biote Corp. Commitments Disclosure

Litigation Risk

From time to time, the Company may become involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate liability, if any, from these actions will not have a material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

Right Value Litigation

On January 30, 2024, a lawsuit was filed in the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the “District Court of Dallas County”) against the Company by Right Value Drug Stores, LLC d/b/a Carie Boyd’s Prescription Shop n/k/a Carie Boyd Pharmaceuticals (“Right Value”). The lawsuit generally alleges breach of contract, fraud, and declaratory judgment (“Right Value Litigation”). The Company has brought counterclaims against Right Value generally for fraud, breach of contract, and quantum meruit.

On September 26, 2024, Right Value amended its petition to seek injunctive relief, asking the District Court of Dallas County to impose a mandatory injunction that would require the Company to pay at least $1.2 million per month to Right Value through the conclusion of the trial. On September 27, 2024, the District Court of Dallas County conducted a hearing on Right Value’s application, and, at the conclusion of that hearing, the District Court of Dallas County denied Right Value’s application for temporary restraining order and set the hearing on Right Value’s application for temporary injunction on November 11, 2024 (the “November 11th Hearing”). The parties engaged in expedited discovery and briefing in advance of the November 11th Hearing At the conclusion of the November 11th Hearing, the District Court of Dallas County denied Right Value’s request for a temporary injunction.

On February 26, 2025, BioTE Medical entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Right Value. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, BioTE Medical agreed to pay Right Value an aggregate amount of $5.0 million, of which $3.5 million was paid in February 2025. The remaining due under the Settlement Agreement was paid in February 2026. Additionally, the parties identified therein have agreed to, among other things, a customary mutual release of all claims arising out of or relating to the Right Value Litigation, except as expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement also contains customary representations, warranties and agreements by the parties in addition to the terms described above. The Company recorded a $5.0 million charge related to the settlement, which was included in selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2025, the current portion of the liability of $1.5 million was included in accrued liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.

Yosaki and Mioko Trusts

On July 12, 2024, a lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Haymaker Sponsor III, LLC, the Company's outside legal counsel, and certain Company executive officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants") by two trusts ("Plaintiffs") that allegedly owned shares representing approximately 4.2% of the Company's outstanding stock immediately following the May 26, 2022 transaction with Haymaker Acquisition Corp III. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting those alleged breaches, and unjust enrichment ("July 12, 2024 Litigation").

On July 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to withdraw their allegation of current equity ownership. The Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and it was dismissed on March 15, 2025. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court on April 15, 2025. The parties completed their briefing, and oral argument occurred on October 8, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, and on January 6, 2026, it denied a request for reargument. The case was closed on January 7, 2026.

Cindy Latch

On November 15, 2024, Cindy Latch, an actress / model who formerly appeared in one BioTE marketing video, filed suit against BioTE alleging misappropriation of her name, image and likeness by both BioTE and various of its approved practitioners (the “November 15 2024 Litigation”) and seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. The November 15 2024 Litigation is pending in the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. On November 25, 2024, a hearing was held on Latch’s request for a temporary restraining order. That same day, the court signed an order granting a temporary restraining order purporting to restrain BioTE and “all Biote affiliates and practitioners from further utilizing Plaintiff’s image or likeness for the furtherance of any Biote business” until a temporary injunction hearing can be held. A temporary injunction hearing was held on December 9, 2024, and on that same day, the 101st Judicial District Court judge signed a temporary injunction granting essentially the same relief as in the temporary restraining order. Believing there to be numerous deficiencies in the temporary injunction, on December 17, 2024, BioTE filed a Motion for Expedited Temporary Relief Staying the Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal seeking to stay the enforcement of the temporary injunction while BioTE pursued an appeal of that order. On February 12, 2025, the 5th District Court of Appeals denied that requested relief. In the interim, on January 16, 2025, BioTE filed its appellate brief seeking to overturn the December 9 temporary injunction order. Briefing on the appeal was completed on February 25, 2025. On April 15, 2025, the Dallas 5th District Court of Appeals reversed the temporary injunction, and it is no longer in place. On May 23, 2025, Latch filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on her breach of contract claim. The briefing was completed on that motion, and a hearing was held, but no ruling has yet been issued. The Company believes the claims asserted in the November 15, 2024 Litigation are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. A trial date is currently specifically set on the 101st Judicial District Court’s docket beginning on May 4, 2026; however, the Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the range of potential loss, if any, that may result.

