BIOVIE INC. Commitments Disclosure

10.	Commitments and Contingencies

  

Royalty Agreements

 

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on April 11, 2016, by and between our predecessor entities, LAT Pharma and NanoAntibiotics, Inc., the Company is obligated to pay a low single digit royalty on net sales of BIV201 (continuous infusion terlipressin) to be shared by the members of LAT Pharma Members, PharmaIn Corporation, and The Barrett Edge, Inc.

 

Pursuant to the Technology Transfer Agreement entered into on July 25, 2016, by and between the Company and the University of Padova (Italy), the Company is obligated to pay a low single digit royalty on net sales of all terlipressin products covered by US patent no. 9,655,645 and any future foreign issuances, capped at a maximum of $200,000 per year.

 

Shareholder class action complaint and shareholder derivative complaints

 

On January 19, 2024, a purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for 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 the early stages of fact discovery.

 

On December 30, 2024, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by putative stockholder Andrew Hulm, allegedly on behalf of the Company, that piggy-backs on the securities class action also pending in that court. The derivative complaint names certain current and former officers and directors as defendants, and generally alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the securities violations alleged in the securities class action. The derivative complaint also alleges claims for unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, and abuse of control as against all defendants. On March 18, 2025, the court ordered the Hulm derivative lawsuit stayed, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action described above.

 

On April 28, 2025, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada by putative stockholder William Settel, allegedly on behalf of the Company, that likewise piggy-backs on the securities class action. The Settel derivative complaint alleges essentially the same claims as the Hulm derivative action against the same defendants based on the same alleged conduct.

 

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.