11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

OPERATING LEASE

Total rent expense for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 was $79,871 and $115,947, respectively.

PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT

On March 11, 2016, the Company (the “Licensee”), the Executive Chairman of the Board and Balance Holdings, LLC (an entity controlled by the Executive Chairman) (collectively, the “Licensor”) entered into an agreement related to a patent license agreement, dated March 29, 2012. The parties acknowledge that the Licensee has paid a total of $8,525 in registration and legal fees for the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61529016 (the “Patent Application”) to date. Effective March 11, 2016, the patent license agreement, solely with respect to the Patent Application and the parties’ rights and obligations thereto, was terminated. The Executive Chairman of the Board agreed to be solely responsible for all future costs and fees associated with the prosecution of the patent application. In the event the Patent Application is successful, the Executive Chairman of the Board shall grant a credit to the Licensee in the amount of $8,525 to be applied against any outstanding amount(s) owed to him. If the Licensee does not have any outstanding payment obligations to the Executive Chairman of the Board at the time the Patent Application is approved, the Executive Chairman of the Board shall remit the $8,525 to the Licensee within twenty (20) days of the approval. The parties agreed to a mutual release of any claims associated with the patent license agreement.

LITIGATION AND DISPUTES

See Note 12 – Subsequent Events – Litigation and Disputes for additional details.

On July 28, 2015, a Notice of Arbitration was received stating ITT Cannon has a dispute with Blink for the manufacturing and purchase of 6,500 charging cables by Blink, who has not taken delivery or made payment on the contract price of $737,425. ITT Cannon also seeks to be paid the cost of attorney’s fees as well as punitive damages. The parties have agreed on a single arbitrator and are working to schedule the arbitration. The Company contends that the product was not in accordance with the specifications in the purchase order and, as such, believes the claim is without merit. The parties have agreed on a single arbitrator and are working to schedule the arbitration while simultaneously pursuing settlement options.

From time to time, the Company is a defendant or plaintiff in various legal actions that arise in the normal course of business.

350 GREEN, LLC

There have been five lawsuits filed against 350 Green by creditors of 350 Green regarding unpaid claims. These lawsuits relate solely to alleged pre-acquisition unpaid debts of 350 Green. Also, there are other unpaid creditors, aside from those noted above, that claim to be owed certain amounts for pre-acquisition work done on behalf of 350 Green solely, that potentially could file lawsuits at some point in the future.

On August 7, 2014, 350 Green received a copy of a complaint filed by Sheetz, a former vendor of 350 Green alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment of $112,500. The complaint names 350 Green, 350 Holdings LLC and CCGI in separate breach of contract counts and names all three entities together in an unjust enrichment claim. CCGI and 350 Holdings will seek to be dismissed from the litigation, because, as the complaint is currently plead, there is no legal basis to hold CCGI or 350 Green liable for a contract to which they are not parties. The parties held a mediation conference on May 15, 2015, but no settlement was reached. The parties continue to negotiate a settlement.

On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of Chicago, Illinois affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the matter of JNS Power & Control Systems, Inc. v. 350 Green, LLC in favor of JNS, which affirmed the sale of certain assets by 350 Green to JNS and the assumption of certain 350 Green liabilities by JNS. On April 7, 2016, JNS amended the complaint to add CCGI alleging an unspecified amount of lost revenues from the chargers, among other matters, caused by the defendants. Plaintiff also seeks indemnity for its unspecified costs in connection with enforcing the Asset Purchase Agreement in courts in New York and Chicago. CCGI has filed a motion to dismiss and the parties have concurrently agreed to attend a settlement conference, the date for which has not yet been confirmed by the Court.

See Note 4 – Assets and Liabilities Transferred to Trust Mortgage - 350 Green.