Kartoon Studios, Inc.

As of March 31, 2025, there were no material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party or as to which any of its property is subject other than as described below.

Securities Litigation:

On February 4, 2025, the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the renewed motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The District Court dismissed all claims against Mr. Denton, and claims against the Company and Mr. Heyward based on all but one of the complained-of statements. However, the District Court determined that Plaintiffs had adequately pled a Section 10(b) claim based on March 2020 statements concerning the number of times that the Rainbow Rangers cartoon was airing on Nickelodeon. As to the other alleged misstatements that were dismissed, and as to any claims against Mr. Denton, the District Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading another time. On March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, seeking again to assert claims against the Company and Mr. Heyward related to the four alleged misstatements that survived the Ninth Circuit appeal; they did not replead any claims against Mr. Denton. On April 14, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. We are currently awaiting Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion, which is due in mid-May. Briefing extends into late June, and a hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2025. We cannot predict the outcome of the motion.

Meanwhile, as previously reported, the parties elected to mediate the dispute, as well as the shareholder derivative actions referenced below in Item 2, before Phillips ADR. The mediation was held December 9, 2024. The case did not settle during the mediation. In light of the District Court’s February 4, 2025, order, however, the mediator has reached out to the parties to determine whether there is a basis now to resolve the dispute. While the Company has advised that it would like to settle the lawsuit, the mediator has not reported back concerning his discussions with Plaintiffs’ counsel. We cannot predict whether the parties will decide to continue with mediation or, if they do, whether they will be able to reach a settlement of the case and of related shareholder derivative litigation on terms acceptable to the parties.

As previously disclosed, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Andy Heyward, and its former Chief Financial Officer Robert Denton were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and styled In re Genius Brands International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx). Lead plaintiffs alleged generally that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements about the Company, initially over an alleged class period running from March into early July 2020. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the alleged class of persons who invested in the Company’s common stock during the alleged class period. Defendants moved to dismiss lead plaintiffs’ amended complaint, and in a decision issued on August 30, 2021, the Court dismissed the amended complaint but granted lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim.

In September 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming the same defendants. The new complaint alleged again that the Company made numerous—depending on how one counted, more than two dozen - false or misleading statements about the Company’s business and business prospects, this time over an expanded alleged class period that extended into March 2021. They again alleged that these misstatements violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead plaintiffs again sought unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who invested in the Company’s common stock during the expanded alleged class period. In November 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On July 15, 2022, the Court issued a decision dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.

On August 12, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After a full briefing of the appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals held oral argument on the appeal on November 6, 2023, and took the matter under submission.

On April 5, 2024, the Appellate Court issued its opinion, affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the District Court. The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of certain claims pertaining to Company statements where it found that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a 10(b) cause of action but reversed the lower court’s dismissal of claims related to four of the Company’s alleged misstatements, finding that, in three of those instances, the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded loss causation, and in one instance adequately alleged a misleading statement. The Court of Appeals did not address other elements of any claims based on these four complained-of statements, noting that the District Court should address those issues on remand.

The matter was remanded to the District Court in May 2024. By order entered June 4, 2024, the Court directed the defendants to file a renewed motion to dismiss on a schedule to be proposed by the parties. Consistent with that order, Defendants filed their renewed motion on July 29, 2024. Plaintiffs filed the opposition to the motion on September 16, 2024, and Defendants filed a reply brief on October 16, 2024. The District Court subsequently vacated the hearing on the renewed motion to dismiss (including plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply) that had been scheduled for November 4, 2024, determining that the matter could be resolved by the Court based on the parties' written submissions.

