Lunai Bioworks Inc. 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings. Securities Class Action Litigation. On July 26, 2022 and July 28, 2022, securities class action complaints (the former, the “Chow Action” and the latter, the “Manici Action”) and together, the “Securities Class Action Litigation”) were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with the Company’s relationship with Serhat Gümrükcü and its commercial prospects. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On November 22, 2022, the Manici Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, but the Chow action remains pending. On October 22, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the Chow Action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2023. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 15, 2024. The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss on June 28, 2024. A mediation was held on September 17, 2024, after which the parties signed a stipulation of settlement, dated November 8, 2024. The plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is December 9, 2024. Federal Derivative Litigation . On September 22, 2022, Samuel E. Koenig filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 19, 2023, John Solak filed a substantially similar shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Both derivative actions recite similar underlying facts as those alleged in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The actions, filed on behalf of the Company, name Serhat Gümrükcü and certain of the Company’s former directors as defendants. The actions also name the Company as a nominal defendant. The actions allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and also set out claims for breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement. Plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged injury, but seek damages, disgorgement, restitution, and other costs and expenses. On January 24, 2023, the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed the Koenig matter pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. On April 4, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Solak matter pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. On June 28, 2024, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action Litigation. On October 23, 2024, the court in the Koenig matter stayed the case pending further order of the court. The parties’ deadline to file a joint status report in the Koenig matter is January 10, 2025. On October 28, 2024, the court in the Solak matter stayed the case for ninety (90) days. The defendants have not yet responded to either complaint. The Company intends to contest these matters but expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of favorable outcomes. Management is unable to determine the likelihood of a loss, including a possible range of losses, if any, arising from this matter as of the reporting date. State Derivative Litigation. On October 20, 2022, Susan Midler filed a shareholder derivative action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, reciting similar underlying facts as those alleged in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The action, filed on behalf of the Company, names Serhat Gümrükcü and certain of the Company’s current and former directors as defendants. The action also names the Company as a nominal defendant. The action sets out claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement. Plaintiff does not quantify any alleged injury, but seeks damages, disgorgement, restitution, and other costs and expenses. On January 20, 2023, the Court stayed the Midler matter pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. On June 28, 2024, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action Litigation. On October 28, 2024, the court in the Midler matter stayed the case for ninety (90) days. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company intends to contest this matter but expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of a favorable outcome. Management is unable to determine the likelihood of a loss, including a possible range of losses, if any, arising from this matter as of the reporting date. 33 On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against Serhat Gümrükcü, William Anderson Wittekind (“Wittekind”), G Tech Bio, SG & AW Holdings, LLC, and SRI (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in a “concerted, deliberate scheme to alter, falsify, and misrepresent to the Company the results of multiple studies supporting its Hepatitis B and SARS-CoV-2/influenza pipelines.” Specifically, “Defendants manipulated negative results to reflect positive outcomes from various studies, and even fabricated studies out of whole cloth.” As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, the Company claims that it “paid approximately $25 million to Defendants and third-parties that it would not otherwise have paid.” On April 21, 2023, defendants Wittekind, G Tech, SG & AW Holdings, LLC, and SRI filed a demurrer with respect to some, but not all, of the Company’s claims, as well as a motion to strike. On September 6, 2023, the court denied in part and granted in part the pending motions. On September 7, 2023, the court entered a case management order setting the final status conference, trial, and other intervening deadlines. On December 4, 2023, the Defendants answered the Company’s First Amended Complaint and G Tech and SRI filed a Cross-Complaint. In the Cross-Complaint, G Tech and SRI seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to certain agreements between G Tech, SRI, and the Company, including, inter alia , a declaration that the Framework Agreement, effective as of November 15, 2019, the Statement of Work & License Agreement, effective as of January 31, 2020, and the Statement of Work and License Agreement for Influenza and Coronavirus Indications, effective as of April 18, 2021, have been terminated and the Company has no rights to any license under such agreements. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on March 3, 2025. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend against the cross claims while pursuing its claims against the Defendants. On March 1, 2021, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, Robert Wolfe and his company, Crossfield, Inc., filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont against the Company, Renovaro Biosciences Denmark ApS, and certain directors and officers. In the Complaint, Mr. Wolfe and Crossfield, Inc. asserted claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, alleging, inter alia, that the Company lacked probable cause to file and prosecute an earlier action, and sought millions of dollars of compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages. The allegations in the Complaint relate to an earlier action filed by the Company and Renovaro Biosciences Denmark ApS in the Vermont Superior Court, Orange Civil Division. On March 3, 2022, the court partially granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the abuse of process claim against all defendants and all claims against Mark Dybul and Henrik Grønfeldt-Sørensen, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer and former member of the Board of Directors, respectively. On November 29, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the sole remaining claim of malicious prosecution. On August 24, 2023, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. On November 7, 2024, the Court reset the trial date for May 6, 2025. The Company denies the allegations set forth in the Complaint and will continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claim. On June 7, 2023, Weird Science LLC (“Weird Science”), Wittekind, the William Anderson Wittekind 2020 Annuity Trust, the William Anderson Wittekind 2021 Annuity Trust, the Dybul 2020 Angel Annuity Trust, and the Ty Mabry 2021 Annuity Trust (collectively, the “Trusts”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Verified Complaint against the Company in the Court of Chancery of Delaware. In the Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company breached the February 16, 2018 Investor Rights Agreement between the Company, Weird Science, and RS Group ApS (the “Investor Rights Agreement”). According to the Verified Complaint, the Investor Rights Agreement required the Company to (i) notify all “Holders” of “Registrable Securities” at least 30 days prior to filing a registration statement and (ii) afford such Holders an opportunity to have their Registrable Securities included in such registration statement. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company breached these registration rights by failing to provide the required notice in connection with S-3 registration statements filed by the Company on July 13, 2020 and February 11, 2022. The Company moved to dismiss the Verified Complaint on September 15, 2023. On December 4, 2023, in lieu of opposing the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a Verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the FAC, Plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and others for purported breaches of the Investor Rights Agreement, fraud, tortious interference with a contract, and several other torts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, as well as certain declaratory relief, specific performance, and pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on December 18, 2023 and a hearing is scheduled for November 15, 2024. The Company denies Plaintiffs’ allegations and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. 34 On August 24, 2023, counsel on behalf of Weird Science, Wittekind, individually, and Wittekind, as trustee of the Trusts served a demand to inspect the Company’s books and records (the “Demand”) pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law, § 220 (“Section 220”). The Demand seeks the Company’s books and records in connection with various issues identified in the Demand. The Company takes its obligations under Section 220 seriously and, to the extent that the requests are proper under Section 220, intends to comply with those obligations. On January 19, 2024, Weird Science and Wittekind sent the Board of Directors a letter demanding it take corrective actions with respect to twenty-one issues identified therein. On February 27, 2024, Weird Science and Wittekind sent the Board of Directors a supplemental letter that expanded their demand for corrective actions to twenty-six issues. In response to these demand letters, the Board of Directors initially formed a Special Committee (“Special Committee”) of independent directors on February 29, 2024. The Special Committee retained Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP as its counsel to investigate the issues identified in the demand letters. The Special Committee’s investigation is ongoing. On January 23, 2024, Weird Science and Wittekind filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against certain officers, directors, and investors of the Company, as well as other defendants, in connection with, inter alia , Weird Science and Wittekind’s demand for corrective action. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 21, 2024. The First Amended Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (“Derivative Complaint”) alleges, among other claims, violations of Section 13(d) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(c) and 14a-9 of the Exchange Act of 1934. The Derivative Complaint also includes claims of breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and contribution/indemnification. Weird Science and Wittekind seek unspecified compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages and certain injunctive relief. The Derivative Complaint names the Company as a nominal defendant. On July 19, 2024, certain of the director defendants, who had agreed to waive service of the summons and Derivative Complaint, filed a motion to dismiss the Derivative Complaint on a variety of procedural and substantive grounds. A hearing on the motion dismiss was held on October 3, 2024 and the court subsequently took the motion under submission. On October 22, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of certain subsequent events that they allege relate to their pending motion to dismiss. On October 29, 2024, the court granted the director defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the Derivative Complaint without prejudice, but also without leave to amend. On June 21, 2024, the Company filed suit against Weird Science, Wittekind, and certain trusts in connection with the February 16, 2018 merger involving the Company and two companies closely associated with Gumrukcu. In the complaint, the Company alleges that Gumrukcu and others deliberately and fraudulently concealed a murder-for-hire scheme from the Company in order to induce the Company to enter into the merger agreement, which resulted in the defendants receiving shares and compensation. The Company asserts claims for fraudulent concealment, equitable fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy and seeks, inter alia , equitable relief, including, but not limited to, return to the Company any shares received in connection with the merger, and damages. On October 1, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Item 1A. Risk Factors. As a “smaller reporting company” as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company is not required to provide the information required by this Item. Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds. None. Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities. None. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures. Not applicable.