RENOVARO INC

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

Securities Class Action Litigation. On July 26, 2022 and July 28, 2022, securities class action complaints (the former, the “Chow Action” and the latter, the “Manici Action”) were filed by purported stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with the Company’s relationship with Serhat Gümrükcü and its commercial prospects. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On November 22, 2022, the Manici Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, but the Chow action remains pending. On October 22, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the Chow Action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2023. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, but expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

Federal Derivative Litigation. On September 22, 2022, Samuel E. Koenig filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 19, 2023, John Solak filed a substantially similar shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Both derivative actions recite similar underlying facts as those alleged in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The actions, filed on behalf of the Company, name Serhat Gümrükcü and certain of the Company’s current and former directors as defendants. The actions also name the Company as a nominal defendant. The actions allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and also set out claims for breach of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement. Plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged injury, but seek damages, disgorgement, restitution, and other costs and expenses. On January 24, 2023, the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed the Koenig matter pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. On April 6, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Solak matter pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The defendants have not yet responded to either complaint. The Company intends to contest these matters but expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of favorable outcomes.

State Derivative Litigation. On October 20, 2022, Susan Midler filed a shareholder derivative action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, reciting similar underlying facts as those alleged in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The action, filed on behalf of the Company, names Serhat Gümrükcü and certain of the Company’s current and former directors as defendants. The action also names the Company as a nominal defendant. The action sets out claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement. Plaintiff does not quantify any alleged injury, but seeks damages, disgorgement, restitution, and other costs and expenses. On January 20, 2023, the Court stayed the Midler matter pending resolution of the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company intends to contest this matter but expresses no opinion as to the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against Serhat Gümrükcü, William Anderson Wittekind (“Wittekind”), G Tech Bio LLC (“G Tech”), SG & AW Holdings, LLC, and Seraph Research Institute (“SRI”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in a “concerted, deliberate scheme to alter, falsify, and misrepresent to the Company the results of multiple studies supporting its Hepatitis B and SARS-CoV-2/influenza pipelines.” Specifically, “Defendants manipulated negative results to reflect positive outcomes from various studies, and even fabricated studies out of whole cloth.” As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, the Company claims that it “paid approximately $25 million to Defendants and third-parties that it would not otherwise have paid.” On April 21, 2023, defendants Wittekind, G Tech, SG & AW Holdings, LLC, and SRI filed a demurrer with respect to some, but not all, of the Company’s claims, as well as a motion to strike. On September 6, 2023, the court denied in part and granted in part the pending motions. On September 7, 2023, the court entered a case management order setting the final status conference, trial, and other intervening deadlines.

On December 4, 2023, the Defendants answered the Company’s First Amended Complaint and G Tech and SRI filed a Cross-Complaint. In the Cross-Complaint, G Tech and SRI seek declaratory and injunctive relief related to certain agreements between G Tech, SRI, and the Company, including,inter alia, a declaration that the Framework Agreement, effective as of November 15, 2019, the Statement of Work & License Agreement, effective as of January 31, 2020, and the Statement of Work and License Agreement for Influenza and Coronavirus Indications, effective as of April 18, 2021, have been terminated and the Company has no rights to any license under such agreements. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on March 3, 2025. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend against the cross claims while pursuing its claims against the Defendants.

On March 1, 2021, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, Robert Wolfe and his company, Crossfield, Inc., filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont against the Company, Renovaro Biosciences Denmark ApS, and certain directors and officers. In the Complaint, Mr. Wolfe and Crossfield, Inc. asserted claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, alleging, inter alia, that the Company lacked probable cause to file and prosecute an earlier action, and sought millions of dollars of compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages. The allegations in the Complaint relate to an earlier action filed by the Company and Renovaro Biosciences Denmark ApS in the Vermont Superior Court, Orange Civil Division. On March 3, 2022, the Court partially granted the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the abuse of process claim against all defendants and all claims against Mark Dybul and Henrik Grønfeldt-Sørensen. On November 29, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the sole remaining claim of malicious prosecution. On August 24, 2023, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on July 15, 2024. The Company denies the allegations set forth in the Complaint and will continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claim.

On June 7, 2023, Weird Science LLC (“Weird Science”), Wittekind, the William Anderson Wittekind 2020 Annuity Trust, the William Anderson Wittekind 2021 Annuity Trust, the Dybul 2020 Angel Annuity Trust, and the Ty Mabry 2021 Annuity Trust (collectively, the “Trusts”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Verified Complaint against the Company in the Court of Chancery of Delaware. In the Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company breached the February 16, 2018 Investor Rights Agreement between the Company, Weird Science, and RS Group ApS (the “Investor Rights Agreement”). According to the Verified Complaint, the Investor Rights Agreement required the Company to (i) notify all “Holders” of “Registrable Securities” at least 30 days prior to filing a registration statement and (ii) afford such Holders an opportunity to have their Registrable Securities included in such registration statement. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company breached these registration rights by failing to provide the required notice in connection with S-3 registration statements filed by the Company on July 13, 2020 and February 11, 2022. The Company moved to dismiss the Verified Complaint on September 15, 2023.

On December 4, 2023, in lieu of opposing the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a Verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the FAC, Plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and others for purported breaches of the Investor Rights Agreement, fraud, tortious interference with a contract, and several other torts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, as well as certain declaratory relief, specific performance, and pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on December 18, 2023. The Company denies Plaintiffs’ allegations and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 24, 2023, counsel on behalf of Weird Science, Wittekind, individually, and Wittekind, as trustee of the Trusts served a demand to inspect the Company’s books and records (the “Demand”) pursuant to Delaware General Corporation Law, § 220 (“Section 220”). The Demand seeks the Company’s books and records in connection with various issues identified in the Demand. The Company takes its obligations under Section 220 seriously and, to the extent that the requests are proper under Section 220, intends to comply with those obligations.

On January 23, 2024, Weird Science and Wittekind filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against certain officers, directors, and investors of the Company, as well as other defendants. The Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (“Derivative Complaint”) alleges, among other claims, violations of Section 13(d) and 14(a) and Rules 10b-5(a), 10b-5(c) and 14a-9 of the Exchange Act of 1934. The Derivative Complaint also includes claims of breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and contribution/indemnification. Weird Science and Wittekind seek unspecified compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages and certain injunctive relief. Simultaneously with the Derivative Complaint, Weird Science and Wittekind filed an emergencyEx Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order (“Application”) asking the Court to enjoin a special meeting of the Company’s stockholders noticed for January 25, 2024. As the basis for the Application, Weird Science and Wittekind recited many of the same allegations as in the Derivative Complaint. The Court denied the Application on January 24, 2024. The defendants have not yet responded to the Derivative Complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the Derivative Complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted therein.