Employment Agreements

On December 20, 2019, we entered into an Executive Employment Agreement with Mr. Cutaia (the “Employment Agreement”), which terminates and replaces his original employment agreement dated November 1, 2014, as subsequently amended by an amendment dated October 30, 2019. The Employment Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of Mr. Cutaia’s employment. The Employment Agreement is for a four-year term, and can be extended for additional one-year periods. In addition to certain payments due to Mr. Cutaia upon termination of employment, the Employment Agreement contains customary non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions. Mr. Cutaia is entitled to an annual base salary of $430,000, which shall not be subject to reduction during the initial term, but will be subject to annual reviews and increases, if and as approved in the sole discretion of our Board, after it has received and reviewed advice from the Compensation Committee (who may or may not utilize the services of its outside compensation consultants, as it shall determine under the circumstances). In addition, Mr. Cutaia is eligible to receive performance-based cash and/or stock bonuses upon attainment of performance targets established by our Board in its sole discretion, after it has received and reviewed advice from the Compensation Committee (who may or may not utilize the services of its outside compensation consultants, as it shall determine under the circumstances). The Company shall make annual equity grants to Mr. Cutaia as determined by our Board in its sole discretion, after it has received and reviewed advice from the Compensation Committee (who may or may not utilize the services of its outside compensation consultants, as it shall determine under the circumstances). Finally, Mr. Cutaia is eligible for certain other benefits, such as health, vision, and dental insurance, life insurance, and 401(k) matching.

The Employment Agreement provides that Mr. Cutaia is entitled to the following severance package in the event he is “terminated without cause,” “terminated for good reason,” or “terminated upon permanent disability”: (i) monthly payments of $35,833 or such sum equal to his monthly base compensation at the time of the termination, whichever is higher, for a period of 36 months from the date of such termination and (ii) reimbursement for COBRA health insurance costs for 18 months from the date of such termination and, thereafter, reimbursement for health insurance costs for Mr. Cutaia and his family during the immediately subsequent 18-month period. In addition, all of Mr. Cutaia’s then-unvested RSAs or other awards will immediately vest, without restriction, and any unearned and unpaid bonus compensation, expense reimbursement, and all accrued vacation, personal, and sick days, and related items shall be deemed earned, vested, and paid immediately. For purposes of the Employment Agreement, “terminated without cause” means if Mr. Cutaia were to be terminated for any reason other than a discharge for cause or due to Mr. Cutaia’s death or permanent disability. For purposes of the Employment Agreement, “terminated for good reason” means the voluntary termination of the Employment Agreement by Mr. Cutaia if any of the following were to occur without his prior written consent, which consent cannot be unreasonably withheld considering our then-current financial condition, and, in each case, which continues uncured for 30 days following receipt by us of Mr. Cutaia’s written notice: (i) there is a material reduction by us in (A) Mr. Cutaia’s annual base salary then in effect or (B) the annual target bonus, as set forth in the Employment Agreement, or the maximum additional amount up to which Mr. Cutaia is eligible pursuant to the Employment Agreement; (ii) we reduce Mr. Cutaia’s job title and position such that Mr. Cutaia (A) is no longer our Chief Executive Officer; (B) is no longer our Chairman of the Board; or (C) is involuntarily removed from our Board; or (iii) Mr. Cutaia is required to relocate to an office location outside of Orange County, California, or outside of a 30-mile radius of Newport Beach, California. For purposes of the Employment Agreement, “terminated upon permanent disability” means if Mr. Cutaia were to be terminated because he is then unable to perform his duties due to a physical or mental condition for (i) a period of 120 consecutive days or (ii) an aggregate of 180 days in any 12-month period.

On July 29, 2020, the Compensation Committee approved a 3% salary increase for Mr. Cutaia resulting in an annual salary of $490,000.

Litigation

On April 24, 2018, EMA Financial, LLC, or EMA, commenced an action against the Company, styled as 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 set forth four causes of action and sought money damages, injunctive relief, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief related to the Company’s refusal to agree to EMA’s interpretation of a cashless exercise provision in a common stock warrant it granted to EMA in December 2017. The Company interposed several counterclaims, including a claim for reformation of the underlying agreements to reflect the Company’s interpretation of the cashless exercise provision. Both parties moved for summary judgment. On March 16, 2020, the United States District Court entered a decision agreeing with the Company’s position, denying EMA’s motion for declaratory judgement on its interpretation of the cashless exercise formula, and stating, inter alia, that “the Agreements read in their entirety reveal that nFUSZ, Inc.’s position regarding the proper cashless exercise formula is the only sensible one and that the cashless exercise formula must be enforced accordingly.” On December 22, 2020, the court entered a Memorandum and Order partly granting, and partly denying, EMA’s motion for summary judgment on damages, awarding damages only in respect to the value of the warrant shares EMA would have received if it had used the proper formula in its March 2018 warrant exercise notice, plus certain prejudgment interest and per diem interest. On January 21, 2021, the court entered a final judgment in favor of EMA, in the amount of $463,571.98. The court did not award EMA any attorneys’ fees or expenses. While the court ruled in the Company’s favor by dismissing the majority of EMA’s suit, the Company does not agree with the court’s finding that EMA’s March 28, 2018 notice of exercise was not defective. On February 17, 2021, the Company’s counsel filed a notice of appeal to appeal the court’s judgment to the United States District Court for the Second Circuit. EMA filed a notice of cross-appeal and a hearing or briefing for this case is scheduled in June 2021. The Company has established an appropriate reserve to pay for the approximately $464,000 judgment entered against it in this litigation.

