10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

OPERATING LEASE

Total rent expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 was $91,120 and $170,991, respectively, and $113,297 and $229,244 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, 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

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.

On April 8, 2016, Douglas Stein filed a Petition for Fee Arbitration with the State Bar of Georgia against the Company for breach of contract for failure to pay invoices in the amount of $178,893 for legal work provided. The invoices have been accrued for in the periods in which the services were provided. The Company has responded to the claim and is simultaneously pursuing settlement options.

On May 18, 2016, the Company was served with a complaint from Solomon Edwards Group, LLC for breach of written agreement and unjust enrichment for failure to pay invoices in the amount of $172,645 for services provided, plus interest and costs. The invoices have been accrued for in the periods in which the services were provided.

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 on August 18, 2016.

OTHER MATTER

On May 12, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint with the United States District Court in the Central District of California wherein the SEC alleges that an attorney who previously served as securities counsel to the Company was involved in a fraudulent scheme to create and sell seven (7) public “shell” companies. The SEC’s complaint indicates that one of the shell companies, New Image Concepts, Inc. (“NIC”) was the subject of the Company’s December 7, 2009 reverse merger, wherein following the merger, NIC was renamed Car Charging Group, Inc. The Company is not named as a defendant in the SEC’s complaint and, based on internal review and discussions, there were and are no continuing affiliations between any employees, directors, or investors of the pre-merger shell company and the Company. The Company has determined that no current or past employees of the Company were involved with the former shell company and it does not expect any additional actions to be necessary with respect to this matter.