NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

The Company has several non-cancelable operating leases, primarily for equipment, that expire over the next year. Minimum rent payments under operating leases are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. Rental expense for operating leases during 2016 and 2015 was $12,457 and $12,578, respectively.

The Company has an operating lease agreement, through the former parent, for office space located in Jacksonville, Florida that expired on April 30, 2016.  On March 8, 2016, the former parent executed an amendment to the current lease with a start date of May 1, 2016 and ending on October 31, 2021. Rental expense for the months of March 2016 through May 2016 will be $0, followed by a monthly rent of $14,816 (including operating cost and taxes) commencing with the month of June 2016. The rent is subject to an annual escalation of 3%, beginning May 1, 2017.

Minimum rent payments under this lease are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The current monthly lease payment is $14,179. Rental expense for the office lease during 2016 and 2015 was $171,513 and $142,593, respectively.

The following is a schedule of future minimum lease payments for non-cancelable operating leases are as follows:

Placement Agency Agreement

On February 18, 2015, duostech engaged an exclusive placement agent in connection with the possible acquisition of a private entity which has previously been disclosed. The acquisition required private placement of equity, equity-linked or debt securities (the “Agreement”). On June 29, 2015, the Company and the placement agent terminated the agreement; no success fee amounts were due.

On July 1, 2015, duostech entered into a limited exclusive placement agent agreement in connection with the proposed offer and placement of up to $5,000,000 of securities, convertible instruments, private notes or loans (excluding a registered public offering) of the Company. The Agreement was for an initial term of 120 days. duostech paid an initial fee of $15,000 in connection with this engagement with an additional $5,000 due upon the acceptance by duostech of a valid term sheet. In the event of a transaction being concluded, the agent would have been paid 5% of senior debt that is not convertible and 8% cash plus 8% warrants of any equity based transaction. At the conclusion of the initial term no acceptable term sheet had been presented and the Company terminated the agreement on December 1, 2015. The parties agreed to continue working together without a formal agreement but with an understanding that should a term sheet be accepted and a subsequent financing be secured, Duos would honor the terms of the original agreement as described above.

On January 6, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement with an investment banker to provide general financial advisory and investment banking services. Services included, but not limited to in the agreement are to provide a valuation analysis of the Company, assist management and advise the Company with respect to its strategic planning process and business plans including an analysis of markets, positioning, financial models, organizational structure, potential strategic alliances, capital requirements, potential national listing and working closely with the Company’s management team to develop a set of long and short-term goals with special focus on enhancing corporate and shareholder value. The Agreement is for an initial term of six months. The Company shall pay a non-refundable fee accruing at the rate of $10,000 per month, for the term of the agreement. These advisory fee payments will be accrued and deferred for payment until the earlier of 1) closing of a financing described in the agreement, 2) a closing of interim funding at which point fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding monthly advisory fee will be payable on the last day of the month following closing of the interim financing or 3) the termination of the agreement.  The Company issued to the investment banker 912,000 vested shares of the Company’s common stock as of the execution date of this agreement. In addition, the Company issued warrants for the purchase of 302,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. The warrants shall have a five-year term and an exercise price of $0.30. (see Notes 14 and 15)

On January 27, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement with a consultant to provide advisory services for an initial period of six months. The consultant will assist the Company with its objective of evaluating financing and other strategic options in connection with operational expansion and respond to any opportunities that arise in regard to strategic partnerships/acquisition/joint ventures or other business relationships that may advance revenue growth and enterprise value. Upon a qualified financing of at least $1,500,000 through a party introduced by the consultant, the Company agreed to issue up to $90,000 in equity or cash at the same rate and terms as the basis of the financing. In consideration for development services thirty days from the execution of this agreement, 20,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company will be granted to the consultant or assigns and be issued within fifteen days of the grant. Also, 30,000 additional shares shall be granted to the consultant or assigns on completion of any transactions with a potential participant. In consideration for advisory services, the non-refundable sum of $5,000 was payable upon execution of the agreement with a further $5,000 to be deferred and paid upon the completion of any transaction with a potential participant.  On May 5, 2016, the Company cancelled the agreement due to lack of performance with the consultant who was to provide advisory services for an initial period of six months.  The Company paid an initial amount of $2,500 and no further compensation will be paid.  No shares of common stock were issued in connection with this agreement.

On May 13, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement with a consultant in the business of providing services for management consulting, business advisory, shareholder information and public relations for a period of three months.  During the Term of this Agreement, the Company will pay to the Consultant the sum of $3,000 per month.  The Company may accrue monthly fees without payment to the consultant until the company closes a qualified financing other than the first month’s retainer. Upon signing, the Company issued to the Consultant 125,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock for a total purchase price of $100 and recorded $27,400 as a prepaid asset to be amortized over the three-month term.  The Company amortized $27,400 to expense as of December 31, 2016. As of August 14, 2016, the agreement had expired and was not renewed in writing by the parties as called for in the agreement.  The Company continues to work with the Principal on certain potential funding arrangements that were started (but not consummated) during the period in which the contract was in effect.

