NOTE 6 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

We adopted ASC 842 new lease accounting on July 1, 2019. We had an operating lease principally for both Franklin Wireless Corp. and Franklin Technologies Inc., in accordance with ASC 842.

We determine whether an arrangement contains a lease at inception. A lease is a contract that provides the right to control an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration. Operating leases are recorded in the balance sheet as right-of-use asset (“ROU asset”) and operating lease obligation. ROU assets represent the Company’s right to use an underlying asset for the lease term and lease liabilities represent our obligation to make lease payment arising from the lease ROU assets and operating lease liabilities are recognized at the commencement date of the lease and measure based on the present value of lease payment over the lease term. The ROU asset also includes deferred rent liabilities. Our lease arrangement generally does not provide an implicit interest rate. As a result, in such situations, we use its incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at commencement date in determining the present value of lease payments. We include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that it will exercise that option in the measurement of its ROU assts and liabilities. Lease expense for operating lease is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. We are also electing not to apply the recognition requirements to short-term leases of twelve months or less and instead will recognize lease payments as expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. 

We leased approximately 12,775 square feet of office space in San Diego, California, at a monthly rent of $25,754, pursuant to a lease that expired in December 2023. On October 19, 2023, we signed a lease for office space consisting of approximately 11,400 square feet, located in San Diego, California, at a monthly rent of $27,789, which commenced on January 1, 2024. In addition to monthly rent, the lease includes payment for certain common area costs. The term of the lease for the office space is 65 months from the lease commencement date. Our facility is covered by an appropriate level of insurance, and we believe it to be suitable for our use and adequate for our present needs. Rent expense related to this property was $337,322 and $321,259 for the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024.

On or about December 7^th, 2023, we received an invoice from our prior landlord, Hunsaker & Associates, requesting payment of additional rent on our completed and expired lease of office space located at 9707 Waples Street, San Diego, CA as of December 31, 2023. This invoice of $142,978 purports to represent charges for variable cost increases during the prior 7 years of the lease, which was discounted by $46,274 and adjusted down to $96,704 for the three months ended June 30, 2024. We are currently reviewing these charges and will be requesting further validation of these charges, in accordance with our rights granted under the lease. For the year ended June 30, 2024, we recorded an additional rent expense of $96,704 and an accrued liability of $72,048 reflecting this pending invoice and a credit of $24,656 for our deposit on the leasehold property.

Our Korea-based subsidiary, FTI, leases approximately 10,000 square feet of office space, at a monthly rent of approximately $6,600, and additional office space consisting of approximately 2,682 square feet at a monthly rent of approximately $2,200, both located in Seoul, South Korea. These leases expired on August 31, 2024, and were extended for an additional 24 months to August 31, 2026. In addition to monthly rent, the leases provide for periodic cost of living increases in the base rent and payment for certain common area costs. These facilities are covered by an appropriate level of insurance, and we believe them to be suitable for our use and adequate for our present needs. Rent expense related to these leases was $105,889 and $112,206 for each of the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

We lease one corporate housing facility, located in Seoul, Korea, primarily for our employees who travel, under a non-cancelable operating lease that expired on September 4, 2025, and was extended for an additional 12 months to September 4, 2026. Rent expense related to this lease was $8,077 and $8,089 for the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We lease one corporate vehicle on December 1, 2024, in San Diego, California, for our employees, under a non-cancelable lease that expires on November 30, 2027. Rent expense related to this lease was $6,473 and $0 for the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

We used discount rates of 7.0% and 6.0% in determining our operating lease liabilities for the office spaces in San Diego, California, and South Korea, respectively, and used a discount rate of 7.0% in determining our lease liabilities for the vehicle. These rates represented our incremental borrowing rates at that time. Short-term leases with initial terms of twelve months or less are not capitalized. The office leases of our Korea-based subsidiary were extensions of previous leases and do not contain any further extension provisions.

Rent expenses for the years ended June 30, 2025, and 2024 were $469,910 and $538,258 respectively. In accordance with ASC 842, the components of the lease expense and supplemental cash flow information related to leases for the years ended June 30, 2025, and 2024 are as follows: 

In accordance with ASC 842, future minimum payments under operating leases are as follows: 

Litigation

We are from time to time involved in certain legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business.

