v3.25.2
Legal Proceedings
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]  
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

NOTE 11 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 

From time to time, we may be involved in various disputes and litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of business.

 

On December 20, 2023, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit against a customer of the Company that was using the Company’s DISA’s. Shortly thereafter, the individual filed a first amended complaint (FAC) adding the Company as a party. The FAC states that Plaintiff’s phone number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since 2009. Despite this, Plaintiff alleges he received two prerecorded calls from the Company on behalf of its Customer on October 10 and November 28, 2023. Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff asserts that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) prerecorded call provision and the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act. In response to the FAC, both the Company and its Customer filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike the class allegations. The motions are fully briefed, but the Court has yet to issue a ruling. The parties each exchanged discovery responses. The parties agreed to attend mediation on October 15, 2024. The Company denies liability and intends to continue to vigorously defend any action, although the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome is difficult to estimate as of this date. The result or impact of such allegations are uncertain, including whether or not they could result in damages and/or awards of attorneys’ fees or expenses.

ProofPositive LLC (“ProofPositive”) commenced an arbitration (“Arbitration”) before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) against the Company, Brian Podolak and his wife (under a pseudonym) (“Respondents”) on or about May 31, 2024. In the Arbitration, ProofPositive asserted a number of claims, including claims under the Arizona Securities Act, arising from Respondents’ alleged failure to pay sums purportedly due under a loan agreement and promissory note, an addendum and consulting agreement. The Company denies liability and intends to continue to vigorously defend any action, although the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome is difficult to estimate as of this date. The result or impact of such allegations are uncertain, including whether or not they could result in damages and/or awards of attorneys’ fees or expenses.

 

Carstens, Allen & Gourley, LLP (“Carstens”) commenced an action before the Texas Civil Court against the Company on or about August 12, 2024 (“Lawsuit”). In the Lawsuit, Carstens alleges that the Company was in breach of contract by failure and refusal to pay attorneys’ fees that it owes to Carstens. The Company has entered into settlement negotiations with Carstens. In December, 2024, Carstens filed for a default judgement for the unpaid fees. The Company is negotiating with Carstens for a mutually acceptable settlement. In April 2025, the Company reached a settlement agreement, to pay to Carstens the total sum of $160,000 in 13 payments. Upon signing the settlement, Carstens filed with the courts to dismiss the lawsuit

 

On December 16, 2024, MAI Voice GCO, LLC filed a verified complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking $32,090. The Company denies liability and intends vigorously defend the action that was brought, although the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome is difficult to estimate as of this date. The result or impact of such allegations are uncertain, including whether or not they could result in damages and/or awards of attorneys’ fees or expenses.

 

In March 2025, Berkowitz Pollack & Brant Advisors filed a lawsuit against the Company for unpaid professional fees in the amount of $48,057.