Company: ZCARW
Filing Date: 2025-02-14
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001213900-25-014437
Chunk: 926

Company: Zoomcar Holdings, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-02-14
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 2
Chunk 926
---
 as “Units”), in connection with Reg D Private Placement(defined elsewhere in this Form on 10-Q) post which Mr. Randall
Yanker shall withdraw the said complaint.

80

On January 30, 2024, Zoomcar
received a statement of arbitration claim (the “Claim”) before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”),
with Aegis Capital Corp. (“Aegis”), Adam Stern, and the Robert J. Eide Pension Plan being the claimants therein. The Claim
alleges breaches of certain agreements between (a) Aegis and Zoomcar, and (b) Adam Stern and the Robert J. Eide Pension Plan as warrant
holders, on the one hand, and Zoomcar on the other; it seeks damages “preliminarily believed to be” at least $10,000,000 purportedly
arising from the alleged breaches, though the Claim does not set forth any basis for that preliminary belief, additional amounts for attorneys’
fees and costs, as well as an order of rescission with respect to the issuance of certain allegedly wrongfully dilutive shares of Zoomcar
stock issued in connection with the business combination between Zoomcar and Innovative International Acquisition Corp. or, alternatively,
an order mandating a purportedly anti-dilutive issuance of additional shares of Zoomcar Common Stock to the claimants. Zoomcar is examining
its legal options with respect to the Claim. On January 31, 2024, the Zoomcar claimants filed an action in the New York State Supreme
Court, including an order to show cause seeking substantially the same relief as the Claim on a declaratory basis along with temporary
injunctive relief. The Court denied the temporary injunctive relief and has scheduled a hearing on the order to show cause for February
21, 2024. Zoomcar is examining its legal options with respect to the Claim and the Court action. The Company believes that the claims
are baseless and there was no breach of agreements as alleged. Claimants filed a separate order to show cause seeking attachment of the
Company’s assets arguing the Company did not have sufficient working capital to satisfy a potential award based on its public filings.
The Court found that while Claimants had not shown a likelihood of success on their theory of the case, it was likely something would
be owed. An order, granting claimants the right to attach up to $3,399,878 of Zoomcar’s assets in New York