Company: LTRYW
Filing Date: 2025-01-16
Form Type: POS AM
Source: 0001493152-25-002444
Chunk: 79

Company: Lottery.com Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-01-16
Form: POS AM
Chunk 79
---
 we may be forced to curtail or even abandon our plan to recommence our operations and we may need to permanently cease our operations.

As previously noted, we need to raise capital to, among other things, support and restart our operations, re-hire employees and pay our expenses. The amended and restated loan agreement with UCIL is a potential source of this needed additional capital.

Pursuant to the Woodford Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, Woodford agreed to fund up to $52.5 million, subject to certain conditions and requirements, of which, per our books and records, $798,351 was received by us through June 30, 2024.

As reported on form 8-K on August 1, 2023, the Company reported that it had not received the requisite funding on a timely basis that it expected from Woodford, despite making several requests to Woodford for said funding under the Woodford Amended and Restated Loan Agreement. Moreover, the Board of Directors determined that it was in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to enter into a new loan agreement with UCIL, as an alternative lender to Woodford, upon receiving an event of default notice on July 21, 2023 (the “Default Notice”) and an event of default and crystallization notice on July 25, 2023 (the “Crystallization Notice”) from Woodford under the Woodford Amended and Restated Loan Agreement. On July 24, 2023, the Company responded to the Default Notice disputing that an event of default had occurred. Further, on July 27, 2023, the Company replied to the Crystallization Notice denying that an event of default occurred or continued, and further asserted that Woodford’s attempt for crystallization was inappropriate and unlawful under its loan agreement. The validity and application of the Woodford Amended and Restated Loan Agreement and of notices issued under both agreements is disputed by the Company and the matter is being handled by the Company’s legal counsel which is pursuing various remedies in the UK court system to wind down any connections to Woodford.

Despite requests from the Company, Woodford has repeatedly amongst other things: failed to prove the amounts borrowed by the Company or claimed to have been advanced by Woodford to the Company; failed to indicate if it would accept accelerated payment of those verified amounts; failed to provide an anti-money laundering acceptable account to which payment could be made by the Company and failed to explain failure to respond to requests