What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2024-02-16 compared with 2023-02-17 · 124 added, 64 removed, 212 unchanged (47% of the section changed)

37 unchanged sentences

District Court for the District of Delaware.

In the Complaint, IG alleges that our daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) product offering infringes two patents:

In the Complaint, IG alleges that our DFS product offering infringes two patents:

8,956,231 (the “231 Patent”), which is entitled “Multi-process communication regarding gaming information”, and U.S.

14 unchanged sentences

On October 5, 2022, we filed our responsive briefs in the appeals of the IPRs related to the ’231 Patent and ’967 Patent.

On November 23, 2022, IG filed its reply

briefs in the appeals of the IPRs related to the ’231 Patent and ’967 Patent.

The District Court litigation remains stayed pending resolution of all appeals from the inter partes reviews.

On November 23, 2022, IG filed its reply briefs in the appeals of the IPRs related to the ’231 Patent and ’967 Patent.

Oral argument for both appeals was held on June 7, 2023.

On June 9, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions for the IPRs related to both the ’231 Patent and ’967 Patent.

The ’302 Patent is currently subject to an ex parte reexamination proceeding at the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office (U.S.

Patent Application No.

90/015,151) (the “’302 Reexam”).

On October 31, 2023, a final office action was issued in the ’302 Reexam, rejecting and objecting to certain claims in the ’302 Patent.

The District Court litigation remains stayed pending resolution of both:

(1) all appeals from the inter partes reviews, and (2) the '302 Reexam and any subsequent appeals therefrom.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

16 unchanged sentences

On October 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation that allowed Winview to file a second amended complaint on or before November 15, 2021, which the court signed and ordered on November 1, 2021.

On November 15, 2021, Winview filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), adding as defendants DK DE and Crown Gaming Inc., a Delaware corporation, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company.

On November 15, 2021, Winview filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), adding as defendants DK Crown Holdings Inc.

and Crown Gaming Inc., a Delaware corporation, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company.

The SAC, among other allegations, repeats the allegations of the first amended complaint that the defendants infringe the ’243 Patent, the ’543 Patent, the ’730 Patent, and the ’988 Patent.

5 unchanged sentences

On February 15, 2023, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB’s final written decision.

On January 29, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPRs, finding unpatentable all challenged claims of the ’243, ’543, and ’730 Patents.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

4 unchanged sentences

Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Securities Matters Related to Allegations in the Hindenburg Report

On July 2, 2021, the first of two substantially similar federal securities law putative class actions was filed in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers.

The actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021.

The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in a report published about the Company on June 15, 2021 by Hindenburg Research (the “Hindenburg Report”).

We intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

On November 12, 2021, the court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re DraftKings Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 11, 2022.

On February 22, 2022, defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action, and in response, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 5, 2022.

On April 26, 2022, defendants again filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action.

On January 10, 2023, the court granted the motion to dismiss and final judgment was entered dismissing the action with prejudice.

Beginning on July 9, 2021, the Company received subpoenas from the SEC seeking documents concerning, among other things, certain of the allegations raised in the Hindenburg Report, as well as the Company’s disclosures regarding its compliance policies and procedures, and related matters.

Securities Matters Arising From the Hindenburg Report and Related Matters

Beginning on July 9, 2021, the Company received subpoenas from the SEC seeking documents concerning, among other things, certain of the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in a report published about the Company on June 15, 2021 by Hindenburg Research, as well as the Company’s adherence to and disclosures regarding its compliance policies and procedures, and related matters.

The Company intends to comply with the related requests and is cooperating with the SEC’s ongoing inquiry.

2 unchanged sentences

Any adverse outcome in the SEC matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the SEC matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such perio d.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation Related to Allegations in the Hindenburg Report

On October 21, 2021, the first of five substantially similar putative shareholder derivative actions was filed in Nevada by alleged shareholders of the Company.

The actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and/or members of the board of directors of the Company and DEAC.

The two actions filed in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Nevada have since been consolidated, and two of the actions filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County likewise have been consolidated.

A substantially identical fifth action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County and has been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff.

The same plaintiff filed a substantially identical action in Massachusetts Superior Court, which has also been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff.

The Nevada actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in the Hindenburg Report.

The federal court action in Nevada also contends that certain individuals are liable to the Company for any adverse judgment in the federal securities class actions described above under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act.

The Nevada actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, equitable and injunctive relief, restitution, costs and attorney’s fees.

All proceedings in both pending Nevada actions have been stayed by agreement of the parties pending the finality of the above-referenced judgement of dismissal in In re DraftKings Securities Litigation , which became final on February 9, 2023.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liabilities.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Because the Nevada actions allege claims on behalf of the Company and purport to seek judgments in favor of the Company, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Matters Related to the GNOG Transaction

On August 12, 2022, a putative class action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County against Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc.

(“GNOG Inc.”), the Company and one of its officers, as well as former officers or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc.

(“GNOG Inc.”), the Company and one of its officers and two affiliates, as well as former officers or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc.

and Jefferies LLC.

3 unchanged sentences

in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and the other defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On November 1, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on the grounds of improper forum and lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants.

On December 22, 2022, plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss.

