Company: IPSI
Filing Date: 2025-08-14
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001213900-25-076595
Chunk: 185

Company: Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-14
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 185
---
 trading or the trading price falls below $0.01 per
share, the conversion price will be discounted by a further 15%. The notes provide for certain events such as mergers and consolidations,
distributions to shareholders, and stock splits and dividends.

Minkovich v. Corbett, et al.

On May 26, 2022,
Mr. Jan Minkovich (“Minkovich”) filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County (Minkovich v. Corbett, et
al., CASE NO. 22CHCV00377) against our company and our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer William Corbett. The complaint asserts six
causes of action for: (i) breach of contract; (ii) nonpayment of wages; (iii) waiting time penalties; (iv) failure to indemnify for alleged
employee business expenses; (v) violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professional Code; and (vi) wrongful termination
of employment in violation of public policy. Minkovich seeks $570,000 in damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees plus shares equal to
five percent (5%) ownership of our company. He bases his claim in part on the unilateral expectation that he receive 2.7 million shares
of the company. Assuming he is owed any shares, a claim which we dispute, after the reverse 30-1 split he would receive only 90,000 shares.

Through
prior counsel, we and Mr. Corbett filed a motion to compel arbitration. The motion was denied on October 4, 2022. We and Mr. Corbett
then appealed that decision to the California Court of Appeal. As a result of the appeal, the court ease was stayed until the appeal
was decided. As a result of the stay, the demurrer (the equivalent of a motion to dismiss) we filed through prior counsel was not decided.

On February 27,
2024, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed the Superior Court’s decision denying our motion to compel arbitration.
The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions to issue a new order compelling to arbitration the parties’
dispute regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause. As the prevailing parties, the Company and Mr. Corbett were awarded costs
on appeal.

As
expected, the plaintiff initiated arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) based on the appellate ruling.
We had expected the dispute to be resolved by