NOTE 12 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

In October 2019, the Company relocated to a new location within the same city and entered into a month-to-month lease. During the year ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, lease expense was comprised of the following:

Employment Agreements

On July 1, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the 2019/2020 salary for Mike Tomas, Chief Executive Officer, for $750,000 per year, beginning July 1, 2019 with an incentive bonus ranging from $150,000 to $500,000. In 2020, the Board of Directors approved a bonus of $500,000 and options to acquire 20,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for ten years with four-year vesting and a cashless exercise provision. The cash bonus may be paid in the form a six-month promissory note bearing interest at 5% per annum. There were no salary increases or bonuses issued in 2021.

Royalty Agreement / Middle East

On November 9, 2016, the Company entered into an Intellectual Property License Agreement whereby the Company granted High Rise Group Company the exclusive right to the Company’s intellectual property (as defined) for the licensed use and development in Kuwait and other GCC/Middle East countries for 25 years in exchange for a payment of $75,000 and a 5% royalty generated under the agreement. The licensing agreement is recorded as deferred revenue and amortized over the term of the agreement. The carrying balance as of December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $59,500 and $62,500, respectively.

The intent is for U.S. Stem Cell Middle East to offer regenerative treatment options to patients, based on U.S. Stem Cell, Inc. products and technologies like MyoCell™. To date, the first clinic in Kuwait City has been completed but has not begun operations as High Rising Group has not yet been able to secure regulatory approvals to operate.

Litigation

On September 17, 2015, a product liability lawsuit was filed in Broward County, specifically Patsy Bade v. Bioheart, Inc. US Stem Cell Clinics LLC, Alejandro Perez, ARNP, and Shareen Greenbaum, M.D., and on November 30, 2015, a product liability lawsuit was filed in Broward County, specifically Elizabeth Noble v. Bioheart, Inc. US Stem Cell Clinics LLC, Alejandro Perez, ARNP, and Shareen Greenbaum, M.D. During the year ended December 31, 2016, both matters settled by the Company’s insurance policy with no additional cost to the Company, except for the obligation to pay the insurance company deductible of $100,000, of which $11,000 was paid in fiscal 2017. The remaining amount due under this settlement is $26,600 and $28,850 as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, and is included in accounts payable.

On July 27, 2020, Brenda Leonhardt filed a lawsuit against U.S. Stem Cell, Inc., Mike Tomas, Dr. William P. Murphy, Jr., Richard T. Spencer, III, Mark Borman, Dr. Samuel S. Ahn, Charles Hart, Sheldon T. Anderson, Greg Knutson, and Kristin Comella in Broward County Court, Case No. CACE-10-012095. The lawsuit alleges breach of a settlement agreement, breach of contract with respect to failure to make a balloon payment under a promissory note, and several tort theories such as misrepresentation and fraudulent transfer. The Company denies most of the allegations in the lawsuit and moved to dismiss almost all of the claims. The motions to dismiss was recently denied. U.S. Stem Cell, Inc. does note that it provided a promissory note to Ms. Leonhardt, which has not been fully satisfied.

The Company, as one of the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release (the “Agreement”) dated June 3, 2019 related to certain medical procedures. Without admitting any liability, and as part of that Agreement, the Company agreed to provide a five-year 5.25% unsecured promissory note, dated June 15, 2019, in the principal amount of $500,000, payable in monthly increments of $5,000 per month, with a final balloon payment due on June 15, 2024. Accordingly, the Company recognized Pre-litigation expense of $500,000. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the remaining carrying value of the note was $413,239 and $450,477, respectively. At present, the Company is delinquent one payment and, if not cured, would be considered in default of the promissory note underlying the Agreement.

On February 10, 2021, as part of a settlement agreement, the Company transferred its entire member interest in U.S. Stem Cell Clinic, LLC to Dr. Kristin Comella as settlement for $100,000 of accrued interest owed to Dr. Comella (See Note 5, 6 and 7).

The Company is subject at times to other legal proceedings and claims, which arise in the ordinary course of its business. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters should not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. There was no outstanding litigation as of December 31, 2021 other than that described above.

Government Claim

On May 9, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an injunctive action, specifically United States of America v. U.S. Stem Clinic, LLC, U.S. Stem Cell, Inc., Kristin C. Comella, and Theodore Gradel. The Complaint alleges, among other matters that the defendants manufacture “stromal vascular fraction” (SVF) products from patient adipose (fat) tissue, which the companies then market as stem cell-based treatments, and which U.S. Stem Cell Clinic, LLC administers to patients, without first obtaining what the government alleges are necessary FDA approvals. Although Theodore Gradel was initially listed as a defendant, he subsequently entered into a consent agreement and is no longer party to this case.

The U.S. and the defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment, each asking for a ruling in its favor. On June 3, 2019, the Court entered an order granting Summary Judgment for the government and denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order focused on the defendants’ actions in providing and marketing SVF therapy. In an order dated June 4, 2019, the Court granted the defendants’ request to allow it the opportunity to work out the language of the form of injunction with the government, and if unsuccessful, to provide a status report to the Court by June 14, 2019, outlining areas of disagreement. The Court further ordered that the defendants (U.S. Stem Clinic, LLC, U.S. Stem Cell, Inc., and Kristin C. Comella) ‘not sell, provide or otherwise engage in any SVF therapy or any other activities to be regulated by the FDA as explained in the Court’s Order on the Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment.” On June 25, 2019, the Court entered an Order of Permanent Injunction, generally enjoining the defendants with respect to the SVF Product and requiring other actions. The Company filed an appeal on August 23, 2019 and attended oral argument on January 13, 2021. On June 2, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court ruled to affirm lower courts’ judgement. The Company is not able to predict the duration, scope, results, or consequences of the U.S. Department of Justice actions and final rulings and management is assessing its options on a going forward basis. The Company, in having divested certain equipment and other assets and assigning its lease, has and will continue to experience a decrease in revenues as the Company both maintains the remainder of the business and transitions into similar or unrelated business opportunities as determined by management. However, management is not able to predict the duration, scope, results, or consequences of the summary judgment and any transition of the business plan.

After the Court’s issuance of the Order of Permanent Injunction, the Company has received demand letters for compensation from persons who store their SVF Product and/or other tissue product with the tissue bank (several of the persons have requested refunds of the monies paid to the tissue bank and one person has requested a full refund of monies paid to an altogether separate company due to her not receiving the full amount of treatments she requested; such requests for compensation, to date, have not been material) and requests that the Company preserve cells in the Company’s possession. The Company sought guidance from the Court, which entered an order generally staying the requirement to destroy any SVF Product, pending a decision on the Company’s appeal. However, that appeal has now been concluded and the stay order is no longer in place.