Company: IPSI
Filing Date: 2025-11-14
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001213900-25-110820
Chunk: 257

Company: Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-14
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 2
Chunk 257
---
 cash flows.

Voloshin, et al., v. Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc., et al.

On October 20, 2021, a complaint
was filed against our Company and certain of its officers and directors with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the
United States Department of Labor (“OSHA”), captioned Naum Voloshin, Yulia Rey, Alexander Voloshin, Andrey Novikov, and Frank
Perez v. Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc., William Corbett, Richard Rosenblum, Madisson Corbett, Jim Fuller, Cliff Henry and David Rios.
The complaint generally alleged that complainants, four former employees (or independent consultants) of our Company and one employee
who was on suspension, did not receive compensation to which they claim they were entitled and that they were wrongfully terminated for
engaging in protected activities in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. The complaint sought reinstatement
of complainants’ employment, monetary damages including back pay, raises, bonuses, benefits, overtime, emotional distress and loss
of reputation, orders of abatement and injunctive relief, and costs of litigation.

In early 2022, OSHA dismissed
the claims of Ms. Rey and Mr. Perez, and they appealed that decision. Prior counsel moved to dismiss the remaining claims and as of this
writing OSHA took no action with respect to that motion as ultimately the former employees elected to proceed in federal court. Pursuant
to agreement and stipulation, dismissal of the OSHA claims was accomplished without prejudice on November 10, 2022.

On November 7, 2022, the same
five employees filed a lawsuit, not in federal court, but in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, against our
Company and the same individuals against whom they had asserted their OSHA claim. The complaint asserted claims for, among other things,
breach of contract, failure to pay wages and failure to reimburse expenses under the California Labor Code and asserting retaliation claims
under the California Labor Code. On December 16, 2022, the same five employees filed an amended complaint dropping all defendants from
the case except Mr. Corbett and our Company. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of California Labor Code Section 1102.5;
wrongful termination in violation of public policy; breach of contract; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing