Company: LIFD
Filing Date: 2025-08-14
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001096906-25-001332
Chunk: 86

Company: LFTD PARTNERS INC.
Filing Date: 2025-08-14
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 86
---
58,000,000, respectively.  Company-Wide Management Bonus Pool Please refer to NOTE 13 – COMPANY-WIDE MANAGEMENT BONUS POOL for more information about the company-wide management bonus pool.  Other Contingent Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments For other contingent contractual obligations and commercial commitments, please refer to NOTE 8 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS. 

NOTE 12 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Company may be involved in certain legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. Except for income tax contingencies, the Company records accruals for contingencies to the extent that management concludes that the occurrence is probable and that the related amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred.  Lifted currently is involved in two pending lawsuits, as the defendant:  (1) Hernandez v Lifted Liquids – Plaintiffs have sued the Company as representatives of a putative class action case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs bought the Company’s vape cartridge products and that the delta-9-THC cannabinoid content of those products was underreported. The Complaint alleges that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the nature of the products, breached an implied warranty, and was unjustly enriched. The Company contends that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.  (2) Jessie Hooks v. Lifted Made, URB Cannabis, Barry Hollingsworth, Gerard Jacobs, Nicholas Warrender, and Pharmlabs, LLC – Plaintiff had filed suit against the Company, three of its officers, and a testing company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Plaintiff bought 3-4 of the Company’s products, that some of the Company’s products exceeded legal limitations for hemp, and that all of the Defendants misrepresented the nature of the products. In his Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserted seven causes of action including civil RICO claims and alleged the existence of 1,000 “John Doe” defendants. The Company contended that this lawsuit was without merit and is vigorously defending the action. On February 6, 2025, the Court ordered that the RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the other claims were also dismissed. The Court noted that the RICO claims were “borderline frivolous”. The Court further dismissed all claims against the individual defendants. On