The Company is currently in a dispute with a former employee of its predecessor bBooth, Inc. who has interposed a breach of contract claim in which he alleges that he is entitled to approximately $300,000 in unpaid bonus compensation from 2015. The Company does not believe his claims have any merit as they are contradicted by documentary evidence, and barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and barred by a release executed by the former employee when the Company purchased all of his shares of stock more than 4 years ago in January 2016. On February 9, 2021, the former employee’s counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against the Company. The Company does not believe the court will grant this motion and it has instructed its counsel to continue its efforts in seeking a dismissal of the former employee’s claims.

On July 9, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, styled SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896 (the “Hartmann Class Action”). The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, and alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the January 3, 2018, announcement by the Company of its agreement with Oracle America, Inc. The complaint sought unspecified costs and damages. The Company believes the complaint is without merit.

On May 15, 2020, we executed a binding Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit to settle that action and release the claims asserted therein, the terms of which were confidential and subject to several contingencies, including, without limitation, court approval. On October 27, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On February 18, 2021, the court entered a final order and judgment approving the class action settlement and dismissed the Hartmann Class Action with prejudice. The stipulation of settlement approved (the “Stipulation of Settlement”) by the court on February 18, 2021 provided for, amongst other things, a full and final release, settlement, and discharge of all claims arising from the Hartmann Class Action in consideration of the Company’s payment of a $640,000 settlement amount, which is payable over 12 months. Furthermore, amongst other things, the Stipulation of Settlement provided that (1) the Company denied each and all of the claims alleged by plaintiffs, (2) the Company denied any allegation of wrongdoing, fault, liability, violation of the law, or damage whatsoever arising out of its conduct, (3) the Company denied that it or any of its officers, directors, or employees made any material misstatements or omissions, (4) the Company maintained that it had a meritorious defense to all claims alleged in the Hartmann Class Action, and (5) the Company agreed that the basis of us entering into the Stipulation of Settlement was to avoid the uncertainties, burden, and expense of further litigation and to put the claims arising from the Hartmann Class Action to rest, finally and forever. The Company believes that the settlement of the Hartmann Class Action approved by the court is favorable to the Company and ultimately benefits its shareholders.

The Company has established an appropriate reserve to account for the $75,000 settlement of the Hartmann Class Action.

On September 27, 2019, a derivative action was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, styled Richard Moore, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Verb Technology Company, Inc., and Rory J. Cutaia, James P. Geiskopf, and Jeff Clayborne, Defendants, Case Number 2:19-CV-08393-AB-SS (the “Moore Derivative Action”). The Moore Derivative Action also arises out of the January 3, 2018, announcement by the Company of its agreement with Oracle America, Inc. The Moore Derivative Action alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets due to the costs associated with the defense of the above referenced class action complaint. The derivative complaint seeks a declaration that the individual defendants have breached their duties, unspecified damages, and certain purportedly remedial measures. The Company contends that the class action is without merit and as such, this derivative action, upon which it relies, is likewise without merit.

On November 5, 2020, the Company executed a binding settlement term sheet with the lead plaintiff in the derivative action to settle that action and release all claims asserted therein, the terms of which were confidential and subject to several contingencies, including, without limitation, court approval. On March 1, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the settlement of the Moore Derivative Action. The stipulation and agreement of settlement preliminarily approved (the “Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement”) by the court on March 1, 2021 provided for, amongst others things, a full and final release, settlement, and discharge of all claims arising from the Moore Derivative Action in consideration of the Company’s agreement to institute certain changes and/or modifications to its corporate governance and business ethics practices and plaintiff’s counsel receiving its attorneys’ fees and expenses, which amounted to $75,000. Furthermore, amongst other things, the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement preliminarily approved by the court provided that (1) the Company denied each and every claim alleged by plaintiff, and (2) the Company denied any allegation of wrongdoing, fault, and liability, (3) the Company denied committing any violation of the law or breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) the Company concluded that it is desirable that the Moore Derivative Action be settled on the terms and subject to the conditions of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to avoid the ongoing cost and distraction of litigation. The Company believes that the settlement of the Moore Derivative Action preliminarily approved by the court is favorable to the Company and ultimately benefits its shareholders. The court intends to set a hearing for the final approval of the settlement of the Moore Derivative Action approximately 60 days after March 1, 2021.

The Company knows of no material proceedings in which any of its directors, officers, or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholder is a party adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

The Company believes it has adequately reserved for all litigation within its financial statements.

Board of Directors

The Company has committed an aggregate of $450,000 in board fees to its five board members over the term of their appointment for services to be rendered. Board fees are accrued and paid monthly. The members will serve on the board until the annual meeting for the year in which their term expires or until their successors has been elected and qualified.

Total board fees expensed and paid in 2020 totaled $426,000. As of December 31, 2020, total board fees to be recognized in 2021 amounted to $450,000 and will be recognized once the service has been rendered.