SurgePays Inc
For the period ended Jun 30, 2024. Filed Aug 13, 2024.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Jun 30, 2024 · Filed Aug 13, 2024
Extracted filing text, with the paragraph anchors used by the comparison.
See the whole filing, with its images and exhibitsContents
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures
Under the PCAOB standards, a control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit the attention by those responsible for oversight of the company’s financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). Our management has determined that, as of June 30, 2024, the Company’s disclosure controls are effective, but the Company lacks segregation of duties similar to other companies our size.
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION
From time to time, we may be engaged in various lawsuits and legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business. Except as described below, we are currently not aware of any legal proceedings the ultimate outcome of which, in our judgment based on information currently available, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
The following is a summary of threatened, pending, asserted or unasserted claims against us or any of our wholly owned subsidiaries for which there have been material developments since December 31, 2023.
| (1) | Juno Financial v. AATAC and Surge Holdings Inc. AND Surge Holdings Inc. v. AATAC; Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, Case # 20-CA-2712 DIV A: Breach of Contract, Account Stated and Open Account claims against Surge by a factoring company. Surge has filed a cross-complaint against defendant AATAC for Breach of Contract, Account Stated, Open Account and Common Law Indemnity. The case remains in discovery but has been inactive for some time. Following analysis by our litigation counsel stating that there is a good defense, management has decided that a reserve is not necessary. The case remains on the docket and has no court dates set at this time. |
| (2) | On December 17, 2021, Ambess Enterprises, Inc. v SurgePays, Inc., Blair County Pa. case number 2021 GN 3222. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and prays for damages of approximately $73,000, plus fees, costs and interest. Litigation counsel is managing the motion practice and discovery process. The case was settled and dismissed in 2023 for $60,000, which has been recorded as a component of general and administrative expenses. |
| (3) | Blue Skies Connections, LLC, and True Wireless, Inc. v. SurgePays, Inc., et. al.: In the District Court of Oklahoma County, OK, CJ-2021-5327, filed on December 13, 2021. Plaintiffs’ petition alleges breach of a Stock Purchase Agreement by SurgePays, SurgePhone Wireless, LLC, and Kevin Brian Cox (“Defendants”), and makes other allegations related to SurgePays’ consulting work with Jonathan Coffman, formerly a True Wireless employee. Blue Skies alleged the Defendants are in violation of their non-competition and non-solicitation agreements related to the sale of True Wireless from SurgePays to Blue Skies. Defendants filed various motions with the Court demonstrating Oklahoma state law does not recognize non-compete agreements and non-solicitation agreements in the manner alleged by Plaintiffs, and the Court granted these motions, finding the non-solicitation and non-competition clauses in the Stock Purchase Agreement void as a matter of Oklahoma law. The matter continues in the discovery process with other dispositive motions pending. Mr. Coffman is no longer working for True Wireless. An attempt at mediation in July, 2022 did not achieve a settlement. The petition requests injunctive relief, general damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs for alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, and fraud. Plaintiffs have made a written demand for damages and the parties continue to discuss a potential resolution. This matter is an anti-competitive attempt by Blue Skies and True Wireless to damage SurgePays, SurgePhone, and Cox. Written discovery is winding down and depositions began in the third quarter of 2023 and are expected to continue in 2024. The case is currently set for trial in January 2025. |
| In the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the 30th Judicial District at Memphis, Docket # CT-3219-23. On August 8, 2023, a complaint was filed by SurgePays for breach of a promissory note by Blue Skies Connections, LLC. The note at issue is dated June 14, 2021, and requires Blue Skies Connections to repay the principal sum of $176,850.56, by monthly payments of $7,461.37 commencing on June 1, 2023. Blue Skies Connections has failed to make any payments due under the terms of the note, and this breach entitles SurgePays to demand payment of the entire amount of the note together with all accrued interest. Blue Skies Connections has responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, a Motion to Stay, taking the position that, under the prior suit pending doctrine, the subject promissory note is subject to the prior litigation instituted by Blue Skies Connections against SurgePays, styled Skies Connections, LLC and True Wireless, Inc. v. SurgePays, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2021-5327, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Counsel for Blue Skies Connections has requested that Surge Pays either voluntarily dismiss the subject action or agree to stay the subject action until conclusion of the Oklahoma litigation. Surge Pays is presently reviewing and considering its options. | |
|---|---|
| (4) | Robert Aliotta and Steve Vasquesz, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a Surge Logics, filed January 4, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-00042. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act (FTSA) based on telephone solicitations allegedly made by or on behalf of SurgePays, Inc. Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and seek certification of a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. Defendants intend to vigorously defend the action however most similar cases are eventually resolved by an out-of-court settlement. A Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims has been entered into in April 2024 and a Dismissal Order was entered by the Court on April 30, 2024. |
| (5) | SurgePays, Inc. et al. v. Fina et al., Case No. CJ-2022-2782, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs SurgePays, Inc. and Kevin Brian Cox initiated this case against its former officer Mike Fina, his companies Blue Skies Connections, LLC, True Wireless, Inc., Government Consulting Solutions, Inc., Mussell Communications LLC, and others. This case also arises from the June 2021 transaction by which SurgePays sold True Wireless to Blue Skies. During the litigation of CJ-2021-5327 described above, SurgePays learned information that showed Mike Fina breached his duties owed to True Wireless during his employment and consulting work for True Wireless prior to SurgePays’ sale of True Wireless to Blue Skies. SurgePays alleges that Mike Fina conspired with the other defendants to damage True Wireless thereby harming the value of the company and causing its eventual sale at a greatly reduced price. SurgePays asserts claims for (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) fraud; (iv) tortious interference; and (v) unjust enrichment. At this stage, no defendant has asserted a counterclaim against SurgePays. SurgePays filed a Second Amended Petition on January 27, 2023. Defendants Fina, Blue Skies, True Wireless, and Government Consulting Solutions filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 10, 2023. On June 29, 2023, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, ruling the claims asserted are “derivative” and could only be asserted by the True Wireless entity now owed by Blue Skies. The Court rejected SurgePays’ request to certify this ruling for immediate appeal. Defendant Misty Garrett filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the same relief as the Motion to Dismiss granted by the Court. Upon granting this Motion, the Court also ruled the “derivative” claim issue could be certified for immediate appeal upon entry of the Court’s order, which is pending. Defendants Rob Rowlen and Terracom, LLC remain as defendants in the case after answering the Second Amended Petition. It is SurgePays’ intent to appeal the Court’s dismissal of Fina, Blue Skies, True Wireless, Government Consulting Solutions, and Misty Garrett, and to continue prosecuting the case against the other Defendants. At this stage, no attempts at settlement have been made. |
| (6) | Consumer Attorney Marketing Group, LLC v. LogicsIQ, Inc. and SurgePays, Inc. On February 13, 2024, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Case No. 24 ST CV 03653, Consumer Attorney Marketing Group, LLC (“CAMG”) filed a complaint naming SurgePays, Inc. (the “Company”) a defendant and alleging claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment and express and implied indemnity. The complaint demands that defendants indemnify CAMG for any damages or losses that CAMG may incur in the case Robert Aliotta, et al. v. SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a SurgeLogics, Case No. 23 C 00042, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. CAMG’s claims against the Company are solely based upon theories of participatory and vicarious liability. A Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims has been entered into in April 2024 and the parties await a Dismissal Order to be entered by the Court. |
The text of this filing, as the company filed it with the SEC, without its images or exhibits. This is not investment advice.