Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
From time to time, we may become involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have a material adverse effect on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of our management resources, and other factors.
100
Table of Contents
On December 24, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against our company and certain of our current and former officers, Saylor v. Caribou Biosciences, Inc., et al., case number 3:24-cv-09413 (“Saylor Case”). The alleged class period was July 14, 2023, to July 16, 2024. The Saylor Case complaint challenged disclosures regarding our business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the alleged safety, efficacy, and durability of vispa-cel, the clinical results and commercial prospects for vispa-cel, and our financial statements, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”). On April 15, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit and, on April 27, 2025, the court granted the motion, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice.
On March 3, 2025, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against our directors and certain of our current and former officers, Moisio, derivatively on behalf of Caribou Biosciences, Inc. v. Haurwitz, et al, case number 4:25-cv-02199 (“First Derivative Case”), alleging, among other things, that the named directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by causing our company to make the disclosures being challenged in the Saylor Case and seeking unspecified monetary damages from our company as well as that we make certain changes to our corporate governance. On March 11, 2025, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the same defendants as in the First Derivative Case, Allen, derivatively on behalf of Caribou Biosciences, Inc. v. Braunstein, et al. , case number 4:25-cv-02463 (“Second Derivative Case”), with the same allegations. On April 1, 2025, the First Derivative Case and the Second Derivative Case were deemed related and assigned to the same judge and, on April 7, 2025, the First Derivative Case and the Second Derivative Case were consolidated into a single action, In re Caribou Biosciences, Inc. Derivative Litigation , lead case number 4:25-cv-02199 (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action filed an amended complaint on July 7, 2025. The amended complaint largely tracked the claims from the original complaints, but it also challenged additional disclosures as false or misleading. On August 21, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 16, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, which the court granted on October 17, 2025.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
101
Table of Contents
PART II