On January 23, 2023, defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss.

On February 7, 2023, the parties filed supplemental briefs with respect to the motions to dismiss.

Those motions remain pending.

On November 1, 2022, defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on the procedural grounds of improper forum and lack of personal jurisdiction over certain defendants or, in the alternative, to stay the action pending resolution of parallel proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On May 24, 2023, the court (i) granted the motions to dismiss for improper forum with respect to GNOG Inc.

and its former officers and directors other than Mr.

Fertitta, as well as Jefferies LLC, (ii) denied the motions to dismiss for improper forum with respect to the Company and its officer and two affiliates, as well as Mr.

Fertitta and Fertitta Entertainment, Inc., and (iii) granted the non-dismissed defendants’ alternative request to stay the action for at least nine months pending resolution of parallel proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 29, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order insofar as it found certain claims subject to a Delaware forum requirement.

On July 27, 2023, defendants filed oppositions to the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and certain defendants filed countermotions for certification of final judgment as to the claims that the court previously dismissed pursuant to its May 24, 2023 order.

On October 1, 2023, the court entered an order (1) denying the motion for reconsideration and (2) granting the motion for certification of final judgment as to the defendants whose claims against them previously were dismissed.

On January 18, 2024, the court entered a stipulated order extending the stay until resolution of the parallel proceedings in Delaware Chancery Court.

On September 9, 2022, two similar putative class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against former directors of GNOG Inc.

9 unchanged sentences

On October 29, 2022, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The Company’s obligation to respond to the consolidated action has been stayed by the court until the filing of a consolidated amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liabilities.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Any adverse outcome in these matters could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

On November 3, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs designated an operative complaint in the consolidated action.

On January 13, 2023, defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the action.

On June 8, 2023, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.

At a mediation held on January 24, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware action, subject to negotiation and execution of mutually agreeable definitive documentation and the performance and satisfaction of the terms and conditions set forth thereof.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Nevada action.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome the Nevada action or determine the extent of any potential liabilities.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss of the Nevada action.

Any adverse outcome in the Nevada action could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the Nevada action will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

AG 18, LLC d/b/a/ Arrow Gaming

3 unchanged sentences

Patents are asserted against one or both of the Company's DFS and Casino product offerings in the amended complaint:

9,613,498 (“the ’498 Patent”), entitled “Systems and Methods For Peer-to-Peer Gaming”;

9,978,205 (“the ’205 Patent”), entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”;

10,497,220 (“the ’220 Patent”) entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”);

10,614,657 (“the ’657 Patent”) entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”;

11,024,131 (“the ’131 Patent”) entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming” (collectively, the “Arrow Gaming Patents”).

9,613,498, entitled “Systems and Methods For Peer-to-Peer Gaming”;

9,978,205, entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”;

10,497,220 entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”;

10,614,657 entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”;

11,024,131 entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming” (collectively, the “Arrow Gaming Patents”).

On November 9, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

7 unchanged sentences

On March 21, 2022, plaintiff filed its opposition to the Company's motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, and on March 28, 2022, the Company filed its reply thereto.

On September 21, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was administratively terminated,

pending the outcome of the disqualification motion.

On September 21, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was administratively terminated, pending the outcome of the disqualification motion.

On October 4, 2022, the presiding Magistrate Judge denied the Company's motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel.

5 unchanged sentences

On December 2, 2022, the Company filed a reply in support of the motion to stay.

Between August 22, 2022 and August 30, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging the validity of each of the Arrow Gaming Patents.

Between August 22, 2022 and August 30, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of each of the Arrow Gaming Patents.

On March 14, 2023, the PTAB granted institution of all inter partes review petitions, and it is expected to issue final written decisions by March 14, 2024.

On June 7, 2023, Arrow Gaming filed its responses to the petitions.

On September 6, 2023, DraftKings filed its replies in support of the petitions.

Oral argument occurred on December 13, 2023 and we are awaiting the final decision.

On April 3, 2023, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB's final written decisions.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

6 unchanged sentences

The following U.S.

Patents are asserted against Company’s Sportsbook and Casino products in the complaint:

9,965,920, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’920 Patent”);

10,043,341, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’341 Patent”);

10,147,266, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’266 Patent”);

10,255,755, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’755 Patent”) (collectively, the “Beteiro Patents”).

Patents are asserted against the Company’s Sportsbook and Casino products in the complaint:

9,965,920, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity”;

10,043,341, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity”;

10,147,266, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity”;

10,255,755, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (collectively, the “Beteiro Patents”).

The Company filed its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on February 9, 2022.

3 unchanged sentences

On October 5, 2022, Beteiro filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling on the motion to dismiss at the District Court, which was denied by the District Court on November 2, 2022.

On October 28, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging the validity of each of the Beteiro Patents.

On March 9, 2023, Beteiro filed its opening appellate brief.

DraftKings’ responsive brief was filed on June 9, 2023.

Beteiro’s reply brief was filed on July 1, 2023.

On October 28, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of each of the Beteiro Patents.

Between May 11, 2023 and May 12, 2023, the PTAB instituted review for all Beteiro Patents.

