NOTE 5 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Placement Agency Agreement

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 5-year term and an exercise price of $0.30. (See Note 7)

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 $13,700 to expense as of June 30, 2016.

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.  

CW has released the Company, duostech and affiliates from any action that could have been brought in the suit. 

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 27, 2016, the holder of two convertible notes issued a notice of conversion to the Company for a portion of one of the notes.  The conversion notice was determined to be invalid as was a previous conversion notice issued on the other note during the quarter.  A difference of opinion has arisen between the holder and the Company as to the mechanics of conversion and the Company had been in discussions to resolve those differences.  On May 23, 2016, we filed a lawsuit against the holder. 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 the offer was rejected.  On May 24, 2016, the Company learned through a third party that the holder had filed suit against the Company on May 12 for default on one of notes, but had not notified the Company or its attorneys, nor served either the Company or its attorneys. The Company was served shortly thereafter.

Delinquent Payroll Taxes Payable

As reported previously, the Company has a delinquent payroll tax payable at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 in the amount of $144,470 and $244,470, respectively. The delinquent portion is included in the payroll taxes payable balance of $332,846 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.  The monthly installment payments are current as of June 30, 2016.