CRYO CELL INTERNATIONAL INC

On January 6, 2023, a complaint styled Lindsey Lehr v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc., Case No. 50-2023-CA-000091, was filed in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, naming the Company as defendant and asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who entered agreements with the Company for umbilical cord blood storage services since May 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company’s advertising does not accurately represent the value and efficacy of its services and asserts claims (and seeks unspecified damages) under Florida law. On March 14, 2023, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:23-cv-80405-AMC), and on March 21, 2023, moved to compel arbitration and stay the case. On October 10, 2023, the Court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. The Company believes the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to contest the action vigorously. The Company believes that the resolution of this matter should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. It is possible, however, that there could be an unfavorable outcome or resolution of the claims asserted, which could negatively and materially impact the Company’s business, consolidated financial position and results of operations. Litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company does not include an estimate of legal fees and other related defense costs in its estimate of loss contingencies.

On October 4, 2024, the Company filed a demand for arbitration (the “Arbitration Demand”) against Duke with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), alleging that Duke fraudulently induced Cryo-Cell to enter the Duke License Agreement and breached the agreement on various occasions. The Arbitration Demand includes five counts against Duke, as follows: Count I – Breach of the Duke License Agreement; Count II – Breach of Implied Contractual Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Count III – Fraudulent Inducement to Enter the Duke License Agreement; Count IV – Violation of North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act; and Count V – Unjust Enrichment. In connection therewith, the Company has requested that the arbitrator enter an award in the Company’s favor and against Duke for damages in an amount to be proved at a final hearing, interest, attorneys’ fees, and arbitration fees and costs, along with all other relief to which the Company is entitled at law or in equity. As of October 15, 2024, Duke has not responded to the Arbitration Demand. See “Note 12” and “Risk Factors” for additional information regarding Duke.