Verizon Jetpack Recall

On April 8, 2021, Verizon issued a press release announcing that it was working with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to conduct a voluntary recall of certain Verizon Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspot devices, indicating that the lithium-ion battery in the devices can overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard. According to the CPSC release, the recall affects approximately 2.5 million devices. We imported the devices and supplied them to Verizon.

Verizon first advised us of one alleged Jetpack device failure at the end of February 2021. We immediately began meeting with Verizon and requested access to the device. We also began internal testing to evaluate device performance. We did not receive any further incident information until the last week of March 2021. On April 1, 2021 we issued a press release announcing that we had received reports from Verizon about potential issues with the batteries in the devices. On April 9, 2021 we issued a press release announcing the voluntary recall by Verizon.

We are not currently aware of any aspect of the Jetpack design that could cause the devices to fail in the way described in Verizon’s recall notice.

Future Impact on Financial Performance Arising from Verizon Jetpack Recall

At this time, we do not have information that identifies the cause of the alleged incidents. We also do not have any specific legal claims or theories of causation for device failure incidents that would help us estimate the cost of potential future litigation. No liability has been recorded for this litigation because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time.

FTI Litigation in Korea

In January of 2025 our South Korea-based subsidiary, FTI was sued by Partron Co., Ltd., a South Korean manufacturer of electronic parts for mobile and telecommunication devices (“Partron”). The complaint, filed in Seoul Central District Court, alleges that FTI requested Partron to prepare semiconductor components to be included in FTI’s products for resale to third parties. The complaint also alleges that FTI and Partron had entered into a Confidentiality Agreement under which Partron shared the login credentials for its Qualcomm account and that FTI used such access for the design of the products but contracted with another vendor to produce the components. It further alleges that Partron ordered a large quantity of semiconductor components from its business partners, such as Qualcomm and Dasaron Corporation, in reliance on such requests from FTI, but FTI failed to complete the purchase of such components from Partron. Parton alleges that it paid its suppliers for such components, but that FTI failed to purchase the components from Partron, resulting in damages, including interest, of $8,126,786, under the South Korean Unfair Competition Prevention Act and other legal theories.

The Company owns approximately 66.34% of the outstanding equity securities of FTI. The action does not name the Company as a defendant. FTI has advised the Company that it does not believe the allegations are supported by the facts and it intends to vigorously oppose the action.

Shareholder Litigation

Ali

A shareholder action, Ali vs. Franklin Wireless Corp. et al. Case #3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) on April 16, 2021, alleging, among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the Verizon recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. The Class and Defendants have executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement under which the Class releases all claims against Defendants in exchange for a payment by Defendants of $2.4 million (the “Settlement Amount”), which is reflected in liabilities under “accrued legal contingency expense” with a corresponding charge to “loss from a legal contingency”. The Class has submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court denied on January 24, 2024. On April 22, 2024, after resubmission of the application, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 6, 2024, per the terms of the settlement agreement, we sent by wire transfer $2,400,000 to an account specified by the Ali class action claim administrator, Epiq (the appointed Settlement Administrator by the Court).

Harwood / Martin

A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, by Stephen Harwood, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. O.C. Kim, et al., Case #21cv01837-AJB-MSB, on or about October 29, 2021, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims.

A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, by Debra Martin, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. O.C. Kim, et al., Case #21cv2091-AJB-MSB, on or about December 15, 2021, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. We believe these allegations are not supported by the facts and we will vigorously defend against such claims.

The Harwood and Martin actions have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) titled “In re Franklin Wireless Corp. Derivative Litigation,” Case No.: 21cv1837-AJB (MSB). A jury trial was held in December 2024.

On December 19^th, 2024, after an 8-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding only nominal damages of $0.99 against a single director and no damages against all other defendants.

Pape

A legal action was filed in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada in the County of Washoe against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Barbara Pape, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Franklin Wireless Corp. v. O.C. Kim, et al., Case # CV22-00471, on or about March 21, 2022, claiming among other things, that we had prior knowledge that the recall was likely and that we did not disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. Following the jury verdict in the consolidated Harwood and Martin action finding only nominal damages, the parties agreed to dismiss this action. On August 12, 2025, the court formally dismissed the case.