The PTAB is expected to issue a final written decision for the IPRs by May 12, 2024.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

31 unchanged sentences

On February 7, 2023, the Company filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims to the Amended Complaint, and also filed a response to Colossus’ motion to strike.

Between November 29, 2022, and December 2, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the Colossus Patents.

On February 28, 2023, Colossus filed another motion to strike DraftKings’ inequitable conduct affirmative defense and counterclaim.

DraftKings filed its responsive brief on March 28, 2023.

Colossus filed its reply brief on April 11, 2023.

Magistrate Judge Burke held a hearing on Colossus’ motion on June 6, 2023 and subsequently issued a report and recommendation (the “Second Report and Recommendation”) that the motion be denied in part and granted in part.

Colossus filed objections to the Second Report and Recommendation on June 21, 2023, and DraftKings filed its response to Colossus’ objections on July 5, 2023.

On August 2, 2023, Judge Noreika overruled Colossus’ objections and adopted the Second Report and Recommendation.

Between November 29, 2022, and February 7, 2023, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the Colossus Patents.

With respect to the seven patents remaining pending in the case, the PTAB granted institution of IPRs for each of the ’341 patent, ’969 patent, and the ’822 patent.

The PTAB is expected to issue final written decisions for these three IPRs by June 22, 2024.

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for each of the ’516 patent, ’716 patent, ’338 patent and the '779 patent.

On September 11, 2023, the Company filed a request for Director review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute review in the IPR for the ’779 patent.

On November 7, 2023, the Director of the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office delegated Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in the IPR for the ’779 Patent to the Delegated Review Panel to determine whether to grant rehearing.

On September 6, 2023, the parties stipulated to a stay of the district court litigation pending resolution of the instituted IPRs.

The PTAB review of the ’341, ’969 and ’822 patents are ongoing at this time.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

16 unchanged sentences

The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit.

If the plaintiff obtains a judgment in his favor in this matter, the Company could be subject to substantial damages and it could be restricted from offering DFS contests in Florida.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and it could be restricted from offering DFS contests in Florida.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter.

9 unchanged sentences

Plaintiff alleges that, instead of paying out the prize money, the Company refunded entry fees to contestants that entered showdown or flash draft fantasy contests.

Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment.

Among other things, Plaintiffs seeks statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.

On May 8, 2023, plaintiff Turley and a new plaintiff (Erik Ramos) filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

On June 12, 2023, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted by both plaintiffs or, in the alternative, strike the flash draft allegations.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition on July 17, 2023.

On August 3, 2023, Defendant filed its reply, and the motion remains pending.

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment.

Among other things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

If the plaintiff obtains a judgment in his favor in this matter, the Company could be subject to substantial damages and it could be restricted from offering DFS contests in Massachusetts.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and /or require alterations to the Company’s business.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter.

1 unchanged sentence

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Any adverse outcome in these matters could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Securities Matters Related to DraftKings Marketplace

On March 9, 2023, a putative class action was filed in Massachusetts federal court by an alleged purchaser of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the DraftKings Marketplace (“DK Marketplace”).

The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal and state securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that, among other things, the NFTs that are sold and traded on the DK Marketplace allegedly constitute securities that were not registered with the SEC in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law, and that the DK Marketplace is a securities exchange that is not registered in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking rescissory damages and other relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased NFTs on the DK Marketplace between August 11, 2021 and the present.

On June 27, 2023, the court entered an order authorizing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by August 4, 2023.

On September 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action.

On November 10, 2023, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On December 11, 2023, defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss.

The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2023, and took the matter under advisement.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

On July 17, 2023, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeking documents and requesting answers to interrogatories concerning, among other things, DK Marketplace and NFTs that are sold on DK Marketplace, and related matters.

We intend to comply with these requests.

Any adverse outcome in these matters could subject the Company to substantial damages and/or require alterations to the Company’s business.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of these matters.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Any adverse outcome in these matters could expose the Company to substantial damages, penalties and/or require alterations to the Company’s that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could

be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation Related to DraftKings Marketplace

On May 31, 2023, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in Nevada state court by an alleged shareholder of the Company.

The action asserts claims on behalf of the Company against certain senior officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to disseminate misleading and inaccurate information to its shareholders in connection with NFTs that are sold and traded on the DK Marketplace.

The action also alleges that certain individuals are liable for trading in Company stock at artificially inflated prices.

The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorney’s fees, and other unspecified relief.

All proceedings in this action have been stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the above-referenced motion to dismiss in the putative class action in Massachusetts federal court.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Because this action alleges claims on behalf of the Company and purports to seek a judgment in favor of the Company, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

On December 8, 2023, plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Shane Harris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a purported Massachusetts class action lawsuit against DraftKings in Middlesex County Superior Court of Massachusetts.

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Company’s promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 in site credits, and related advertisements, were:

(1) unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws (“M.G.L.”) c.

93A, §§ 2, 9;

and (2) untrue and misleading advertising in violation of M.G.L.

The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, injunctive relief, actual damages, double or treble damages, and attorneys’ fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and /or require alterations to the Company’s business.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.

3 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings