ENvue Medical, Inc.

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.

Protrade Proceeding

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 the Company is in breach of an Exclusive Distribution Agreement dated March 7, 2019 (the “Agreement”) between Protrade and the Company. Protrade alleges, in part, that the Company has breached the 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. The Company vigorously defended the claims asserted by Protrade.

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) the Company did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing with regard to the Exclusive Distribution Agreement; and (iii) the Company did not breach any confidentiality obligations to Protrade. Nevertheless, the arbitrator determined that the Company 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 the Company 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. The Company believes 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, the Company 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, the Company submitted an application to the ICA seeking to correct an error in the award based on the evidence that the Company 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, the Company 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, the Company averred in its 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, the Company filed a motion to re-argue and renew its cross-motion to vacate the arbitration decision based on newer information that was not available during the initial hearing. On the same day, the Company 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, the Company filed its appeal with the Appellate Division, Second Department. That appeal is now fully briefed. In February 2025, the Second Department informed counsel for the Company that the Second Department was beginning to process the appeal for calendaring.

On March 30, 2026, the Appellate Division of the Second Department issued a decision and order which affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County in its entirety and dismissed the appeal, stating inter alia that “NanoVibronix failed to establish that the arbitration award violated a strong public policy, was irrational, procured by fraud, or clearly exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator’s power”. It further held that NanoVibronix had not demonstrated that it had shown sufficient new facts to the court on the motion to renew. The decision was conclusory and did not analyze the facts as argued by NanoVibronix nor did it distinguish them specifically. The Company is currently reviewing the decision and considering its available alternatives.

As of December 31, 2025, and 2024, the Company accrued the amount of the arbitration award to Protrade of approximately $2.3 and $2.1 million, respectively, including interest which is classified in “Other accounts payable and accrued expenses”.

See also “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data - Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies,” which information is incorporated herein by reference, for a description of pending and recent litigation.