“Short-Swing” Profits Litigation

A legal action was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego) against Franklin, as a nominal defendant, Nosirrah Management LLC v. Franklin Wireless et al., Case # 3:21-cv-01316-RSH-JLB, on or about July 22, 2021, claiming that our Chief Executive Officer, O.C. Kim, violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for receiving “short-swing” profits from a sale and purchase of Franklin shares, in violation of that Act. On October 19, 2023, the jury returned a verdict of $2,000,000 in favor of the Company against the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, O.C. Kim. Mr. Kim. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on June 12, 2024, for Mr. Kim to pay $1,000,000, and the appeal by O.C. Kim was dismissed. On September 23, 2024 the Company and Mr. Kim entered into a Forbearance Agreement to defer payment of the settlement in exchange for deferment of a $1,250,000 bonus for securing a joint venture agreement to allow Mr. Kim time to pursue remedies with the State of Nevada.

On January 16, 2025, the Company accrued the deferred incentive bonus of $1,250,000 to OC Kim, its President, and recognized a receivable for the deferred $1,000,000 settlement amount owed by Mr. Kim to the Company. As of June 30, 2025, no payment for the accrued bonus has been made to Mr. Kim by the Company, and the receivable of $1,000,000 from Mr. Kim was partially settled through the May 8, 2025 option repurchase transaction, in which the $337,404 net proceeds otherwise payable to Mr. Kim were applied against the receivable. This leaves a remaining settlement balance of $662,596 owed by Mr. Kim as of June 30, 2025.

Loan Agreement with Subsidiary, FTI

On March 21, 2022, Franklin Wireless Corp. (the “Company”) entered into a Loan Agreement with its South Korean subsidiary, FTI, under which the Company agreed to loan US$10,000,000 to FTI. The Company owns a majority of the outstanding equity of FTI. FTI’s primary business is providing design and development services to the Company for our wireless products. As part of the loan transaction, FTI delivered a $10 million Promissory Note to the Company (the “Note”). In the preparation of consolidated financial statements of the Company, the transactions and balances related to the loan of $10 million, including the accrued interest for the year ended June 30, 2025, were eliminated as intercompany transactions.

The purpose of the loan is to allow FTI to purchase a facility in South Korea to house its operations, and to provide it with additional working capital. The purchase of such a facility with the loan proceeds is subject to the Company’s reasonable approval. Upon acquisition of the facility, FTI is required to grant the Company a mortgage on it to secure payment of the Note. The Note is for a term of five years, provides for annual payments of interest at 2% per annum, and is due and payable upon maturity. The Note and Loan Agreement includes customary provisions for default and acceleration upon default, and a default interest rate of 7% per annum. FTI has not yet acquired a facility for its operations.

The loan proceeds are subject to foreign exchange fluctuations as the funds are being held in Korea at a Korean bank. Should the exchange rate rise or fall during the term of the agreement the return value in the United States Dollar (“USD”) could decrease resulting in a potential loss of value.

Employment Contracts

On October 1, 2020, we entered into Change of Control Agreements with OC Kim, our President, and Yun J. (David) Lee, our Senior Vice President of Sales who previously served as Chief Operating Officer. Each Change of Control Agreement provides for a lump sum payment to the officer in case of a change of control of the Company. The term includes the acquisition of Common Stock of the Company resulting in one person or company owning more than 50% of the outstanding shares, a significant change in the composition of the Board of Directors of the Company during any 12-month period, a reorganization, merger, consolidation or similar transaction resulting in the transfer of ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock, or a liquidation or dissolution of the Company or sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets.

The Change of Control Agreement with Mr. Kim calls for a payment of $5 million upon a change of control, and the agreement with Mr. Lee calls for a payment of $2 million upon a change of control. These agreements were for an initial term of three years but have now been extended through October 2027.

