Company: BLIS
Filing Date: 2025-10-09
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001199835-25-000342
Chunk: 81

Company: NAPC Defense, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-10-09
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 81
---
138,304

The
32,696,429 warrants issued during the three month period ended July 31, 2025 consisted of the following:

    ●
    1,250,000
    warrants were issued in connection with subscription agreements;

    ●
    1,785,714 warrants were issued for services;

    ●
    17,875,000
    warrants were issued in connection with convertible debt financings; and

    ●
    11,785,715
    warrants issued for full ratchet price protection.

    18

During
the three month period ended July 31, 2025,
the Company recorded a deemed dividend in the amount of $117,629 as a result of 11,785,715 additional warrants issuable due to full
ratchet price protection.

Significant
range of inputs for the three month period ended July 31, 2025 arising from the Black-Scholes options pricing model are as follows for the warrants:

    Quoted
    market price on valuation date
     
    $
    0.01
    - .0165

    Exercise
    price
     
    $
    0.01
    – 0.02

    Expected
    life (in years)

     2
    - 5 Years

    Equivalent
    volatility

    326.94
    – 425.12
    %
  
    Interest
    rates

    3.78
    - 3.98
    %

NOTE
8 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

During
the normal course of business, the Company may be exposed to litigation. When the Company becomes aware of potential litigation, it evaluates
the merits of the case in accordance with FASB ASC 450-20-50, Contingencies. The Company evaluates its exposure to the matter,
possible legal or settlement strategies and the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. If the Company determines that an unfavorable outcome
is probable and can be reasonably estimated, it establishes the necessary accruals. As of July 31, 2025, the Company is not aware of
any contingent liabilities that should be reflected in the consolidated financial statements.

In
May of 2023, NAPC Defense, Inc. was sued in county court over a contract by the firm of Delmar which contends that the Company did not
follow through on a contract for their services related to its regulation A offering in