Company: IMG
Filing Date: 2025-11-03
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001493152-25-020586
Chunk: 67

Company: CIMG Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-03
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 67
---
, 2025, and on February 13, 2025, the Court denied Mr. Kim’s Motion. Discovery in the
case is ongoing, and no trial date has been set.

The
Company believes it has a basis to defend the claims in the Kim Litigation.

Ex-Directors
Lawsuit

On
March 10, 2025, former directors of the Company, Kevin J. Connor, Chris J. Jones, Nobuki Kurita, and David Robson (collectively, the
“Ex-Directors”), filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No.
25CU012922N) (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleges the Company failed to pay directors’ fees and expenses from the
last quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023 through the first two quarters of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024,
and is claiming breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unfair business practices. On August 22, 2025, a judgment by default was entered against the company in the amount of $58,920.34. Counsel for Plaintiffs/Judgment
Creditors, Kevin J. Conner, J. Chris Jones, Nobuki Kurita, and David Robson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) subsequently filed
a motion with the court to amend the total amount of the judgment. The basis for the sought increase was that the judgment erroneously
only reflected an award of damages to one Plaintiff, Kevin Conner, rather than to all four Plaintiffs. Counsel indicated that each of
the four Plaintiffs were due, respectively, judgments in the amount of $54,000 (Kevin Connor), $52,125 (Chirs Jones), $46,500 (Nobuki
Kurita), and $50,250 (David Robson). Counsel represented that the total amount of the judgments, after calculation of daily interest,
should be $222,062.28. On October 17, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for correction of judgment nunc pro tunc
pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) (ROA # 25). The court substantively granted the Motion, but with qualifying instructions. The
Court found that Plaintiffs met their burden