On September 1, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement with a registered investment broker, for the purposes of securing interim and long-term funding for the Company.  During the ninety-day term of this agreement, the Company was to pay the broker $50,000, certain travel expenses, plus 7% cash fee of the aggregate principle amount raised on a qualified financing. The Company has paid an initial amount of $6,500 to the broker and the broker sent materials to qualified investors.  The Company has cancelled the agreement effective December 27, 2016 and the initial fee of $6,500 was refunded to the Company on February 1, 2017.  

Litigation

On or about December 22, 2014, Corky Wells Electric (“CW Electric”) filed suit in the Circuit Court of Boyd County, Kentucky, against duostech demanding relief related to a promissory note issued by duostech to CW Electric on December 10, 2008 in the amount of $741,329. The suit was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Ashland Division. Previously, duostech entered into a “Stipulation for Settlement” on September 30, 2009 wherein CW Electric agreed to dismiss a previous lawsuit and duostech agreed to resume payments on the promissory note. In its suit, CW Electric contended that duostech breached the terms of that Stipulation for Settlement by not making the required number of payments at the times stipulated therein. CW Electric further contended that due to the breach of payment terms, under the terms of the promissory note, the outstanding amount continued to accrue interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which compounded monthly for a total of $1,411,650 due through the future final payment date.

Effective October 28, 2015, duostech and CW Electric entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to which the parties have agreed to settle the suit upon the payment by duostech to CW Electric of $550,000 (the “Settlement Amount”) by February 15, 2016. An agreed judgment, evidencing the Company’s agreement to pay the Settlement Amount, was signed by the parties (the “Agreed Judgment”) and such document deposited into escrow with CW Electric’s counsel. At the time of the payment of the Settlement Amount, the Agreed Judgment is to be returned to the Company for destruction.  Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, duostech had until February 15, 2016 to pay the Settlement Amount and, if such amount was not paid by such date, then the Agreed Judgment was to be filed with the court and executed upon, with interest due at 12% per annum beginning February 15, 2016.

On February 9, 2016, duostech’s counsel informed CW Electric’s counsel that on February 5, 2016, Duos executed a term sheet with an investment fund which will, among other things, provide the funding for the settlement with C.W. Electric. At the time, Duos and the lender believed that the closing would take place during or prior to the second week in March. Consequently, Duos requested that C.W. Electric refrain from filing and/or executing on the Agreed Judgment attached to the Settlement Agreement until after the closing, as they were in the final stretches of obtaining the funding necessary to resolve this matter. CW Electric’s counsel agreed to an extension and following the filing of a respective joint motion, the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky entered an order of continuance until March 20, 2016 and further extended until April 20, 2016.  Payment was made in full upon the closing of the loan dated April 1, 2016.

A contingent lawsuit payable of $550,000 was reflected at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.  On April 1, 2016, CW has released the Company, duostech and affiliates from any action that could have been brought in the suit.

On August 10, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with FacilityTeam of Ontario, Canada to settle a dispute that had arisen concerning payments for software development services. The Company strongly believed that FacilityTeam did not deliver the products promised and felt that we would prevail in arbitration called for by the contract between the parties. Ultimately, the Company opted to settle the matter for the cost of the litigation which was estimated be at least $60,000; rather than spend further resources on defending the claim and pursuing the counterclaim against FacilityTeam. The Company agreed to pay to FacilityTeam $2,500 per month starting October 1, 2015 for 24 months and taking a charge in the third quarter of 2015 for the settlement amount of $60,000.  On December 12, 2016, the Company was notified that it was in breach of settlement with a previous vendor, FacilityTeam based in in Ontario, Canada alleging failure to make payments against that settlement.  On December 28, 2016 the Company subsequently agreed to a modified payment schedule as part of a post judgement settlement for the amounts still outstanding.  The final payment was made on March 7, 2017.  (see Note 18)

On May 12, 2016, in Broward County, Florida, the holder of two convertible notes entered into in March and June 2015 in the amount of $50,000 and $46,975 respectively sued the company alleging that the Company was in default for not making scheduled principal and interest payment and failing to convert a portion of the notes into the Company’s common stock. As previously reported, on May 23, 2016, we filed a lawsuit in Broward County, Florida against, Greentree Financial Group, Inc., the holder of $96,975 aggregate principal amount of our convertible notes. The suit alleges, amongst other things, that the officers and directors of Greentree that entered into the notes, failed to disclose legal facts with respect to their personal conduct in the past, which, had the Company known, would have made it unlikely that such transaction would have been consummated. The Company owes the principal and interest due under the notes and sought to pay principal and interest of the note which first came due, but its offer was rejected. On January 23, 2017, the Company executed a settlement agreement with Greentree Financial Group resolving a pending lawsuit concerning these two convertible notes.  The settlement called for payment of $150,000 within 45 days of execution thereof and resolves all outstanding obligations related to the Notes.  The payment was made on March 7, 2017.  (see Note 18)

Delinquent Payroll Taxes Payable

As reported previously, the Company has a delinquent payroll tax payable at December 31, 2016 and 2015 in the amount of $400,076 and $244,470, respectively. The delinquent portion is included in the payroll taxes payable balance of $444,476 and $296,215, respectively, as shown on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. The IRS has accepted the Company’s offer of a monthly installment agreement in the amount of $25,000 commencing March 28, 2016.