AllRacing

Ed Carpenter Racing lawsuit against former sponsor Ault dismissed

Ed Carpenter Racing’s lawsuit against former sponsor Todd Ault and the marketing agency of record overseeing his company’s racing sponsorship programs has been dismissed

The decision entered on October 29 by the State of Indiana in the Marion County Superior Court comes in response to the filing from “Defendants, Milton ‘Todd’ Ault, III (hereafter ‘Defendant Ault’), and VForward2 L.L.C. (hereafter ‘VF2’),” the marketing agency, who “filed their Motions to Dismiss under Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure (‘INTR’) 12(B)(2), 12(B)(6), and 12(C) (hereafter ‘Motion’).”

ECR sought the court’s involvement to enforce financial offerings for the 2024 IndyCar Series season it alleged were executable between itself and Ault in corporate and personal capacities.

Through its complaint, the sum of $10 million was pursued by ECR, which it argued was meant to be paid in 10 monthly installments of $1 million through Nov. 15, 2024.

Subsequent exchanges between both sides early in 2025 discussed a proposed payment of $8.4 million via ‘VF2’ with Ault suggesting “approximately $2,000,000” to be paid from his Guy Care company, “approximately $2,400,000” from his BitNile company, and $4,000,000 from RiskOn International to reach to the total of $8.4 million.

“This Court has reviewed the filings and conducted a hearing on the matter on September 30, 2025,” the judge wrote. “This case involves a dispute over two contracts. First, a purported 2024 NTT Indycar Series Primary Sponsorship Agreement (the ‘Agreement’) between Ed Carpenter Racing, LLC (hereafter ‘ECR’) and VF2 for the benefit of RiskOn International, Inc. (hereafter ‘RiskOn’). RiskOn is identified as a ‘Sponsor’ in the Agreement. Second, a purported Personal Guarantee of Defendant Ault for payment of RiskOn’s sponsorship of ECR for the 2024 IndyCar Season (hereafter ‘Personal Guarantee’).

“Neither contract is signed, but ECR argues that emails between the parties constitute offer and acceptance of the contracts. Plaintiff alleges three Counts: Count I, Breach of the Personal Guarantee by Defendant Ault; Count II, Breach of the Agreement by VF2; and Count III, Unjust Enrichment as an alternative claim against both Defendants.”

The first matter reviewed by the court was Ault’s alleged personal guarantee which the judge says lacked the authorizing signature required to form a valid contract.

“This Court now states the following: As acknowledged in the Complaint, Defendant Ault is a resident of Nevada. Ault may be an active participant in sponsoring Indy cars at the Indianapolis 500, but under the facts and circumstances of this case, emails exchanged between Defendant Ault and ECR negotiating a possible guaranty are insufficient to establish a valid contractual basis for personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ault under INTR 12(B)(2),” the judge wrote.

“Indiana’s Statute of Frauds (Ind. Code § 32-21-1-1(b)(2)) requires a signature by a guarantor on a guarantee which Plaintiff does not evidence. Without a valid contractual basis, Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant Ault has sufficient minimum contacts in Indiana to pursue this action as to Counts I and III. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under INTR12(B)(2).

“As previously discussed, the Personal Guaranty attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit A was never signed by Defendant Ault. In addition, he is not referenced in the Sponsorship Agreement attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit B which was also not executed. Since he was not a party to the Sponsorship Agreement, he did not personally benefit from Sponsorship Agreement, and consequently was not unjustly enriched. For these reasons, Defendant Ault’s Motion is GRANTED under INTR12(B)(6) and INTR12(C) as to both Counts I and III.”

The next item to address was ECR’s lawsuit against ‘VF2,’ which Ault signed to administer his racing sponsorships, and came with the same signature-related finding by the judge.

“As discussed, the emails referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint and advanced by Plaintiff as evidence of offer and acceptance of the terms of both the Personal Guaranty and the Sponsorship Agreement, are nothing more than the parties attempting to negotiate an agreement,” the judge continued.

“VF2 never signed a Sponsorship Agreement with ECR and were never contractually bound to ECR. To the extent that ECR placed RiskOn logos or any logos related to the Sponsorship Agreement on their cars was a choice made by ECR alone. For these reasons, Defendant VF2’s Motion is GRANTED under INTR12(B)(6) and INTR12(C) as to both Counts II and III.”

The judge closed the case by dismissing it “with prejudice,” which means it cannot be refiled by ECR. But the team owned by Carpenter, Tony George, Stuart Reed and Ted Gelov was granted the right to appeal the findings.

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant Ault and VF2’s Motions to Dismiss pursuant to INTR12(B)(2), INTR12(B)(6) and INTR12(C) with respect to all Counts are GRANTED with prejudice,” the judge wrote. “This constitutes a final, appealable order.”

ECR’s association with Ault and his businesses ran through 2024 and came to an end when the team welcomed Gelov as co-owner and chairman. His Heartland Foods company became the primary sponsor for ECR’s Nos. 20 and 21 Chevrolet entries in 2025.

Ault returned in 2025 after signing new sponsorship arrangements with the Dale Coyne Racing IndyCar team and Meyer Shank Racing’s IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship GTP program with his askROI company.

RACER has asked ECR for comment on whether it will appeal the decision and awaits a response.