Company: IPSI
Filing Date: 2025-08-14
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001213900-25-076595
Chunk: 73

Company: Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-14
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 73
---
 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; violation of
California Labor Code Section 201; waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201 & 203) and violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802.

We and Mr. Corbett, the sole
remaining individual defendant, through prior counsel moved to compel arbitration on February 17, 2023. As a result of that motion and
a stipulated order entered by the court, all proceedings in the Superior Court were stayed.

On June 8, 2023, while our
motion to compel arbitration was pending in the Superior Court three of the employees (Naum Voloshin, Alexander Voloshin, and Novikov)
filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Naum Voloshin, et al., v. Innovative Payment Solutions,
Inc., Case No. CV 23-4515-JFW (PVCx), which alleges a single cause of action for retaliation in violation of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (the “Federal Action”). The plaintiffs in the Federal Action made no attempt to serve their complaint or to give notice
to any defendant in the Federal Action until August 2023.

On August 30, 2023, the Hon.
William A. Crowfoot granted our and Mr. Corbett’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that all of the claims alleged in the
former employees’ first amended complaint were subject to arbitration. The California Court of Appeal subsequently denied the former
employees’ petition for writ of mandate on November 1, 2023. On December 15, 2023, all five former employees filed a demand for
arbitration. We withdrew our motion to compel appointment of an arbitrator.

Upon motion of our Company
and Mr. Corbett, on January 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California stayed all proceedings in the Federal
Action until the arbitration