Company: BIVIW
Filing Date: 2025-11-10
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001520138-25-000343
Chunk: 81

Company: BIOVIE INC.
Filing Date: 2025-11-10
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 2
Chunk 81
---
the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative
securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc.
et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, 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, and the parties are now engaged in fact discovery.

Three shareholder derivative lawsuits piggy-backing
on the securities class action were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, allegedly on behalf of the Company,
by three putative stockholders: Andrew Hulm on December 30, 2024; William Settel on April 28, 2025 and Cline Wilkerson on September 11,
2025, (collectively the “Related Derivative Lawsuits”). Each Related Derivative Lawsuit names the same current and former
officers and directors as defendants and alleges essentially the same claims: that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing
or failing to prevent the securities violations alleged in the