Company: IPSI
Filing Date: 2025-11-14
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001213900-25-110820
Chunk: 261

Company: Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-14
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 2
Chunk 261
---
ovich”) 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 the AAA arbitration process. Management had vigorously defended the claims, intends to continue
to continue do so, but there is now a lull in activity as the Arbitrator is weighing several issues, the new date for arbitration was
set for May 26 to 29, 2026.

Discovery has
been re-opened. The parties remain engaged in informal efforts to resolve the matter