Sports Entertainment Gaming Global Corp

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company is a party to several material legal proceedings, which are described below. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the Company is a party to several material legal proceedings, which are described below. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

J. Streicher

On July 29, 2022, the Company filed its originalVerified Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance (the “Streicher Complaint”) against J. Streicher Financial, LLC (“Streicher”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”), styledAutoLotto, Inc. dba Lottery.com v. J. Streicher Financial, LLC (Case No. 2022-0661-MTZ). In the Streicher Complaint, the Company alleged that Streicher breached the contract entered into by the parties on March 9, 2022 and demanded that Streicher return $16,500,000 it owes to the Company. On September 26, 2022, the Chancery Court entered an order in favor of the Company,Granting with Modifications Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the amount of $16,500,000 (the “Streicher Judgment”). On October 27, 2022, the Chancery Court further awarded the Company $397,037 in attorney’s fees (the “Fee Order”). On November 15, 2022, the Company initiated efforts against Streicher to seek collections on the Judgment. On December 8, 2022, the Company’s prior attorney Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP (“Skadden”) filed itsCombined Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and For a Charging Lienin amount of $3,024,201 for legal fees unpaid by Company (“Skadden’s Motion”). On December 30, 2022, the Company filed its response to Skadden’s Motion, alleging that the Chancery Court should deny Skadden’sMotion for a Charging Lien as a matter of law or, in the alternative, limit the charging lien to the amount of the attorneys’ fees awarded by the Fee Order. As of the date of this Report, the Chancery Court has not set Skadden’s Motion for an oral hearing, nor has it entered an order on the motion. On January 20, 2023, faced with post-judgment discovery and depositions, Streicher remitted a partial payment towards the Judgment in the amount of $75,000. On February 13, 2023, Streicher made another payment towards the Judgment in the amount of $50,000 and had agreed to make another payment in the amount of $75,000 on February 28, 2023, which it failed to make. The Company intends to fully collect on the Judgment and shall pursue all legal and equitable means to enforce the Judgment against Streicher until the Judgment is fully satisfied.

Preston Million Class Action

On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed aClass Action Complaint (the “Class Action Complaint”) against the Company and certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”), styledPreston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), U.S.C. § 78u-4et seq. (collectively “Federal Securities Laws”). On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered 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 aScheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the Company’s legal counsel timely filed itsNotice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed theirAmended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. TheAmended 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 theScheduling 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 representations regarding Lottery’s financial performance and financial reporting. Class Plaintiffs’ and Hoffman’s Section 20(a) claim premised on Section 10(b) shall likewise proceed against Defendant Dickinson. Class Plaintiffs’ Section 14(a) claim shall proceed against the Company and Defendants DiMatteo, Clemenson and Dickinson with respect to certain legal and regulatory compliance statements in the Proxy. The remainder of Plaintiffs claims were dismissed, including all claims against Komissarov. The Court also ordered that Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend within twenty−one (21) days of this opinion and order. On March 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff Hoffman’s motion for leave for additional time to amend his complaint. Accordingly, Hoffman’s’ Third Amended Complaint shall be due April 24, 2025. Defendants’ motions to dismiss shall be due June 30, 2025; Plaintiff Hoffman’s opposition brief will be due August 14, 2025; and Defendants’ reply briefs shall be due September 17, 2025.

TinBu Complaint

On March 13, 2023, John Brier, Bin Tu and JBBT, LLC (collectively, the “TinBu Plaintiffs”) filed its original complaint against Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a AutoLotto, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary TinBu, LLC (“TinBu”) in the Circuit Court of the 13 th Judicial District in and for Hillsborough County, Florida (the “TinBu Complaint”). The Complaint alleges breach of contract(s) and misrepresentation with alleged damages in excess of $4.6 million. The parties agreed to extend the Company’s and its subsidiary’s deadline to respond until May 1, 2023. On May 2, 2023, the Company and its subsidiary retained local counsel who filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Company and TinBu and filed a Motion for Enlargement requesting the Court to extend its deadline to file its initial response to the Complaint by an additional 30 days (the “Motion for Enlargement”). As of the date of this Amended Report, the Motion for Enlargement has not been set for a hearing. On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Court Default (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default”), despite Company’s Motion for Enlargement. As of the date of this Amended Report, the Motion for Enlargement has not been set for a hearing. The Company intends to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default. On May 9, 2023, Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions (the “RFA”) to the Company. On October 13, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Litigation and Discovery pending a ruling on its Motion to Compel Arbitration. On November 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration in Texas. The parties await a signed written order from the Court to that effect. The TinBu Plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s Order to Compel Arbitration in Texas.

