NanoVibronix Inc

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in certain claims and litigation arising out of the ordinary course and conduct of business. Management assesses such claims and, if it considers that it is probable that an asset had been impaired or a liability had been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, provisions for loss are made based on management’s assessment of the most likely outcome.

On February 26, 2021, Protrade Systems, Inc. (“Protrade”) filed a Request for Arbitration (the “Request”) with the International Court of Arbitration (the “ICA”) of the International Chamber of Commerce alleging we were in breach of an Exclusive Distribution Agreement. Protrade alleges, in part, that we breached the Exclusive Distribution Agreement by discontinuing the manufacture of the DV0057 Painshield MD device in favor of an updated 10-100-001 Painshield MD device. Protrade claims damages estimated at $3 million.

On March 15, 2022, the arbitrator issued a final award, which, determined that (i) the Company had the right to terminate the Exclusive Distribution Agreement; (ii) we did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing with regard to the Exclusive Distribution Agreement; and (iii) we did not breach any confidentiality obligations to Protrade. Nevertheless, the arbitrator determined that we did not comply with the obligation to supply Protrade with a year’s supply of patches, and awarded Protrade $1,500,250, which consists of $1,432,000 for “lost profits” and $68,250 as reimbursement of arbitration costs, on the grounds that we allegedly failed to supply Protrade with certain patches utilized by users of DV0057 Painshield MD device. The arbitrator based the decision on the testimony of Protrade’s president who asserted that a user would use in excess of 33 patches per each device. We believe that the number of patches per device alleged by Protrade is grossly inflated, and that these claims were not properly raised before the arbitrator. Accordingly, on April 13, 2022, we submitted an application for the correction of the award which the arbitrator denied on June 22, 2022.

On April 5, 2022, Protrade filed a Petition with the Supreme Court of New York Nassau County seeking to confirm the award. On April 13, 2022, we submitted an application to the ICA seeking to correct an error in the award based on the evidence that we only sold 2-3 reusable patches per device contrary to the 33 reusable patches claimed by Protrade. The same arbitrator who issued the award denied the application.

On July 22, 2022, we filed a cross-motion seeking to vacate arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded her authority, that the award was procured by fraud, and that the arbitrator failed to follow procedures established by New York law. In particular, we averred in our motion that Protrade’s witness made false statements in arbitration, and that the arbitrator resolved a claim that was never raised by Protrade and that has no factual basis.

On November 9, 2022, we filed a motion to re-argue and renew our cross-motion to vacate the arbitration decision based on newer information that was not available during the initial hearing. On the same day, we also filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division, Second Department. On March 21, 2023, the Court denied the motion to re-argue and renew.

On July 10, 2023, we filed our appeal with the Appellate Division, Second Department. The appeal was fully submitted on October 30, 2023.

As of June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Company accrued the amount of the arbitration award to Protrade of approximately $2.0 million for both periods, including interest which is classified in “Other accounts payable and accrued expenses.”

There are no other material proceedings in which any of our directors, officers, affiliates, any registered or beneficial stockholder of more than 5% of our Common Stock, or any associate of any of the foregoing is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.