SurgePays, Inc.
For the period ended Jun 30, 2025. Filed Aug 13, 2025.
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, 2025 · Filed Aug 13, 2025
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, 2025, the Company’s disclosure controls are effective, but the Company lacks segregation of duties similar to other companies our size.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
During the period ended June 30, 2025, there were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting, which were identified in connection with our management’s evaluation required by paragraph (d) of rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act, that materially affected, or is reasonably likely to have a material effect, on our internal control over financial reporting.
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:.
| (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 Court dismissed the case with the agreement of the parties at a case management conference on September 12, 2024. |
| (2) | 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. 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. 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 dispositive 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. Defendants then filed additional dispositive motions on Plaintiffs’ claims in tort and equity, which the Court granted in part based on its prior rulings. Plaintiffs took the position the Court granting Defendants’ dispositive motions on these material issues only leaves partial contract claims that are inextricably intertwined with the remaining claims and defenses. Plaintiffs sought a certified interlocutory appeal of the Court’s orders. On March 10, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs’ Petition for Certiorari to review the certified interlocutory appeal. The case will now proceed in the district court on the parties’ remaining claims. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which will be decided in Fall of 2025. Presently, there is no trial date. An attempt at mediation in July 2022 did not achieve a settlement. Any further settlement discussions will occur in the context of Defendants having prevailed on the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims. |
| (3) | 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, which was granted by the Court. All claims against all parties have been adjudicated by the Court. SurgePays filed a Motion for New Trial, which was denied by the Court on February 20, 2025. SurgePays’ has filed an appeal of the Court’s dismissal of Fina, Blue Skies, True Wireless, Government Consulting Solutions, and summary judgment for Misty Garrett. At this stage, no attempts at settlement have been made. |
The text of this filing, as the company filed it with the SEC, without its images or exhibits. This is not investment advice.