Company: LTRYW
Filing Date: 2025-11-20
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001493152-25-024384
Chunk: 178

Company: Lottery.com Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-20
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 8
Chunk 178
---
’ filings. On August 6, 2025, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, Motion to Set Aside Default and Compel Arbitration,
which was renewed on August 14, 2025. At the same time, Plaintiffs also submitted opposition briefing and supporting evidence to contradict
Defendants’ filings relating to damages evidence. Defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs filings is due to be filed on August 29,
2025. In the interim, the MDF has stayed all deadlines in the case management order and has cancelled any pretrial proceedings, pending
resolution on the parties’ motions.

Woodford
Eurasia Assets, Ltd.

Woodford
Eurasia Assets, Ltd. (“Woodford”) filed a complaint in the High Court of Justice in London chancery Division. October 16,
2023, The High Court of Justice in London Chancery Division (“the Court”) dismissed an application for injunctive relief
initiated by Woodford against the Company. (Case: FL-2023-000023. Woodford Eurasia Assets Limited v Lottery.com Inc.) The Court characterized
Woodford’s application as “fundamentally misconceived” and ordered Woodford to pay the Company’s legal costs.
Woodford subsequently, on the Judges’ recommendation, withdrew the proceedings.

Woodford
filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on February 14, 2024 in Case No. 23-1317-GBW.
Woodford subsequently filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, which stated that Woodford provides notice of dismissal
of all claims without prejudice against Defendants Lotttery.com and its directors.

With
the dismissal of this lawsuit by Woodford, no further action is required by Lottery.com or its directors at this time. The Company is
determining its next course of action in resolving any further matters regarding Woodford.

The
validity and application of the Woodford Loan Agreement Amendment is disputed by the Company.

 19 

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