On September 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) against the Company, Mr. Michery, and the Company’s predecessor, Mullen Technologies, Inc., premised on the same purported violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees and expenses.
David Gru v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.
On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff David Gru filed a complaint against Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc, David Michery, and Oleg Firer in the United States District Court Central District of California (Case No. 8:22-cv-976). The complaint alleges violation of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of claims made in the Hindenburg article. On June 16, 2022, the Company’s insurance company (AXIS) accepted coverage for this lawsuit. The Company has not been served with the complaint. The Company engaged King & Spaulding as defense counsel. On August 4, 2022, the court consolidated this action into the Schaub action (see above). As a result, the court ordered this matter to be administratively closed.
Ram Hari Khadka v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.
On June 23, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by Ram Hari Khadka, a stockholder, against the Company and its current directors, as defendants (the “Khadka Action”). The complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the defendants based on alleged disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement filed by the Company on June 10, 2022 (the “Proxy Statement”), relative to the vote at the Company’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders that was to be held on July 26, 2022 (the “2022 Stockholder Meeting”) seeking stockholder approval of issuance of shares under the Performance Stock Award Agreement (the “CEO Performance Award”) granted to David Michery, the Company’s chief executive officer, president and chairman of the board of directors. The complaint sought various remedies, including a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vote at the 2022 Stockholder Meeting to approve the issuance of shares for the CEO Performance Award.
The Company filed a supplement to the Proxy Statement on July 13, 2022 addressing the alleged disclosure claims to moot plaintiff’s claims in the Khadka Action. On August 5, 2022, the Chancery Court approved a stipulation under which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Khadka Action with prejudice as to itself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Chancery Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Proxy Supplement.
The Company subsequently agreed to pay $995,000 to plaintiff’s counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Action. The Chancery Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their reasonableness. A stipulation to that effect was filed on September 19, 2022.
Jeff Witt v. Mullen Automotive, Inc.
On August 1, 2022, Jeff Witt and Joseph Birbigalia, purported stockholders, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as a nominal defendant, Mr. Michery, Mr. Firer, and Company directors Ignacio Novoa, Mary Winter, Kent Puckett, Mark Betor, William Miltner and Jonathan New (the “Witt Action”). This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, and violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Schaub Lawsuit. The Witt Lawsuit seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses.
Based upon information presently known to management, the Company believes that the potential liability from this claim, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. Therefore, no liability has been reflected on the condensed consolidated financial statements.
Hany Morsy v. David Michery, et al.