On November 10, 2022, the Company and OC Kim, its President, entered into an amendment of the employment agreement dated September 7, 2021. The amendment provides for a severance payment of $3 million if Mr. Kim voluntarily terminates his employment by the Company or if he voluntarily terminates his employment due to a “change in circumstances,” generally defined as a material breach by the Company of its salary and benefit obligations or a significant reduction in Mr. Kim’s title or responsibilities. In the case of a termination of employment by the Company for cause (generally defined as conviction of a felony, or a misdemeanor where imprisonment is imposed, commission of any act of theft, fraud, dishonesty, or material falsification of any employment or Company records, or improper disclosure of the Company’s confidential or proprietary information), the Company is to make a severance payment of $1,500,000. In either case, any unvested options become immediately vested.

In the amendment, Mr. Kim also agrees that, for a period of two years after termination, he will not disparage the Company or its officers, solicit any of its employees to terminate their employment, or disclose any of the Company’s proprietary information. In addition, the amendment provides for the payment of an incentive bonus to Mr. Kim of $125,000 for each calendar quarter during the remaining four-year term of the employment agreement, with the first such bonus due on December 31, 2022. Incentive bonuses of $500,000 have been accrued for each of the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, resulting in accrued bonus balances of $1,375,000 and $875,000 as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of June 30, 2025, no payment for the accrued bonuses has been made by the Company.

The employment agreement with OC Kim was renewed and extended by the Board in September 2024 and will continue through October 2027.

Joint Venture Agreement

On May 14, 2024, the Company entered into an Agreement for Formation of a Joint Venture Corporation (the “Agreement”). Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties formed a Nevada corporation, Sigbeat, to be owned 60% by Franklin and 40% by its EMS partner, Forge. The parties contributed a total of $5,000,000 in capital, in accordance with their respective ownership interest percentages. Under the terms of the Agreement, Sigbeat has a Board of Directors consisting of three members, of whom two are to be appointed by the Company and one appointed by Forge. Sigbeat will engage in worldwide sales, marketing, customer support and operations for telecommunications modules under such brands or designations as the Board of Directors of Sigbeat determine.

Pursuant to the Agreement, in July 2024, Sigbeat entered into a stock subscription agreement with Forge to purchase 400,000 shares of Common Stock, representing 40% of the total outstanding Common Stock of Sigbeat. On December 23, 2024, and January 9, 2025, the Company contributed $600,000 and $2,400,000 for Common Stock, respectively, and, on January 16, 2025, Forge contributed $2,000,000 for Common Stock.

Forbearance Agreement

On September 23, 2024, the Board acknowledged that Mr. Kim had earned an incentive bonus of $1,250,000 for negotiating and securing a joint venture agreement with its EMS partner. The Company and Mr. Kim also entered into a Forbearance Agreement on September 23, 2024, under which Mr. Kim agreed to defer the bonus, in exchange for the Company’s agreement to allow Mr. Kim to defer payment of the $1,000,000 settlement amount owed by Mr. Kim to the Company under a Settlement Agreement, dated June 12, 2024.

On January 16, 2025, the Company accrued the deferred incentive bonus of $1,250,000 to OC Kim, its President, and recognized a receivable for the deferred $1,000,000 settlement amount owed by Mr. Kim to the Company. As of June 30, 2025, no payment for the accrued bonus has been made to Mr. Kim by the Company, and the receivable of $1,000,000 from Mr. Kim was partially settled through the May 8, 2025 option repurchase transaction, in which the $337,404 net proceeds otherwise payable to Mr. Kim were applied against the receivable. This leaves a remaining settlement balance of $662,596 owed by Mr. Kim as of June 30, 2025.

International Tariffs

Our products are currently manufactured in Vietnam. We believe that our products are currently exempt from international tariffs upon import from our manufacturers to the United States.

If tariffs are imposed on our products either based on type of product or the country of manufacture, they could significantly increase our costs to import devices and potentially reduce or even eliminate our ability to earn profits from the sale of our devices. Should we be required to use device manufacturing companies located outside of tariffed countries we will incur significant delays in production and possibly lose sales as a result of those changes and delays.

Given the unpredictable timing of Tariff implementation, it is possible that sales could be in process and become subject to a Tariff that would result in losses on those transactions. Any such reduction in profit margins, lost sales and or increased costs would likely have a negative impact on the price of our shares in the market.

Customer Indemnification

Under purchase orders and contracts for the sale of our products we may provide indemnification to our customers for potential intellectual property infringement claims for which we may have no corresponding recourse against our third-party licensors. This potential liability, if realized, could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.