Gary S. Donovitz / NIL Litigation

On December 13, 2024, Dr. Gary S. Donovitz (“Donovitz”) filed suit against BioTE Medical alleging misappropriation of his name, image and likeness by BioTE and various of its approved practitioners (the “December 13, 2024 Litigation”) and seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. The December 13, 2024 Litigation is pending in the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Because BioTE contends that, pursuant to a settlement agreement executed on April 23, 2024, Donovitz’s claims were required to be brought before former Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Chandler, on December 17, 2024, BioTE filed an action against Donovitz in Delaware Chancery Court (the “December 17, 2024 Litigation”) seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Donovitz from pursuing the December 13, 2024 Litigation in Texas. On December 18, 2024, following a hearing on Donovitz’s request for a temporary restraining order, the 101st Judicial District Court judge entered a temporary restraining order purporting to enjoin Biote and “all its affiliates, partnered-clinics and practitioners” from further utilizing Donovitz’s name, image or likeness for furtherance of any Biote business until a hearing could be held on Donovitz’s request for a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction hearing was set for December 27, 2024. Also on December 18, 2024, the Delaware Chancery Court issued a temporary restraining order precluding Donovitz from prosecuting the December 13, 2024 Litigation in Texas. On December 23, 2024, a hearing was held before Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court to determine if the Delaware temporary restraining order should be renewed.

Following the hearing, Vice Chancellor Laster entered an order renewing the Delaware temporary restraining order as a preliminary injunction which, again, precluded Donovitz from prosecuting the December 13, 2024 Litigation in Texas. Subsequently, on December 27, 2024, a hearing was held before the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County on Donovitz’s application for a temporary injunction. Following the hearing, the 101st Judicial District Court entered a temporary injunction continuing to enjoin BioTE and “all its affiliates, partnered-clinics and practitioners” from further utilizing Donovitz’s name, image or likeness for furtherance of any Biote business. BioTE appealed the entry of the temporary injunction entered by the 101st Judicial District Court. Briefing on the appeal in the December 13, 2024 Litigation was completed on April 14, 2025, and the appeal was scheduled to be submitted to the Dallas 5th District Court of Appeals without oral argument on May 13, 2025. On January 20, 2025, Vice Chancellor Laster converted the Delaware preliminary injunction back to a temporary restraining order.

Donovitz filed a request to appeal regarding the Delaware temporary restraining order. The Delaware Supreme Court accepted that interlocutory appeal, and the opening brief was filed April 2, 2025. The briefing was completed on May 19, 2025.

On July 11, 2025, Vice Chancellor Laster entered another temporary restraining order which, again, precluded Donovitz from prosecuting the December 13, 2024 Litigation in Texas. Subsequently, on July 18, 2025, Donovitz removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. BioTE has sought to remand the case back to the Delaware Chancery Court, but briefing on that motion has not yet been completed. The parties have agreed that the Delaware temporary restraining order will remain in force until the motion to remand is resolved and hearing is held on whether to extend the Delaware temporary restraining order or convert it to a preliminary injunction. On October 23, 2025, the District Court ordered the action remanded to the Delaware Court of Chancery. A hearing has not yet been scheduled to resolve whether to extend the Delaware temporary restraining order or convert it to a preliminary injunction. See Note 23 for additional information.

On November 3, 2025, the Company executed an amendment to that certain settlement agreement with Gary S. Donovitz, pursuant to

which the Company agreed to repurchase the remaining 6.1 million shares of Dr. Donovitz’s Class V voting stock for a lump sum payment of $18.5 million on January 2, 2026 in consideration for the full satisfaction of the Company’s remaining payment obligations under the settlement agreement. In addition to settling the forward share repurchase liability, the parties agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, the various pending legal matters between the parties in the states of Delaware and Texas. Further the restrictive covenants in the original settlement agreement will continue in full force and effect until April 24, 2027 and the mutual general releases and covenants not to sue were amended and made effective as of November 3, 2025.

Inventory Purchase Commitments

Purchase obligations, which include legally binding contracts such as firm minimum commitments for inventory purchases are defined as agreements that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. As of December 31, 2025, the Company had satisfied its 2025 inventory purchase commitments. The Company expects the remaining inventory purchase commitments of $6.3 million to be paid by December 31, 2026. As of December 31, 2024, the Company did not have any inventory purchase commitments.

The Company issues inventory purchase orders in the ordinary course of business, which represent authorizations to purchase inventory from a vendor rather than a binding agreement. Accordingly, purchase orders for inventory are excluded from the obligation above. The Company’s purchase orders are based on its current inventory needs and are filled by the Company’s suppliers within a short period of time.

Tax Distributions

To the extent the Company has funds legally available, the board of directors will approve distributions to each stockholder on a quarterly basis, in an amount per share that, when added to all other distributions made to such stockholder with respect to the previous calendar year, equals the estimated federal and state income tax liabilities applicable to such stockholder as the result of its, his or her ownership of the units and the associated net taxable income allocated with respect to such units for the previous calendar year.