IPSI — what changed in the latest 10-Q

Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-15

• Development of Jetties Partners, LLC (d/b/a IPSIPAY)(“IPSIPAY”)

• On October 29, 2025, we formed a limited liability corporation, Jetties Partners, LLC (“Jetties”), d/b/a IPSIPAY. The Company was formed to develop, market, distribute and operate a merchant processing payment solution, with an initial focus on the gaming industry. The Company consists of two 50% pa…

• Macro-economic conditions could affect consumer spending adversely and consequently our future operations when we fully launch our e-wallet products commercially. The recent war in Iran and uncertainty and volatility in energy markets may have a ripple effect on inflation, and this may impact consum…

• Our shareholders face significant dilution risk due to the fixed price convertible debt and variable price convertible debt totaling $5,734,682, net of debt discount of $191,847 and convertible debt due to a related party of $258,253, as of March 31, 2026.

• As of March 31, 2026, we calculated that the potential dilutive impact of conversion of the convertible notes is a total of 669,844,166 shares of common stock. However, a forbearance agreement with certain significant convertible note holders expired on May 1, 2026, resulting in a fixed conversion p…

Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2025-11-14

• While we believe the IPSIPay Express opportunity has great promise, as of the date of this report, IPEX has not been launched and we have derived no revenue or cash distributions from IPSIPay Express. We expect that revenue will be generated by IPSIPay Express through fees derived from merchant proc…

• ● Securing Banking Relationships. To engage in traditional credit card processing or the proposed IPEX account-to-account payment solution, it is necessary to work with qualified banking institutions through which transactions are processed. As of the date of this Report, such relationships are not …

• ● Assisting with Payment Logistics. We have been working with our IPSIPay Express joint venture partners to establish the systems and technology necessary to effectuate payments through IPEX. As of the date of this Report, the establishment of such systems and technology is still ongoing, which is t…

• ● Securing Customers. Our management has also been working to secure potential customers for IPEX. These customers would include gaming and entertainment businesses.

• No assurances can be given that IPSIPay Express will be successfully launched or will generate revenues or otherwise have a positive impact on our results of operations. We believe IPSIPay Express could be commercially launched and generate initial revenues during the current fiscal year, but no ass…

Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-15

• Any breach of the terms of the settlement agreement will result in a payment to the Plaintiffs of liquidated damages of $25,000 for each event of default.

• On April 6, 2026, the Company issued an aggregate of 27,180,823 shares of common stock to settle the outstanding liability of $543,616, including interest and a liquidated damages penalty of $100,000 for not adhering to the original settlement terms, thereby extinguishing the legal settlement liabil…

• Mr. Minkovich bases his claim in part on the unilateral expectation that he receive 2.7 million shares of the company. Assuming he is owed any shares, a claim which we dispute, after the reverse 30-1 split he would receive only 90,000 shares.

• Through prior counsel, the Company and Mr. Corbett filed a motion to compel arbitration. The motion was denied on October 4, 2022. Again, through prior counsel, the Company and Mr. Corbett then appealed that decision to the California Court of Appeal. As a result of the appeal, the court case was st…

• On February 27, 2024, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed the Superior Court’s decision denying our motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions to issue a new order compelling to arbitration the parties’ dispute rega…

Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2025-11-14

• On October 20, 2021, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of its officers and directors with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor (“OSHA”), captioned Naum Voloshin, Yulia Rey, Alexander Voloshin, Andrey Novikov, and Frank Perez v…

• In early 2022, OSHA dismissed the claims of Ms. Rey and Mr. Perez, and they appealed that decision. Prior counsel moved to dismiss the remaining claims and as of this writing OSHA took no action with respect to that motion as ultimately the former employees elected to proceed in federal court. Pursu…

• On November 7, 2022, the same five employees filed a lawsuit, not in federal court, but in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, against our Company and the same individuals against whom they had asserted their OSHA claim. The complaint asserted claims for, among other things,…

• We and Mr. Corbett, the sole remaining individual defendant, through prior counsel moved to compel arbitration on February 17, 2023. As a result of that motion and a stipulated order entered by the court, all proceedings in the Superior Court were stayed.

• On June 8, 2023, while our motion to compel arbitration was pending in the Superior Court three of the employees (Naum Voloshin, Alexander Voloshin, and Novikov) filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Naum Voloshin, et al., v. Innovative Payment Solut…