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.

Board of Directors

The Company has committed an aggregate of $270,000 in annual compensation to its three independent board members commencing on the date the Company is listed on the NASDAQ. The members will serve on the board until the annual meeting for the year in which their term expires or until their successors have been elected and qualified.