NOTE 6 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal matters

From time to time, we may be involved in litigation or receive claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Other than discussed below, we are not currently a party to any other legal proceeding or are aware of claims that we believe would, if decided adversely, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or operating results. We also disclose any recent settlements and accruals taken in connection therewith, as of March 31, 2025.

SCS, LLC v. TLSS

On November 17, 2020, a former financial consultant to the Company, SCS, LLC, filed an action against the Company in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, captioned SCS, LLC v. Transportation and Logistics Systems, Inc. The case was assigned Case No. 50-2020-CA-012684.

In this action, SCS alleges that it entered into a renewable six-month consulting agreement with the Company dated September 5, 2019, and that the Company failed to make certain monthly payments due thereunder for the months of October 2019 through March 2020, summing to $42,000. The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment and account stated.

On February 9, 2021, the Company filed its answer, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Among other things, the Company avers that SCS’s claims are barred by its unclean hands and other inequitable conduct, including breach of its duties (i) to maintain the confidentiality of information provided to SCS and (ii) to work only in furtherance of the Company’s interests, not in furtherance of SCS’s own, and conflicting interests. The Company also avers, in its counterclaims, that SLS owes the Company damages in excess of the $42,000 sought in the main action because SLS was at least grossly negligent in any due diligence it undertook before recommending that the Company acquire Prime EFS LLC in June 2018. SCS filed a motion to strike TLSS’s defenses and counterclaims, and TLSS opposed that application. Those motions remain sub judice.

A two-day non-jury trial was held in this action in Palm Beach County, Florida, on April 20-21, 2022. However, at the end of the second day a mistrial was declared because SCS had not withdrawn its motion to strike and answered the counterclaims.

TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025 AND 2024

(Unaudited)

On July 20, 2023, SCS moved for summary judgment in this action. On July 27, 2023, the Company filed papers opposing the motion. On August 21, 2023, the court conferenced SCS’s motion for summary judgment and SCS’s motion to strike counterclaims and dismiss the counterclaims. The court indicated it would deny the first motion and grant the second motion. On September 5, 2023, the Company filed Amended Affirmative Defenses and an Amended Counterclaim. On October 2, 2023, SCS filed a motion to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim, but it did not file a motion to strike the Amended Affirmative Defenses. On October 3, 2023, the Company filed a motion to strike SCS’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim on the grounds that SCS’s motion was not filed within ten (10) days as required under Florida law. On July 19, 2024, the court denied SCS’s motion for summary judgment on all claims in its entirety.

In February 2025, the parties agreed to settle all claims in this matter and thereafter executed a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release effective on February 13, 2025. All asserted claims in this matter will be dismissed with prejudice upon the appropriate court filing and approval by the court.

Shareholder Derivative Action

On June 25, 2020, the Company was served with a putative stockholder derivative action filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Court”) captioned SCS, LLC, derivatively on behalf of Transportation and Logistics Systems, Inc. v. John Mercadante, Jr., Douglas Cerny, Sebastian Giordano, Ascentaur LLC and Transportation and Logistics Systems, Inc. The action has been assigned Case No. 2020-CA-006581.

The plaintiff in this action, SCS, alleges it is a limited liability company formed by a former chief executive officer and director of the Company, Lawrence Sands. The complaint alleges that between April 2019 and June 2020, the immediately prior chairman and chief executive officer of the Company, Mercadante, the former chief development officer of the Company, Cerny, and, since February 2020, the Company’s then restructuring consultant who is now chairman and chief executive officer of the Company, Giordano, breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company. Prior to becoming CEO, Giordano rendered his services to the Company through the final named defendant in the action, Ascentaur LLC.

The complaint alleges that Mercadante breached duties to the Company by, among other things, requesting, in mid-2019, that certain preferred equity holders, including SCS, convert their preferred shares into Company common stock in order to facilitate an equity offering by the Company and then not consummating that offering. The complaint also alleges that Mercadante and Cerny caused the Company to engage in purportedly wasteful and unnecessary transactions such as taking merchant cash advances (MCA) on disadvantageous terms. The complaint further alleges that Mercadante and Cerny “issued themselves over two million shares of common stock without consideration.” The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy and the appointment of a receiver or custodian for the Company.

