Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies

In conducting our business, we may become involved in legal proceedings. We will accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When only a range of possible loss can be established, the most probable amount in the range is accrued. If no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. The accrual for a litigation loss contingency might include, for example, estimates of potential damages, outside legal fees and other directly related costs expected to be incurred.

On April 29, 2020, a securities class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and our former CEO. The action is captioned Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants.

On May 27, 2020, a second securities class was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and our former CEO. The action is captioned Caitlin Leeburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants.

On June 23, 2020, a third securities class was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and our former CEO. The action is captioned Jonathan Charles Leonard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants.

All three lawsuits allege that our company and our former CEO misled investors in connection with our April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking unspecified monetary damages. These three class actions were consolidated on September 18, 2020 and Daniel Yannes was designated lead plaintiff. A consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) was filed on October 19, 2020. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on November 18, 2020, and the briefing on that motion was complete on January 8, 2021. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 2021, Judge Koeltl denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants’ entered into a scheduling order and filed their respective Answers to the CAC on July 27, 2021. The parties have agreed to non-binding mediation which began in August 2021 and is ongoing.

On June 15, 2020, a shareholder derivative claim was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Marc S. Schessel, Steven Wallitt (current directors), and Robert Christie and Charles Miller (former directors) (“Director Defendants”). The action is captioned Javier Lozano, derivatively on behalf of SCWorx Corp., Plaintiff, v. Marc S. Schessel, Charles K. Miller, Steven Wallitt, Defendants, and SCWorx Corp., Nominal Defendant. This lawsuit alleges that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including by misleading investors in connection with our April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits, failing to correct false and misleading statements and failing to implement proper disclosure and internal controls. The Plaintiff, on our behalf, is seeking an award of monetary damages, improvements in our disclosure and internal controls, and legal fees. The Director Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these proceedings. The parties to this derivative action have agreed to non-binding mediation which began in August 2021 and is ongoing.

On August 21, 2020, a shareholder derivative claim was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Marc S. Schessel, Steven Wallitt (current directors), and Robert Christie and Charles Miller (former directors) (“Director Defendants”). The action is captioned Josstyn Richter, derivatively on behalf of SCWorx Corp., Plaintiff, v. Marc S. Schessel, Charles K. Miller, Steven Wallitt, Defendants, and SCWorx Corp., Nominal Defendant. This lawsuit alleges that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including by misleading investors in connection with our April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits, failing to correct false and misleading statements and failing to implement proper disclosure and internal controls. The Plaintiff, on our behalf, is seeking an award of monetary damages, improvements in our disclosure and internal controls, and legal fees. The Director Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these proceedings. The parties to this derivative action have agreed to non-binding mediation which began in August 2021 and is ongoing.

On September 30, 2020, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Supreme Court State of New York, New York County against Marc S. Schessel and Steven Wallitt (current directors) and Charles Miller (a former director). The action is captioned Hemrita Zarins, derivatively on behalf of SCWorx Corp. v. Marc S. Schessel, Charles Miller, Steven Wallitt and SCWorx, Nominal Defendant. This lawsuit alleges that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including by misleading investors in connection with the Company’s April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits, failing to correct false and misleading statements and failing to implement proper disclosure and internal controls. The Plaintiff, on our behalf, is seeking an award of monetary damages, improvements in our disclosure and internal controls, and legal fees. On October 28,2020, Zarins withdrew this action and refiled an action in the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware on October 29, 2020. Zarins named as Defendants Marc S. Schessel, Robert Christie (a former director), Steven Wallitt and SCWorx, Nominal Defendant. The allegations, as well as the relief sought, in the Delaware Chancery Court proceeding are substantially the same as that filed in the New York State Action. The Director Defendants intend to vigorously defend against these proceedings. The parties to this derivative action have agreed to non-binding mediation which began in August 2021 and is ongoing.

In addition, following the April 13, 2020 press release and related disclosures (related to COVID-19 rapid test kits), the Securities and Exchange Commission made an inquiry regarding the disclosures we made in relation to the transaction involving COVID-19 test kits. On April 22, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered that trading in the securities of our company be suspended because of “questions and concerns regarding the adequacy and accuracy of publicly available information in the marketplace” (the “SEC Trading Halt”). The SEC Trading Halt expired May 5, 2020, at 11:59 PM EDT. We have cooperated fully with the SEC’s investigation and will continue to do so as and when requested.

In April 2020, we received related inquiries from The Nasdaq Stock Market and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). We have been fully cooperating with these agencies and providing information and documents, as requested. On May 5, 2020, the Nasdaq Stock Market informed us that it had initiated a “T12 trading halt,” which means the halt will remain in place until we have fully satisfied Nasdaq’s request for additional information. We fully cooperated with Nasdaq and responded to all of Nasdaq’s information requests as they were issued. The T12 trading halt was lifted on August 10, 2020.

Also in April 2020, we were contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, which is seeking information and documents from our officers and directors relating primarily to the April 13, 2020 press release concerning COVID-19 rapid test kits. We have cooperated fully with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in its investigation and will continue to do so as and when requested.

In connection with these actions and investigations, the Company is obligated to indemnify its officers and directors for costs incurred in defending against these claims and investigations. Because the Company currently does not have the resources to pay for these costs, its directors and officers liability insurance carrier has agreed to indemnify these persons even though the $750,000 retention under such policy has not yet been met. The Company estimates it is currently obligated to pay approximately $700,000 of the retention, which payments could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

David Klarman v. SCWorx Corp. f/k/a Alliance MMA, Inc.,

Index No. 619536/2019 (N.Y. State Sup. Ct., Suffolk County)

On October 3, 2019, David Klarman, a former employee of Alliance, served a complaint against SCWorx seeking $400,000.00 for a breach of his employment agreement with Alliance. Klarman claims that Alliance ceased paying him his salary in March 2018 as well as other alleged contractual benefits. SCWorx does not believe that it owes the amount demanded and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On March 6, 2020, SCWorx filed an answer and counterclaims against Mr. Klarman. On September 18, 2020, the Court granted Klarman’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel due to “irreconcilable differences.” The Court stayed the case for 45 days after service of the Court’s order. Mr. Klarman’s wife, Marie Klarman, Esq., filed a Notice of Appearance on November 6, 2020 and filed a motion on November 9, 2020 seeking various forms of relief -- in violation of the Court’s Individual Rules and the Commercial Division Rules. We opposed Klarman’s motion on December 31, 2020 and the case was marked fully submitted on January 21, 2021. By Decision and Order dated March 26, 2021, the Court granted Klarman’s motion to dismiss four (4) of fourteen (14) defenses, denied Klarman’s motion to dismiss SCWorx’s counterclaims against him; denied Klarman’s motion for summary judgment and denied Klarman’s motion to strike allegations contained in the Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims based on his contention that such allegations were “scandalous” or prejudicial. On April 7, 2021, Klarman filed a Reply to the Counterclaims, denying the material allegations and interposed numerous affirmative defenses. The Court has issued a preliminary conference order, setting a discovery cut-off of October 2022. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

At this time, we are unable to predict the duration, scope, or possible outcome of these investigations and lawsuits.