On July 19, 2024, the Company received notice that the TinBu Plaintiff’s requested a voluntary dismissal of their claims. The TinBu Complaints have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Second District and the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, indicating that no further action will be pursued by the plaintiffs in Florida State Court at this time. The District Court of Appeals also denied the TinBu Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

Global Gaming Data

On November 21, 2023, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary TinBu, LLC (“TinBu”) (Company and TinBu collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed theirFirst Amended Verified Complaint in Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida (“MDF”) against John J. Brier, Jr. (“Brier”), Bin Tu (“Tu”), and Global Gaming Data, LLC (“GGD”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), and for breaches of contract and fiduciary duties, including the duty of loyalty, styledLottery.com, Inc. f/k/a AutoLotto, Inc. and TinBu, LLC v.*John J. Brier, Jr., Bin Tu, and Global Gaming Data, LLC (Case No.: 8:23-cv-2594-KKM-TGW)*Defendants filed certain counterclaims against Plaintiffs. The Company’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied by the MDF in February 2024. On June 11, 2024 the MDF denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs’ filed its answer to Defendants’ counterclaim(s). On July 10, 2024, the MDF entered a case management and scheduling order with a trial setting for October 2025. On December 5, 2024, the parties participated in the court ordered mediation. The outcome of the mediation was an impasse. On February 25, 2025, Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and the Defendants also moved for default judgment on their counterclaims. That portion of the Defendants’ motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. On March 14, 2025, the Court entered an order denying without prejudice Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. On April 1, 2025, the Court denied as moot Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary in the light of the Defendants’ Amended Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. On April 24, 2025, the Court entered an order granting Defendants’ Amended Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Based Upon Plaintiffs’ Failure to Prosecute the Complaint and Defend the Counterclaims.

Woodford Eurasia Assets Limited

Woodford Eurasia Assets Limited filed a complaint in the High Court of Justice in London chancery Division. October 16, 2023, The High Court of Justice in London Chancery Division (“the Court”) dismissed an application for injunctive relief initiated by Woodford against the Company. (Case: FL-2023-000023. Woodford Eurasia Assets Limited v Lottery.com Inc.) The Court characterized Woodford’s application as “fundamentally misconceived” and ordered Woodford to pay the Company’s legal costs. Woodford subsequently, on the Judges’ recommendation, withdrew the proceedings.

Woodford filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on November 16, 2023 in Case No. 23-1317-GBW seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and expedited discovery against Lottery.com and its directors. The Court entered an order the next day denying the relief sought by Woodford. On February 14, 2024, Woodford filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, which stated that Woodford provides notice of dismissal of all claims without prejudice against Defendants Lotttery.com and its directors.

With the dismissal of this lawsuit by Woodford, no further action is required by Lottery.com or its directors at this time. The Company is determining its next course of action in resolving any further matters regarding Woodford.

The validity and application of the Woodford Loan Agreement Amendment is disputed by the Company.

Despite requests from the Company, Woodford has repeatedly amongst other things: failed to prove the amounts borrowed by the Company or claimed to have been advanced by Woodford to the Company; failed to indicate if it would accept accelerated payment of those verified amounts; failed to provide an anti-money laundering acceptable account to which payment could be made by the Company and failed to explain failure to respond to requests for other funding to be accepted in the context of the Woodford Loan Agreement; failed to respond to requests for funding under the accordion facility of the Woodford Loan Agreement; and failed to respond to allegations of money laundering and conspiracy to defraud the Company and others.

McTurk

On June 10, 2024, the Company and Matthew McGahan (“McGahan”) (Company and McGahan collectively, “Defendants”) filed theirNotice of RemovalandNo Answer Motion to Dismiss a state court complaint filed by Sharon A. McTurk (“McTurk”), Rutherford Enterprises, LLC (“Rutherford”), SJB Solutions, LLC (“SJB”) and Astra Supply Chain, LLC (“Astra”) McTurk, Rutherford, SJB and Astra (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy by Defendants. On July 2, 2024, McGahan filed hisMotion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdictionand Defendants filed theirMotion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Supporting Memorandum of Law(“Motions to Dismiss”). On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their response to the Motions to Dismiss. Defendants filed their reply on August 29, 2024 to Plaintiffs response to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. On February 25, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (the “Order”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed with prejudice. All pending deadlines and hearings were terminated, and any other pending motions were denied as moot. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to the Order.