Company management tendered the complaint to the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability carrier for defense and indemnity purposes, which coverage is subject to a $250,000 self-insured retention. Each of the individual defendants and Ascentaur LLC has advised that they vigorously deny each and every allegation of wrongdoing alleged in the complaint. Among other things, Mercadante asserts that he made every effort to consummate an equity offering in late 2019 and early 2020 and could not do so solely because of the Company’s precarious financial condition. Mercadante also asserts that he made clear to SCS and other preferred equity holders, before they converted their shares into common stock, that there was no guarantee the Company would be able to consummate an equity offering in late 2019 or early 2020. In addition, Mercadante and Cerny assert that they received equity in the Company on terms that were entirely fair to the Company and entered into MCA transactions solely because no other financing was available to the Company.

By order dated September 15, 2022, the Circuit Judge assigned to this case dismissed the original Complaint in the matter, finding (a) that SCS had failed to adequately allege it has standing and (b) that the complaint fails to adequately allege a cognizable claim. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning SCS could attempt to replead its claims.

On October 5, 2022, SCS filed an Amended Complaint in this action. By order dated December 19, 2022, the Circuit Judge assigned to this case once again dismissed the case, finding (a) that SCS still failed to adequately allege it has standing and (b) that the complaint still fails to adequately allege a cognizable claim. Once again, however, the dismissal was without prejudice.

On January 18, 2023, SCS filed a Second Amended Complaint in this action. All defendants once again moved to dismiss the pleading or in the alternative for summary judgment on it in their favor. The Court heard argument on that motion on March 9, 2023. On May 15, 2023, the Court issued a summary order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On June 1, 2023, all defendants moved for reconsideration of the May 15 order. On November 28, 2023, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On September 15, 2024, the defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Pleadings and to Preclude Plaintiff from Calling Any Witnesses or Introducing Any Exhibits at Trial to Plaintiff’s failure to (i) comply with the court’s Pretrial Order; and (ii) produce discovery.

In February 2025, the parties agreed to settle all claims in this matter and thereafter executed a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release effective on February 13, 2025. On February 20, 2025, pursuant to a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, the Court entered a final order of dismissal with prejudice and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Jose R. Mercedes-Mejia v. Shypdirect LLC, Prime EFS LLC et al.

On August 4, 2020, an action was filed against Shypdirect, Prime EFS and others in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Bergen County captioned Jose R. Mercedes-Mejia v. Shypdirect LLC, Prime EFS LLC et al. The case was assigned docket number BER-L-004534-20.

In this action, the plaintiff seeks reimbursement of his medical expenses and damages for personal injuries following an accident with a box truck leased by Shypdirect and subleased to Prime EFS and being driven by a Prime EFS employee, in which the plaintiff’s ankle was injured. Plaintiff has thus far transmitted medical bills exceeding $789,000. Prime EFS and Shypdirect demanded their vehicle liability carrier assume the defense of this action. To date, the carrier has not done so, allegedly because, among other reasons, the box truck was not on the list of insured vehicles at the time of the accident.

TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025 AND 2024

(Unaudited)

On November 9, 2020, Prime EFS and Shypdirect filed their answer to the complaint in this action and also filed a third-party action against the insurance company in an effort to obtain defense and indemnity for this action.

On May 21, 2021, Prime EFS and Shypdirect also filed an action in the Supreme Court, State of New York, Suffolk County (the “Suffolk County Action”), seeking defense and indemnity for this claim from the insurance brokerage, TCE/Acrisure LLC, which sold the County Hall insurance policy to Shypdirect.

On August 19, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to name four (4) additional parties as defendants – TLSS, Shyp CX, Inc., Shyp FX, Inc. and Cougar Express, Inc. In the claim against TLSS, Plaintiff seeks to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold TLSS responsible for the alleged liabilities of Prime and/or Shypdirect as the supposed alter ego of these subsidiaries. In the claims against Shyp CX, Inc., Shyp FX, Inc. and Cougar Express, Inc., Plaintiff seeks to hold these entities responsible for the alleged liabilities of Prime and/or Shypdirect on a successor liability theory.

On September 16, 2021, each of these entities filed papers in opposition to this motion.

On September 24, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, thus adding TLSS, Shyp CX, Inc., Shyp FX, Inc. and Cougar Express, Inc. as Defendants.

On October 22, 2021, Acrisure stipulated to consolidate the Suffolk County Action into and with the Bergen County action.

On November 22, 2021, all Defendants filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint. On November 3, 2021, Prime EFS and Shypdirect refiled their Third-Party Complaint against TCI/Acrisure in the Bergen County action. On December 23, 2021, Acrisure filed its Answer to the Third-Party Complaint, denying its material allegations.

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, bringing claims against Prime and Shypdirect’s vehicle liability carrier, County Hall (for discovery) as well as the producing broker, TCE/Acrisure. Plaintiff also asserted additional alter ego allegations against TLSS.

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in this action, seeking to assert claims against TLSS’s former CEO, John Mercadante, also on a “pierce the corporate veil” theory. On March 9, 2023, TLSS, Prime and Shypdirect opposed the motion for leave to add Mercadante, arguing that any claim against Mercadante would be both futile and time-barred. On March 31, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to add Mr. Mercadante as a party.

In January and February 2023, numerous depositions were taken in the case, including those of Messrs. Giordano and Mercadante.

On September 16, 2024, the court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for final judgment by default on liability against Defendants Shypdirect, Prime EFS, Shyp CX, Shyp FX, and Cougar Express.

To date, to the best of the Company’s knowledge, information and belief, no discovery has been taken in this action which would permit the imposition of alter ego liability on TLSS for the subject accident.

To date, to the best of the Company’s knowledge, information and belief, no discovery has been taken in this action which would permit the imposition of successor liability on Shyp CX, Inc., Shyp FX, Inc. and/or Cougar Express, Inc. for the subject accident.

Under a so-called MCS-90 reimbursement endorsement to the County Hall policy, TLSS believes that Prime and Shypdirect may have up to $750,000 in coverage under a 1980 federal law under which County Hall is “require[d] to pay damages for certain claims or ‘suits’ that are not covered by the policy.” (See Endorsement CHI – 290 (02/19) to County Hall policy effective May 31, 2019.)

All discovery in this case was completed on or before August 31, 2024.

There were pending cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Jose A. Mercedes-Mejia, Prime EFS, Shypdirect, LLC, and TLSS, and Defendant/Third-Party Defendant County Hall Insurance. The insurance broker, Acrisure, had also filed a motion on the malpractice claim against it. On November 8, 2024, the court granted Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. On December 6, 2024, the parties engaged in a mediation session. While a settlement was not reached on the day the mediation session was held, the parties continued to discuss a potential resolution.

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff and TLSS, Shypdirect, and Prime EFS executed a binding term sheet which settled the matter with no liability on the part of TLSS, Shypdirect or Prime EFS and requires that a Stipulation of Dismissal will be filed with the court which dismisses all claims with prejudice. On February 10, 2025, the trial proceeding scheduled for February 10, 2025, was cancelled. On March 31, 2025, a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed with the Court in which it was stipulated and agreed that the Plaintiff’s Complaint and any and all other Crossclaims, Counterclaims, and/or Third-Party Claims are dismissed with prejudice and without costs by and between all parties.

Josh Perez v. Cougar Express, Inc.

An attorney for a former Cougar Express (CE) employee, Josh Perez (“Perez”), has advised CE that he has filed a charge of discrimination against CE with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025 AND 2024

(Unaudited)

Perez allegedly is asserting claims against CE for: gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”); pregnancy/childbirth discrimination under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; retaliation under Title VII and NYSHRL; and familial status discrimination under NYSHRL.

However, CE has not received a copy, nor any notification, of the filing.

Perez was employed by CE as a dock worker beginning on March 8, 2022, and last worked September 27, 2022. He alleges that in or around July 2022, he informed CE that he was expecting a child. Perez has not provided any details regarding the individual(s) with CE he allegedly informed. On September 27, 2022, Perez requested that CE complete the employer section of his New York Paid Family Leave (“PFL”) paperwork, which CE did. Thereafter, Perez ceased communicating with CE. Further, CE did not receive any confirmation that Perez had in fact filed for PFL or that his PFL was approved.

Because CE did not hear from Perez or receive any confirmation concerning his application for or approval of PFL, CE concluded that Perez had resigned. Another worker was hired to fill Perez’s former position. Then, on or about December 27, 2022, Perez contacted CE attempting to return to work and was informed that there was no position for him.

