Company: BIVIW
Filing Date: 2025-05-12
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001520138-25-000144
Chunk: 33

Company: BIOVIE INC.
Filing Date: 2025-05-12
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 33
---
4, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the
Company’s business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of
bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the  Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s
securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 21, 2024, and that motion was fully briefed as of December 5, 2024. On March 27, 2025, the court denied the defendants’
motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move into fact discovery.

On December 30, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by putative stockholder Andrew Hulm, allegedly on behalf of the Company, that
piggy-backs on the securities class action also pending in that court. The derivative complaint names certain current and former officers
and directors as defendants, and generally alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the securities
violations alleged in the securities class action.

On April 28, 2025, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by putative stockholder William Settel, allegedly on behalf of the Company,
that likewise piggy-backs on the securities class action. The Settel derivative complaint alleges essentially the same claims as the Hulm
derivative action against the same defendants based on the same alleged conduct.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.