Company: LTRYW
Filing Date: 2025-10-15
Form Type: 10-Q/A
Source: 0001493152-25-018121
Chunk: 83

Company: Lottery.com Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-10-15
Form: 10-Q/A
Chunk 83
---
 the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian
(collectively “Lottery Investor Group”) as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs
and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the
Company’s legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint
adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants
in the case. The Amended Complaintalleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements
in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses
including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file
their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the Company’s deadline to file its reply
brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the SDNY granted the Company’s Motion
to Dismiss. On June 12, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”). On July 12, 2024, the Company
filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (the “MTD Third Amended Complaint”). On August 8, 2024, the plaintiffs
filed their response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed its reply on August 22, 2024 to plaintiffs’
response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. On February 25, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the MTD
Third Amended Complaint (the “Order). As set forth in the Order, the Class Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) claim shall proceed against
Defendant Dickinson and the Company based on post−merger