Company: FOXX
Filing Date: 2025-12-01
Form Type: DEF 14A
Source: 0001213900-25-116456
Chunk: 15

Company: Foxx Development Holdings Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-12-01
Form: DEF 14A
Chunk 15
---
 S -K, except as disclosed below. On November 22, 2024, Ximena Semensato (the “Plaintiff”) filed Semensato v. Foxx Development Holdings Inc., et al., No. 2024 -1200(Del. Ch. Ct.), a class action complaint (the “Complaint”) in Delaware Chancery Court (the “Court”) against the Company and certain “Individual Defendants” (“Joy” Yi Hua, Haitao Cui, “Jeff” Feng Jiang, “Eva” Yiqing Miao and Edmund R. Miller) (the “Action”). The Plaintiff sought declaratory relief under provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to a waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine that was contained in the Company’s Charter. The Company and each of the Individual Defendants denied any and all wrongdoing alleged in the Complaint. However, to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, the directors of the board of the Company 10 determined that it was advisable and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend Article X of the Charter. The Board approved and adopted the certificate of amendment to the Charter (the “Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment”), and was planning for the Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment to be submitted to the stockholders of the Company for adoption and approval at the next annual meeting of stockholders with the Board’s recommendation that the Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment be approved and adopted by the stockholders of the Company. On March 3, 2025, after the Plaintiff was advised of the Board’s approval of the Amended Charter, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Action as moot, which the Court approved by order dated March 4, 2025. Believing that the swift resolution of the Action was in the best interests of and benefit to the Company, and without admitting the allegations Plaintiff made in the Complaint, the Company agreed to pay $85,000 (the “Mootness Fee,” inclusive of a $500 service award to Plaintiff) to Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve the anticipated application by Plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses. The Court has not and will not pass judgment on the Mootness Fee. Delinquent Section 16(a) Reports Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) requires the Company’s officers, directors and persons who own more than ten percent of the issued and outstanding shares of Common