Honey Tree Trading

On September 4, 2024, Honey Tree Trading, LLC (“Honey Tree” or “Plaintiff”) filed a verified original complaint (the “Complaint”) against Lottery.com (“Lottery.com” or the “Company”) and directors Matthew Howard McGahan (“McGahan”), Christopher Gooding (“Gooding”), Paul Jordan (“Jordan”), Tamer Hassan (“Hassan”) and Warren Macal (“Macal” together with McGahan, Gooding, Jordan and Hassan, the “Individual Defendants” and, collectively Lottery.com, the “Defendants”) in Delaware Chancery Court alleging, amongst other things, breach of contract by the Company with respect to certain notes and warrants and breach of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. (CA. No. 2024-0921-NAC: styled Honey Tree Trading, LLC v. Lottery.com Inc., et al.). On October 10 ,2024, Honey Tree amended its Complaint by filing an amended verified complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) and a motion to expedite proceedings (the “Motion”). On November 6, 2024, at a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion (the “Hearing”) and on the issue of breach of fiduciary duties against the Individual Defendants, Honey Tree’s counsel informed the Court that, “[t]here is no question that Honey Tree is presently a shareholder and was a shareholder at the time it presented its pleading.” On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that “Honey Tree did own shares prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint but sold them prior to that filing; and (ii) Honey Tree did not subsequently purchase shares of Lottery.com until November 7, 2024, the day after the [H]earing,” (Plaintiff’s Admission”). Following Plaintiff’s Admission on November 13, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice its claims against Hassan and Macal (the “Dismissal”). The Court ordered the Dismissal on November 15, 2024. On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed amended its Amended Complaint by filing a second amended verified complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) and a renewed motion to expedite proceedings (the “Second Motion to Expedite”) against the Company and remaining Individual Defendants. In accordance with a briefing stipulation entered by the Court on December 11, 2023, defendants shall answer the Second Amended Complaint and file its opposition to the Second Motion to Expedite by January 13, 2025. On January 13, 2025, the Company and Individual Defendants timely filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint, an Opposition to Motion to Expedite and a Partial Motion to Dismiss. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff notified the Court that it withdraws its Motion to Expedite. On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Dismiss Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint as Moot.

Manna World Ministries

On September 8, 2023, Manna World Ministries and Summit Church (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed a civil lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court, North County Division, under case number 37-2023-00039279-CU-CO-NC. The action was brought against Ryan Dickinson, Matthew Clemenson, Lawrence Dimatteo, Encircle, Inc., Paul King, LAD Holdings Group, LLC, MC Holdings Group, LLC, RD Holdings, LLC, and Jeff Sparrow (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants defaulted on a personal loan totaling $2,700,000, which was purportedly secured by their personal shares of stock in Lottery.com Inc. (the “Company”). On April 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming the Company as an additional defendant. The Company subsequently filed an answer and asserted affirmative defenses on December 6, 2024, denying all allegations of wrongdoing. The Company has stated its intent to vigorously contest the claims and to pursue all legal remedies available.

PR Fire Limited

On April 22, 2024, the Company, by and through its outside legal counsel, issued a cease and desist notice to PR Fire Limited, a U.K. based firm and Mr. Samuel Allcock, its CEO, for unlawful attempts to manipulate the public markets by disseminating false and misleading statements about the Company, its current officers and directors in certain articles caused to be published by PR Fire Limited. The Company’s outside legal counsel reported the matter to the proper authorities.

On April 24, 2024, the Company, by and through its outside legal counsel, issued a cease-and-desist notice to certain individuals and entities in participation with a common scheme and acting in concert to financial harm to the Company by privately and publicly disseminating false and misleading statements about the Company, its current officers and directors. The Company’s outside legal counsel reported the matter to the proper authorities.

Dawn Nettles

On February 14, 2025, Dawn Nettles, et. al (“Nettles” or “Plaintiff”) filed a verified original class action (the “Complaint”) against Lottery.com (“Lottery.com” or the “Company”), Rook TX LP, Gary N. Grief, IGT Solutions Corporation (“IGT”) (collectively the “Defendants”) in the District Court of Harris County, 333rd Judicial District (the “Court”) alleging that the Defendants engaged in systematic fraud, misappropriated lottery funds, illegally sold tickets across state lines, and manipulated the outcome of lottery games, including, but not limited to the April 22, 2023 Lotto Texas drawing. On March 25, 2025, the judge issued a ruling that the claims against IGT be dismissed without prejudice.

Jerry R. Reed

On April 8, 2025, Jerry. R. Reed, “Reed” or the “Plaintiff”) brought an action against AL Tx Management, LLC; AutoLotto, Inc; Matthew Clemeson; Colossus Bets Limited; Ryan Dickinson; Lawrence Anthony Dimatteo III; Lottery Now Inc; Lottery.com, Inc. (“Lottery.com” or the “Company”); Bernard Marantelli; Qawi and Quddus, Inc.; Zeljeko Ranogajec; Rook GP, LLC; Rook TX LP; and White Swan Data Limited (collectively the “Defendants”) alleging illegal game-rigging and money-laundering during the April 22, 2023 Lotto Texas drawing. Plaintiff seeks recovery of funds which he claims should have been included in the Lotto Texas jackpot he won on May 17, 2023.