Litigation

On April 24, 2018, EMA Financial, LLC, a New York limited liability company (“EMA”), commenced an action against us, styled EMA Financial, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Plaintiff, against nFUSZ, Inc., Defendant, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, case number 1:18-cv-03634-NRB. The Complaint sets forth four causes of action and seeks relief consisting of: (1) money damages, (2) injunctive relief, (3) liquidated damages; and declaratory relief. All of the claims stem from our refusal to honor EMA’s exercise notice in connection with a common stock purchase warrant that we had granted to it. We believe EMA’s allegations are entirely without merit.

The circumstances giving rise to the dispute are as follows: On or about December 5, 2017, we issued a warrant to EMA as part of the consideration we were required to provide in connection with a contemporaneous convertible loan EMA made to us. The loan, which was evidenced by a convertible Note, was for a term of one year. Our refusal to honor the warrant exercise notice was due to our good faith belief that EMA’s interpretation of the cashless exercise provision of the warrant was, inter alia, (i) contrary to our direct conversations and agreements made with EMA prior to, and during the preparation of the loan and warrant agreements; (2) wholly inconsistent with industry norms, standards, and practices; (3) was contrary to the cashless exercise method actually adopted by EMA’s co-lender in the same transaction; and (4) was the result of a single letter mistakenly transposed in the cashless exercise formula drafted by EMA which if adopted, would result in a gross and unintended windfall in favor of EMA and adverse to us. Moreover, as set forth in our response to EMA’s allegations, EMA’s interpretation of the cashless exercise provision would have resulted in it being issued more shares of our common stock than it would have received if it exercised the warrant for cash (instead of less), and more than the amount of shares reflected on the face of the warrant agreement itself. The loan underlying the transaction was repaid, in full, approximately three months after it was issued, on March 8, 2018, together with all accrued interest, prior to any conversion or attempted conversion of the Note.

On July 20, 2018, we filed an Answer to the Complaint, along with certain Affirmative Defenses, as well as Counterclaims seeking, inter alia, to void the entire transaction for violation of New York’s criminal usury laws and, alternatively, for reformation of the warrant conversion formula set forth in the Warrant Agreement so as to be consistent with the parties’ intent and custom and practice in the industry. We intend to vigorously defend the action, as well as vigorously prosecute our counterclaims against EMA. The action is still pending.

We know of no other material pending legal proceedings to which we or any of our subsidiaries is a party or to which any of our assets or properties, or the assets or properties of any of our subsidiaries, are subject and, to the best of our knowledge, no adverse legal activity is anticipated or threatened. In addition, we do not know of any such proceedings contemplated by any governmental authorities.

Operating Leases

The Company leased office space in West Hollywood, California under an operating lease which provided for monthly rent of $6,700 through July 31, 2016. In June 2016, the Company moved its offices to a new location in Los Angeles, California under a new operating lease which provides for monthly rent of $2,950 through June 25, 2017. In June 2017, the Company moved its offices to larger space within the same complex under a new operating lease which provides for monthly rent of $4,743 through April 30, 2018. The Company had total rent expense for the year ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 of $51,734 and $68,328, respectively which is recorded as part of General and Administrative expenses in the Statement of Operations.

Employment Agreements

On November 21, 2014, we entered into an executive employment agreement effective November 1, 2014 with Rory J. Cutaia, our president, chief executive officer, secretary and treasurer. Pursuant to the terms of the employment agreement, we have agreed to pay Mr. Cutaia an annual salary of $325,000, which will be increased each year by 10%, subject to the annual review and approval of our board of directors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a mandatory increase of not less than $100,000 per annum will be implemented on our company achieving EBITDA break-even. In addition to the base salary, Mr. Cutaia will be eligible to receive an annual bonus in an amount up to $325,000, based upon the attainment of performance targets to be established by our board of directors, in its discretion.

The initial term of the employment agreement is five years, and, upon expiration of the initial five-year term, it may be extended for additional one-year periods on ninety days prior notice.

In the event that: (i) Mr. Cutaia’s employment is terminated without cause, (ii) Mr. Cutaia is unable to perform his duties due to a physical or mental condition for a period of 120 consecutive days or an aggregate of 180 days in any 12 month period; or (iii) Mr. Cutaia voluntarily terminates the employment agreement upon the occurrence of a material reduction in his salary or bonus, a reduction in his job title or position, or the required relocation of Mr. Cutaia to an office outside of a 30 mile radius of Los Angeles, California, Mr. Cutaia will:

In addition, Mr. Cutaia will have any and all of his unvested stock options immediately vest, with full registration rights; and any unearned and unpaid bonus compensation, expense reimbursement, and all accrued vacation, personal sick days, etc., be deemed earned, vested and paid immediately. As a condition to receiving the foregoing, Mr. Cutaia will be required to execute a release of claims, and a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement having a term which is the same as the term of the monthly severance payments described above.

Litigation

We do not have any pending litigation. On September 19, 2016 an action captioned Multicore Technologies, an Indian Corporation, plaintiff, v. Rocky Wright, an individual, bBooth, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Blabeey, Inc, a Nevada corporation, defendants was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-7026 DSF (AJWx).

On September 15, 2017, the litigation was dismissed by plaintiff as against us in exchange for our guarantee of two payments to be made by another defendant in the action totaling $5,000, for which we have a right of off-set against any sums we may owe such party for services currently being rendered to us by such party. That defendant made the two payments and we have no further obligations, actual or contingent in this matter.

We know of no material proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholder is a party adverse to our company or any of our subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to our company or any of our subsidiaries.