CE categorically denies Perez’s allegations and any purported wrongdoing. Because this matter is apparently pending with the EEOC and CE has neither received a copy of the filing nor any notification of the filing, the Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate the Company’s liability, if any, in connection with it.

Emerson Swan v. Severance Trucking Co., Inc.

On April 1, 2024, a judgment was entered against Severance Trucking on behalf of Emerson Swan, Inc. (“Emerson”) in the amount of $96,226, including prejudgment interest, statutory costs and legal fees. Emerson, which was a customer of Severance Trucking, claimed that an employee of Severance Trucking stole $75,209 of Emerson’s products while under Severance Trucking’s control. We did not accrue this claim and believe it is not liable since the accusation was made prior to the Severance Trucking acquisition date in January 2023.

Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Severance Trucking Co., Inc.

On April 30, 2024, Severance Trucking received a letter from Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. requesting payment in the amount of $581,507 comprised of outstanding unpaid Truck Lease and Service Agreement charges of $55,136 in open invoices, $399,177 in early termination charges and $134,194 in attorney’s fees. As of March 31, 2025, and December 31, 2024, such amounts are recorded as a liability of Severance Trucking and included in liabilities of discontinued operations.

Akabas & Sproule v. Transportation and Logistics Systems, Inc.

On March 19, 2025, the Company’s former law firm, Akabas & Sproule, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, alleging three causes of action: (i) breach of contract; (ii) account stated, and (iii) unjust enrichment/quantum meruit. Akabas & Sproule seeks $86,571 in compensatory damages, $11,027 in interest through February 28, 2025, attorneys’ fees and costs, taxable costs of suit, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, all of which have been accrued as of March 31, 2025. Because the action was recently filed and no discovery has occurred in the case, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome.

Employment agreements

On January 4, 2022, the Company and Mr. Sebastian Giordano entered into an employment agreement for the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO Employment Agreement”) with a term extending through December 31, 2025, which provides for annual compensation of $400,000 as well as annual discretionary bonuses based on the Company’s achievement of performance targets, grants of options, restricted stock or other equity (with prior grants made to Ascentaur), at the discretion of the Board, up to 5% of the outstanding common stock of the Company, vesting over the term of the CEO Employment Agreement, business expense reimbursement and benefits as generally made available to the Company’s executives.

On March 1, 2024, the Board, appointed Sebastian Giordano, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, to the additional offices of Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company. Due to the Company’s financial condition, beginning on February 16, 2024, Mr. Giordano agreed to temporarily defer cash compensation and receipt of benefits until a date that was to be mutually agreed upon; however, such compensation and other benefits due to Mr. Giordano under the CEO Employment Agreement, continue to accrue. On May 15, 2024, the Company received a termination notice (the “Termination Notice”), for the nonpayment of compensation and other benefits due under such CEO Employment Agreement. Under the terms of the CEO Employment Agreement, the Company had until July 15, 2024, to cure such default or else Mr. Giordano’s termination pursuant to the Termination Notice would be effective on July 15, 2024. The Company was unable to cure such default; however, on July 15, 2024, the Company and Mr. Giordano agreed to extend the termination date until August 15, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the Company and Mr. Giordano further extended the termination date to November 15, 2024. On November 14, 2024, the parties further extended the termination date to February 15, 2025. On February 10, 2025, the parties further extended the termination date to May 31, 2025. Through the extended termination date, all existing wage and benefit provisions of the CEO Employment Agreement shall continue to accrue; however, the claims under the Termination Notice remain in force, including that any granted, but unvested Restricted Stock Units, if any, have been deemed fully vested under the Termination Notice. In addition, the remaining 30,531,608 of unvested Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) of the 122,126,433 RSUs originally granted to Mr. Giordano in March 2022 were deemed fully vested as of the date the CEO Employment Agreement terminated.

TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2025 AND 2024

(Unaudited)

As of March 31, 2025, and December 31, 2024, in connection with the extension of the term of the CEO Employment Agreement, the amount of compensation and benefit amounts due to Mr. Giordano amounts to the following, which is included in accrued compensation and related benefits on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet:

 SCHEDULE OF ACCRUED COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT