Company: LTRYW
Filing Date: 2025-08-19
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001641172-25-024882
Chunk: 266

Company: Lottery.com Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-19
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part II, Item 8
Chunk 266
---
 lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.
In addition, the Company is a party to several material legal proceedings, which are described below. The outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s
expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

On
July 29, 2022, the Company filed its original Verified Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance (the “Streicher
Complaint”) against J. Streicher Financial, LLC (“Streicher”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
“Chancery Court”), styled AutoLotto, Inc. dba Lottery.com v. J. Streicher Financial, LLC (Case No. 2022-0661-MTZ).
In the Streicher Complaint, the Company alleged that Streicher breached the contract entered into by the parties on March 9, 2022 and
demanded that Streicher return $16,500,000 it owes to the Company. On September 26, 2022, the Chancery Court entered an order in favor
of the Company, Granting with Modifications Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the amount of $16,500,000 (the
“Streicher Judgment”). On October 27, 2022, the Chancery Court further awarded the Company $397,037 in attorney’s fees
(the “Fee Order”). On November 15, 2022, the Company initiated efforts against Streicher to seek collections on the Judgment.
On December 8, 2022, the Company’s prior attorney Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP (“Skadden”) filed its
Combined Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and For a Charging Lien in amount of $3,024,201 for legal fees unpaid by Company (“Skadden’s
Motion”). On December 30, 2022, the Company filed its response to Skadden’s Motion, alleging that the Chancery Court should
deny Skadden’s Motion for a Charging Lien as a matter of law or, in the alternative, limit the charging lien to the amount
of the attorneys’ fees awarded by the Fee Order. As of the date of this Report, the Chancery Court has not set Skadden’s
Motion for an oral hearing