U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

 

On October 7, 2016, the Company received a complaint, Wang et al v. Cool Technologies, Inc. et al, filed on July 28, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) Civil docket #1:16-CV-04101-RRM-PK against the Company and Timothy Hassett, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, alleging damages of $1,100,000 for inter alia breach of contract for failing to register shares sold to the Plaintiffs in February and March 2014.

 

On March 30, 2017, the Company and Timothy Hassett, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, requested leave of the court to move to dismiss the matter, on both Substantive and Jurisdictional grounds.  On April 13, 2017, the Honorable Roslynn R. Mauskopf granted leave to renew the Company’s March 30, 2017 request for a pre-motion conference after the initial conference before Magistrate Judge Kuo. At the initial conference, Corporate counsel informed the court that the Company, in fact, filed a registration statement for said shares in July 2014 and the Warrants were in the possession of Plaintiff Gary Zse Kong J.D. and located on his computer and printed at his office in the Law Offices of Gary Park. Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint and directed plaintiff Gary Sze Kong to preserve all computer and other records which may still be at the Law Offices of Gary Park. Defendants were also granted leave to subpoena such records if they are no longer under the control of Plaintiff Kong. On June 30^th, Plaintiff amended their complaint inter alia admitting that the Company filed the registration statement with the SEC. On August 7, 2017, Corporate Counsel requested leave for a pre-motion conference to move to dismiss the matter.

 

On March 27, 2018, a Subpoena was issued and served upon the Law Offices of Gary S. Park P.C. On April 3, 2018 counsel for Plaintiffs withdrew and were replaced by Mr. Sang Joon Sim, Esq. of Sim & Record, LLP which shares an address with Mr. Park’s law offices.  On April 3, 2018 plaintiffs obtained new counsel. On May 31, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement and on July 3, 2018 the Honorable Judge Mauskopf ordered the matter dismissed with prejudice without costs to either party. On July 9, 2018, the Order was entered dismissing the matter.

 

From time to time, Cool Technologies may be a party to other legal proceedings. Management currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters, and after consideration of amounts accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flow.

 

Securities and Exchange Commission Settlement

 

On September 20, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved an offer to settle the enforcement proceedings against the Company pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

These proceedings arose out of the violation of the Regulation S-X requirement that interim financial statements filed as part of a Form 10-Q be reviewed by an independent public accounting firm prior to filing.

 

On three occasions, specifically, May 20, 2013, August 19, 2013 and August 22, 2016, Cool Technologies filed Form 10-Qs that contained financial statements that were not reviewed by an independent public accounting firm.  In two cases, the Company properly disclosed that the 10Q’s were “unaudited and unreviewed” as set forth by the guidance in the Division of Corporation Finance Financial Reporting Manual Section 4410.3 and in each case, the Company subsequently filed a restated and amended Form 10-Q/A that complied with the Interim Review Requirement. In no instance were the filings ever subjected to audit challenge.

Pursuant to the enforcement proceeding instituted by the SEC, the Company settled for a fine of $75,000 and agreed to cease and desist from any future violations of Sections 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13a-13 thereunder, and Rule 8-03 of Regulation S-X.

 

From time to time, Cool Technologies may be a party to other legal proceedings. Management currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters, and after consideration of amounts accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flow.