Cerence Inc

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust Action

On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc. et al. (the “Securities Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court's selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On September 9, 2022, the defendants in the Securities Action moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. On March 25, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing certain of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions while allowing claims challenging certain other alleged misrepresentations and omissions to proceed. On April 15, 2024, the defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. We intend to defend the claims vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Derivative Actions

On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dwahan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions are premised on factual contentions substantially similar to those made in the Securities Action and contain substantially similar legal contentions. As such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties' request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in that consolidated action. The court previously stayed the case pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. On April 23, 2024, the parties submitted proposals for how the case should proceed. As of the date of this report, the court has yet to act on these competing proposals.

Two shareholder derivative complaints making factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those raised in the consolidated federal derivative action have been also filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: one filed on October 19, 2022 by plaintiff Melinda Hipp against the defendants named in the consolidated action and board member Douglas Davis and one filed on August 17, 2023 by plaintiff Catherine Fleming against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action. On October 20, 2023, Ms. Hipp voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice. Plaintiff Catherine Fleming is due to file an amended complaint on May 24, 2024, and the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss is due on July 23, 2024.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, derivative standing and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these derivative actions.

A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena and Carlos Pena Action

On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence has filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. Cerence's answer is due on April 16, 2024. The Federal Court has not yet resolved Cerence's pending motion to dismiss that case. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Other Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become a party to other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, product liability claims, employment matters, commercial disputes, governmental inquiries and investigations (which may in some cases involve our entering into settlement arrangements or consent decrees), and other matters arising out of the ordinary course of our business. While the results of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, in our opinion none of our pending matters are currently anticipated to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.