Company: WBD
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001437107-25-000096
Chunk: 49

Company: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 49
---
 Between December 20, 2024 and January 14, 2025, four shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Roy v. Zaslav et al., No. 1:24-cv-09856-AT, Hollin v. Zaslav et al., No. 1:24-cv-09885-AT, KO v. Zaslav et al., No. 1:25-cv-00114-AT, and Herman, III v. Chen et al., No. 1:25-cv-00352-AT). Each complaint names certain current and former directors and officers of WBD as defendants and WBD as nominal defendant, and each complaint seeks damages and other relief. The complaints generally assert claims against the defendants, derivatively on behalf of WBD, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty based on the same facts alleged in the Collura securities case described above. The complaints assert various common law causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, as well claims for violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 21D of the Exchange Act. On January 21, 2025, the court consolidated the four actions for all purposes under Case No. 1:24-cv-09856-AT, captioned as In re Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On February 19, 2025, the Court stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action pending resolution of a final decision on all motions to dismiss the operative complaint in the Collura securities action.District of Delaware Derivative Action. On February 20, 2025, a fifth shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for Delaware (Harloff v. Zaslav, No. 1:25-cv-00207-JLH). The complaint named certain current and former directors and officers of WBD as defendants and named WBD as nominal defendant. The complaint asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement, based on the same facts alleged in the Collura securities case described above in addition to violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule