021, Gusrae, Kaplan & Nusbaum and Mr. Whalen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 25, 2021, the company filed an opposition to the motion. On July 13, 2021, Gusrae Kaplan & Nusbaum and Mr. Whalen filed their reply brief. On March 30, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman signed an order denying the motion of GKN and Mr. Whalen to dismiss the company’s claim for malpractice and for rescission of the shares-for-fees agreement under which GKN and Whalen received shares of the company’s common stock. The motion was partially granted as to the separate claim for violation of NYRPC 1.7 and 1.8 because the court found that it was duplicative of the malpractice claim. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. No trial date has been set.

On September 7, 2021, Gusrae Kaplan & Nusbaum and its partner Ryan Whalen filed a complaint in the New York Supreme Court against the company, its directors, officers, attorneys and a consultant, alleging a single claim for defamation per se based on the same conduct underlying their claim of libel in their voluntarily dismissed federal court action. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 29, 2021, to which Gusrae Kaplan & Nusbaum and Mr. Whalen filed an opposition on January 13, 2022, and the company filed its reply brief on February 17, 2022.

On May 23, 2022, the New York Supreme Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and Judge Hagler ruled from the bench, granting all defendants’, including Applied Energetics’, motions to dismiss the claim, in its entirety, with prejudice. While he noted that defendants’ arguments regarding the claim being time-barred and the court lacking personal jurisdiction over certain defendants may have merit, he elected not to rule on those issues as he believed it appropriate to reach the merits. The judge declined to award sanctions requested by the defendants in this claim. The plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the dismissal but did not file their actual appeal brief The plaintiffs have filed a notice of intent to appeal this dismissal but did not file their actual appeal brief within the required time.

As with any litigation, the company cannot predict the outcome with certainty, but the company expects to provide further updates on the status of the litigation as circumstances warrant.

We may, from time to time, be involved in legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business.