Shareholder Derivative Actions:

Since the Company’s last quarterly report, there have been no developments in the shareholder derivative actions involving the Company. Related to the securities class action, the Company’s directors (other than Dr. Cynthia Turner-Graham and Michael Hirsh), together with Messrs. Heyward and Denton and former director Michael Klein, have been named as defendants in several putative stockholder derivative lawsuits. As previously disclosed, these include a consolidated proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and styledIn re Genius Brands Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:20-cv-08277 DSF (RAOx); an action filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court captionedLy, etc. v. Heyward, et al., Case No. 20STCV44611; and an additional case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, styledMiceli, etc. v. Heyward, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00132-MMD-WGC. While the allegations and legal claims vary somewhat among the derivative actions, they all generally allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company. The plaintiffs, all alleged stockholders of the Company, purport to sue on behalf and for the benefit of the Company. Accordingly, the derivative plaintiffs seek no recovery from the Company. Instead, as a stockholder derivative action, the Company is named as a nominal defendant. Pursuant to agreements among the parties, the courts in all of the derivative lawsuits have stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the securities litigation. As the Company cannot predict the outcome of the securities litigation, it is likewise unable to predict the outcome of the shareholder derivative lawsuits.

Section 16(b) Litigation:

As previously disclosed, the Company is also a nominal defendant in an action filed on January 11, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and styledTodd Augenbaum v. Anson Investments Master Fund LP, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00249 AS. The action, which again purports to be brought on behalf and for the benefit of the Company, seeks the recovery under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act of supposed short-swing profits allegedly realized by roughly a dozen persons and entities that participated as investors in certain of the Company’s private placements of securities in 2020. Plaintiff Augenbaum, who purports to be a Company stockholder, filed his lawsuit after issuing a demand to the Company’s Board of Directors asking that the Company sue the investor defendants. The Company rejected the demand in late December 2021, and Mr. Augenbaum sued a few weeks later, as Section 16(b) permits him to do. No Company officer or director is among the defendants. The defendant investors filed motions to dismiss the action. After full briefing, the court, by order entered March 30, 2023, granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint on May 1, 2023. Defendants moved to dismiss again. After a full briefing and oral argument, the Court (with a new judge now sitting) denied the motion to dismiss by order entered on January 24, 2024. The parties then engaged in extensive fact discovery, which closed in October 2024. The parties proceeded with expert discovery. Following the completion of expert discovery in December 2024, Plaintiff and the various Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment in mid-January 2025. Opposition papers on those motions were filed February 26, 2025. The Court has not yet responded to the parties’ requests for argument on the cross-motions, and we cannot predict the outcome of the motions.

With those motions pending, the parties met on March 11, 2025, to try to mediate the dispute before Phillips ADR. The mediation was unsuccessful, and no further mediation sessions are scheduled. To the extent the case continues following disposition of the cross-motions for summary judgment, pre-trial proceedings have concluded and the case will presumably proceed to trial. As of this writing, the Court still has not set a trial date. As previously noted, Plaintiff seeks no relief from the Company; indeed, he seeks monetary relief for the Company. In any event, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the case.

In connection with the Augenbaum lawsuit, two of the investor groups named as defendants (the “demanding defendants”) have made a demand on the Company for indemnification pursuant to terms of an indemnity provision of the securities purchase agreements under which they invested in the Company. The Company believes the indemnity provision to be inapplicable and has rejected the demands. The Company and the demanding defendants have entered into standstill agreements and the parties have agreed to defer resolution of the indemnification matter pending resolution of the underlying litigation. In addition, the Company’s placement agent for the offerings at issue, Special Equities Group (“SEG”), was subpoenaed by Mr. Augenbaum. Pursuant to its placement-agent agreement with the Company, which covers a relationship broader than the offerings at issue, SEG demanded indemnification from the Company for its legal fees to comply with that subpoena. While reserving its rights, the Company believes that SEG has an indemnity claim under the governing placement agent agreement that likely has more merit than the demanding defendants’ demands. The Company cannot predict whether other parties may issue indemnification demands, or the outcome of any future proceedings that might arise concerning the such demands.

In all of the above-mentioned active proceedings, the Company has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing and intends to defend the claims vigorously. The Company maintains a program of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that, subject to the insurers’ reservations of rights, has offset a portion of the costs of defending the securities class action litigation, and that the Company expects will afford coverage for some costs of the other shareholder litigation should any of those cases proceed.