indemnification under the terms of the underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for the Company’s initial public offering (the “Underwriting Agreement”). On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the Underwriters’ cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross- complaint against the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. On February 18, 2020, we filed an answer to Mr. Monfort’s cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.
On March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed its motion for class certification. On March 17, 2021, the court held a case management conference. At the case management conference, the court set a tentative schedule for class discovery and briefing on the motion for class certification. On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI filed a stipulation extending the deadline for class certification discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class discovery on September 28, 2021; defendants’ opposition to the motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021; plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021; a case management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification. Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort. The Underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains on the primary claims in this matter. All defendants are maintaining their cross claims against each other. On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains’ counsel moved to be relieved as counsel and on August 23, 2021, the court granted this motion. Also on August 23, 2021, the Clerk of Court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be stricken and matter dismissed for failure to retain new counsel to Electric Drivetrains. On October 28, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed a substitution of attorney, substituting J. Ryan Gustafson of Good Gustafson Aumais LLP as its new counsel. On December 10, 2021, the Court vacated the order to show cause. On January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his cross-complaint for indemnification against the Company. On March 28, 2022, Electric Drivetrains forwarded its proposed Fifth Amended Complaint, in which it: i) drops certain class allegations; ii) adds certain state law claims (various violations of California Corporations Code), aider and abettor liability, and negligent misrepresentation, but leaves the remaining claims against defendants intact. The Company has agreed to stipulate to the filing of the amended complaint. A status conference is scheduled for June 16, 2022. We believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.
On January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his cross-complaint for indemnification against the Company in the Mollik action. On April 8, 2022, the Company and Boustead Securities, LLC (“Boustead”) settled their respective cross-claims against each other in both the Mollik action and Brooks action (see below) in exchange for the Company paying fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in cash and $125,000 (one hundred twenty five thousand dollars) in stock and mutual releases between parties. There are no longer any cross claims pending in the Mollik action.
On June 19, 2019, Alan K. Brooks, an ADOMANI investor, filed a complaint, captioned Alan K. Brooks v. ADOMANI, Inc., et al., Case No.
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain of the Company’s executive officers and directors, two of the underwriters of the Company’s offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017, and certain of the underwriters’ personnel, among others. The complaint alleges that the Company and other defendants breached the terms of an agreement between Mr. Brooks and the Company by refusing to release 1,320,359 shares of ADOMANI, Inc. stock to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks seeks damages of $13,500,000.00 plus interest and attorney’s fees. On September 20, 2019, Mr. Brooks filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) reasserting his breach of contract claim and alleging five additional claims for (i) violations of Cal. Corp. Code Section 25401, (ii) fraud, (iii) negligent misrepresentation, (iv) elder abuse, and (v) unfair competition. We answered the FAC on November 12, 2019, generally denying the allegations in the FAC and asserting affirmative defenses. Fact discovery in this matter remains ongoing. On August 10, 2021, we filed a motion for summary judgement and dismissal of plaintiff’s FAC. The parties participated in two days of mediation with Mark LeHocky. Mr. LeHocky provided the parties with a mediator’s proposal. Both parties accepted the proposal and reduced the proposal to a written settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs $197,500 in cash and $197,500 in shares of common stock. In addition, the Company’s insurance carrier has agreed to pay plaintiffs $170,000. On January 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for an order approving the fairness of the terms of the settlement agreement. On March 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order approving the settlement and the parties are in the process of effectuating its terms. On April 5, 2022, the Company and Boustead resolved Boustead’s cross claim for indemnification in the Brooks action. This settlement is still subject to court approval. There are no further claims pending in the Brooks action and, if and when the Court approves the settlement, it should be dismissed.
On February 3, 2020, the Company acquired substantially all the assets of Ebus in a foreclosure sale through a credit bid in the amount of $582,000, representing the amount then owed by Ebus to the Company evidenced by a secured promissory note. Following the Company’s successful credit bid at the foreclosure sale, Ebus’s obligations under the note were extinguished and the Company was entitled to take possession of substantially all of the assets of Ebus. While the Company was able to take possession of some of the assets, Ebus prevented the Company from taking possession of all of the assets purchased at the foreclosure sale. As a result, on April 13, 2020, the Company filed a complaint captioned ADOMANI, Inc. v. Ebus, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 20ST CV 14275, against