NOTE 14 - COMMITMENTS

Employment and Consulting Agreements

The Company has entered into employment and consulting agreements with certain of our officers, employees, and affiliates. For employees, payment and benefits would become payable in the event of termination by us for any reason other than cause, or upon change in control of our Company, or by the employee for good reason.

There is currently one employment agreement in place with the CEO, Steven Rotman. See compensation terms in Note 13.

During the six months ended June 30, 2022, the Company entered into various service agreements with consultants for financial reporting, advisory, and compliance services.

Litigation

From time to time, the Company is party to certain legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course and are incidental to our business. Future events or circumstances, currently unknown to management, will determine whether the resolution of pending or threatened litigation or claims will ultimately have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations in any future reporting periods.

EMA Financial

On February 19, 2019, EMA Financial, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the Company. The lawsuit alleged various breaches of an underlying convertible promissory note and stock purchase agreement and sought four claims for relief: (i) specific performance to enforce a stock conversion and contractual obligations; (ii) breach of contract; (iii) permanent injunction to enforce the stock conversion and contractual obligations; and (iv) legal fees and costs of the litigation. The complaint was filed with a motion seeking: (i) a preliminary injunction seeking an immediate resolution of the case through the stock conversion; (ii) a consolidation of the trial with the preliminary injunctive hearing; and (iii) summary judgment on the first and third claims for relief.

The Company filed an opposition to the motion and upon oral argument the motion for injunctive relief was denied. The Court issued a decision permitting a motion for summary judgment to proceed and permitted the Company the opportunity to supplement its opposition papers together with the plaintiff who was also provided opportunity to submit reply papers. On April 5, 2019, the Company filed the opposition papers as well as a motion to dismiss the first and third causes of action in the complaint. On March 13, 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion dismissing the first and third claims for relief and denied the motion for summary judgment as moot.

The Company subsequently filed an amended answer with counterclaims. The affirmative defenses if granted collectively preclude the relief sought. In addition, Vystar filed counterclaims asserting: (a) violation of 10(b)(5) of the Securities and Exchange Act; (b) violation of Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act (failure to register as a broker-dealer); (c) pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, the Company requests the Court to declare: (i) pursuant to Delaware law, the underlying agreements are unconscionable; (ii) the underlying agreements are unenforceable and/or portions are unenforceable, such as the liquidated damages sections; (iii) to the extent the agreement is enforceable, Vystar in good faith requests the Court to declare the legal fee provisions of the agreements be mutual (d) unjust enrichment; (e) breach of contract (in the alternative); and (f) attorneys’ fees.

On June 10, 2020, EMA filed a motion for summary judgment as to its remaining claims for relief and a motion to dismiss the Company’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Company opposed the motion on July 10, 2020, and the same was fully submitted to the Court on July 28, 2020. On March 29, 2021, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion. Specifically, the Court granted that part of the motion seeking summary judgment and dismissal on the Company’s affirmative defense and counterclaim regarding Sections 15(a)/29(b) of the Exchange Act. Two weeks later the Company filed a motion for reconsideration as to the dismissal portion of the order, or, for the alternative, a motion for certification for the right to file a petition to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and certification. Subsequently, fact discovery has been completed and on June 24, 2022, the parties submitted competing motions for summary judgment.

EMA seeks summary judgment on its breach of contract and attorneys’ fees claims, specifically seeking damages in the amount of $1,820,000 with 24% interest premised on the argument it was entitled to effectuate a January 15 and February 5, 2019, notices of conversions. EMA further seeks to dismiss Vystar’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Conversely, Vystar filed its motion for summary judgment seeking an order to dismiss the EMA complaint on the grounds: (i) the underlying note was satisfied on December 11, 2018; and (ii) EMA, through multiple breaches of the note, over-converted the note by 36,575,555 shares equating to a request of damages against EMA and in favor of Vystar for $4,802,000, with interest accruing at 24%, and attorneys’ fees. The briefing by the parties was fully submitted on July 29, 2022, and we now await a decision by the Court.

Payment of Wages Actions

On March 13, 2020, Robert LaChapelle, a former employee of Rotmans Furniture, the Company’s majority owned subsidiary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Rotmans and two of its prior owners (including Steve Rotman, President of the Company) in the Worcester Superior Court alleging non-payment of overtime pay and Sunday premium pay pursuant to the Massachusetts Blue Laws (Ch. 136), the Massachusetts Overtime Law (Chapter 151, § 1A), and the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law (Chapter 149 §§148 and 150). Specifically, LaChapelle has alleged that Rotmans failed to pay him and other sales people who were paid on a commission-only basis overtime pay at a rate of least 1.5 times the basic minimum wage or premium pay (also at 1.5 times the basic minimum wage) for hours they worked on Sundays. The parties settled with the named Plaintiffs, Robert LaChapelle and certain other employees, each on an individual basis, for a de minimus amount which was paid in March 2021. Plaintiffs’ counsel then filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint with prejudice. The settlement is included in operating expenses in the accompanying financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020. On May 21, 2021, one former and one current employee of Rotmans filed suit in the Worcester District Court on substantially the same allegations as LaChapelle. In January 2022, the parties settled for a similarly immaterial amount and a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice was filed in June 2022.

Stock Subscription Payable

At June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company recorded $2,610,589 and $1,247,549, respectively, of stock subscription payable related to common stock to be issued. The following summarizes the activity of stock subscription payable during the period ended June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021:

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITY OF STOCK SUBSCRIPTION PAYABLE

As of June 30, 2022, Preferred Class B and common shares to be issued totaled 162,755 and 102,576,998, respectively.