Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-04-10 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 6, 2006, Orange County Valet and Security Patrol, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in Orange County California State Superior Court for Breach of Contract in the amount of $11,164. A default judgment was taken against us in this matter. In mid-2013 we learned the Plaintiffs perfected the judgment against us, but we have not heard from the Plaintiffs as of December 31, 2025. In the event we pay any money related to this lawsuit, IDTEC, LLC agreed, in connection with us closing the asset purchase transaction with IDTEC, to pay the amount for us in exchange for shares of our common stock. In the ordinary course of business, we are from time to time involved in various pending or threatened legal actions. The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and it is possible that the resolution of such matters might have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the opinion of our management, other than as set forth herein, matters currently pending or threatened against us are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that, as of the end of the year ended December 31, 2025, our internal controls over financial reporting were effective, and management has identified no material weaknesses. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, who are our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, respectively, concluded that, as of the end of the year ended December 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-04-15 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 6, 2006, Orange County Valet and Security Patrol, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in Orange County California State Superior Court for Breach of Contract in the amount of $11,164. A default judgment was taken against us in this matter. In mid-2013 we learned the Plaintiffs perfected the judgment against us, but we have not heard from the Plaintiffs as of December 31, 2024. In the event we pay any money related to this lawsuit, IDTEC, LLC agreed, in connection with us closing the asset purchase transaction with IDTEC, to pay the amount for us in exchange for shares of our common stock. On January 22, 2024, the Company was named as a party to a complaint filed in Oakland County Court, Michigan by a former employee. The case was initially filed in the 6th Judicial District Circuit of Michigan. However, on February 15, 2024, the case was removed to the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan. The former employee is claiming breach of contract, unlawful termination and promissory estoppel. The Company has denied these claims. A settlement agreement was agreed to with the former employee where the Company has remitted a settlement in exchange for a full rel… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that, as of the end of the year ended December 31, 2024, our internal controls over financial reporting were effective, and management has identified no material weaknesses. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, who are our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, respectively, concluded that, as of the end of the year ended December 31, 2024, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-04-01 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 6, 2006, Orange County Valet and Security Patrol, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in Orange County California State Superior Court for Breach of Contract in the amount of $11,164. A default judgment was taken against us in this matter. In mid-2013 we learned the Plaintiffs perfected the judgment against us, but we have not heard from the Plaintiffs as of December 31, 2023. In the event we pay any money related to this lawsuit, IDTEC, LLC agreed, in connection with us closing the asset purchase transaction with IDTEC, to pay the amount for us in exchange for shares of our common stock. On January 22, 2024, the Company was named as a party to a complaint filed in Oakland County Court, Michigan by a former employee. The case was initially filed in the 6th Judicial District Circuit of Michigan. However, on February 15, 2024, the case was removed to the Federal Courts. The former employee is claiming breach of contract, unlawful termination and promissory estoppel. The Company has denied these claims. In the ordinary course of business, we are from time to time involved in various pending or threatened legal actions. The litigation process is inherently uncertain and it is p… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, who are our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, respectively, concluded that, as of the end of the year ended December 31, 2023, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-31 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 6, 2006, Orange County Valet and Security Patrol, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in Orange County California State Superior Court for Breach of Contract in the amount of $11,164. A default judgment was taken against us in this matter. In mid-2013 we learned the Plaintiff’s perfected the judgment against us, but we have not heard from the Plaintiffs as of December 31, 2022. In the event we pay any money related to this lawsuit, IDTEC, LLC agreed, in connection with us closing the asset purchase transaction with IDTEC, to pay the amount for us in exchange for shares of our common stock. In the ordinary course of business, we are from time to time involved in various pending or threatened legal actions. The litigation process is inherently uncertain and it is possible that the resolution of such matters might have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition and/or results of operations. However, in the opinion of our management, other than as set forth herein, matters currently pending or threatened against us are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, who are our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, respectively, concluded that, as of the end of the year ended December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective (1) to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and (2) to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to us, including our Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Item 9A · material weakness · Based on this assessment, Management has identified the following two material weaknesses that have caused management to conclude that, as of December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures, and our internal control over financial reporting, were not effective at the reasonable assurance level: (i) We do not have sufficient segregation of duties within accounting functions, which is a basic internal control. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-11 | described here | not extracted | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 6, 2006, Orange County Valet and Security Patrol, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in Orange County California State Superior Court for Breach of Contract in the amount of $11,164. A default judgment was taken against us in this matter. In mid-2013 we learned the Plaintiff’s perfected the judgment against us, but we have not heard from the Plaintiffs as of December 31, 2021. In the event we pay any money related to this lawsuit, IDTEC, LLC agreed, in connection with us closing the asset purchase transaction with IDTEC, to pay the amount for us in exchange for shares of our common stock. We had one outstanding judgment against us involving a past employee of the Company. The matter was under the purview of the State of California, Franchise Tax Board, Industrial Health and Safety Collections. We owed approximately $28,786 plus accrued interest of approximately $53,000 to our ex-employee for unpaid wages under these Orders. On March 8, 2021, we received an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgement-Full by the California Court notifying us that the judgement has been settled with a payment of approximately $85,000 including the accrued interest owed through settlement da… Item 9A · material weakness · Based on this assessment, Management has identified the following three material weaknesses that have caused management to conclude that, as of December 31, 2021, our disclosure controls and procedures, and our internal control over financial reporting, were not effective at the reasonable assurance level: 1. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.