Note 9. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

There were no material changes in commitments during the three months ended August 31, 2021. Please refer to Note 10, Commitments and Contingencies, in the 2021 Form 10-K for additional information with regard to the Company’s commitments.

Legal Proceedings

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. The Company recognizes accruals for such proceedings to the extent a loss is determined to be both probable and reasonably estimable. The best estimate of a loss within a possible range is accrued; however, if no estimate in the range is more probable than another, then the minimum amount in the range is accrued. If it is determined that a material loss is not probable but reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, the possible loss is disclosed. It is not possible to determine the outcome of proceedings that have not been concluded, including the defense and other litigation-related costs and expenses that may be incurred by the Company, as the outcomes of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and the outcomes could differ significantly from recognized accruals. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of any proceeding, if in excess of a recognized accrual or if an accrual had not been made, could be material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

As of August 31, 2021, the Company did not record any legal accruals related to the outcomes of the matters described below.

Delaware Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On April 24, 2020, certain stockholders of the Company (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Court”), alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the Company’s CEO, former CFOs, CMO, and certain current and former members of the Board (the “Defendants”), in connection with certain equity awards to these individuals granted in December 2019 and January 2020 (the “December 2019 Awards”). The Company was named a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs demanded the rescission of the December 2019 Awards, a finding that the named directors breached their fiduciary duty to the Company, and an unspecified amount of damages. The Company appointed a Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”), consisting solely of independent directors not named in the complaint to investigate the allegations in the complaint.

On December 15, 2020, the Defendants reached an agreement in principle with the SLC (collectively, the “Parties”) to resolve the lawsuit. On December 18, 2020, the Parties executed a memorandum of understanding outlining the key terms of their agreement. On January 27, 2021, the Parties entered into a proposed Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (the “Stipulation”) to settle the derivative action. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the current directors agreed to implement a series of corporate governance reforms related to director and executive officer compensation and certain Defendants agreed to forfeit a substantial portion of the December 2019 Awards following approval of the settlement by the Delaware Court in exchange for a release of claims and the dismissal of the derivative action with prejudice.

The corporate governance reforms to be implemented pursuant to the Stipulation included:

The Board appointed a new director, expanded the membership of the Compensation Committee, and approved the executive officer and director compensation policy as described above effective prior to the deadline set forth in the Stipulation.

The December 2019 Awards were forfeited effective June 4, 2021 as follows: 100% of the December 2019 Awards to Michael A. Klump, Jordan G. Naydenov, and David F. Welch, Ph.D., covering 2.25 million shares, 60% of the December 2019 Award to Scott A. Kelly, M.D., covering 0.75 million shares; and 100% of the warrant to acquire 2.0 million shares issued to Nader Z. Pourhassan, Ph.D. In addition, Dr. Pourhassan forfeited vested options to purchase approximately 0.4 million shares from the December 2019 Awards. The Delaware Court held hearings, on April 19 and June 4, 2021, and approved the Stipulation at the hearing on June 4, 2021.

On March 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a brief, agreeing to the proposed settlement and seeking an award of approximately $4.1 million for bringing the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s demand was based on the claimed value or benefit to the Company and its stockholders from the value of the forfeited equity awards, in addition to the time incurred by the Plaintiffs’ attorneys with regard to this action. On April 8, 2021, the SLC filed a brief opposing the Plaintiffs’ motion, contending that the amount of the award demanded was not legally supported. Following a hearing on June 4, 2021, the Delaware Court issued a ruling granting the Plaintiffs’ fee application in the amount of $3.0 million, inclusive of expenses, for which the Company fully accrued as of May 31, 2021. The Company timely satisfied the award obligation and terms of the Stipulation during the three months ended August 31, 2021.

September 2020 Washington Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On September 10, 2020, the same Plaintiffs as in the Delaware Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit filed another derivative action against CEO Nader Z. Pourhassan, Ph.D. claiming that he had violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain personal stock transactions in the Company’s stock. The parties filed cross-motions to dismiss. On March 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “U.S. District Court”) granted Dr. Pourhassan’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. On April 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appealing the decision of the U.S. District Court. The Plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit on July 8, 2021. Dr. Pourhassan filed a reply brief on September 8, 2021, and on September 20, 2021 the Plaintiffs filed for an extension of time to file their reply brief no later than October 29, 2021.

Pestell Employment Dispute

On July 25, 2019, the Company’s Board terminated the employment of Dr. Pestell, the Company’s former Chief Medical Officer, for cause pursuant to the terms of Dr. Pestell’s employment agreement. On August 22, 2019, Dr. Pestell filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Pestell v. CytoDyn Inc., et al.), against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Board, alleging breach of the employment agreement, a failure to pay wages and defamation, among other claims, and seeking damages related to severance entitlements for a non-cause termination under the employment agreement and a stock restriction agreement, among other relief. The treatment of those entitlements, including severance and approximately 0.4 million unvested stock options and 8.3 shares

of unvested restricted common stock, in each case granted or issued on November 16, 2018 and which vest ratably over three years or upon a non-cause termination, are expected to be determined by the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that if a court ruled in favor of Dr. Pestell on the equity entitlements, it would award damages based on a decline in the value of the shares. On November 2, 2020, the Court dismissed Dr. Pestell’s wage claims with prejudice and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Board were dismissed from the proceeding. The Company filed its answer and counterclaims thereafter. A bench trial is currently set for April 2022. The Company disputes all of Dr. Pestell’s claims and intends to vigorously defend the action. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, that the Company may incur.

ProstaGene Arbitration

On March 19, 2021, the Company concluded a five-day arbitration hearing concerning a claim by ProstaGene and counterclaims by the Company for approximately 3.1 million shares of the Company’s common stock held in escrow as holdback stock pursuant to the transaction agreement for the acquisition of certain intangible assets from ProstaGene in November 2018. The Company recognized a full impairment charge against the net carrying value of a certain acquired intangible asset in the quarter ended February 28, 2021. See Note 7 above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ProstaGene also sought monetary damages, in an amount to be determined by the arbitration panel, including any lost value in stock price and its attorney fees and costs. Post-hearing briefing concluded mid-May 2021. The Company disputed ProstaGene’s claim and has vigorously defended against that claim. Further, the Company believes its counterclaims are meritorious and the Company vigorously prosecuted its counterclaims. Nonetheless, on July 2, 2021, an arbitration panel determined ProstaGene was entitled to release of the shares, as well as a cash monetary award in the amount of approximately $6.2 million, plus interest, fees and costs estimated to total approximately $1.4 million. These amounts were fully accrued for as of May 31, 2021, and the Company satisfied the arbitration award obligations in July 2021.

Securities Class Action Lawsuit

On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The plaintiff seeks a ruling for the case to proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021. On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the lawsuit; a motion to reconsider the court’s lead plaintiff order is pending. The Company and the individual defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend the matter. Since this case is in an early stage where the number of plaintiffs is not known, and the claims do not specify an amount of damages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss the Company may incur.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

On June 4, 2021, a stockholder filed a purported derivative lawsuit against certain of the Company’s current and former officers, certain board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (“First Derivative Suit”). The complaint generally alleges the director defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company by allowing the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19 and failing to maintain an adequate system of oversight and internal controls. The complaint asserts claims against one or more individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company for any liability the Company incurs as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged misconduct. The complaint also seeks contribution on behalf of the Company from certain individual defendants for their alleged violations of federal securities laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and equitable relief, an unspecified amount of damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 25, 2021, a second shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against the same defendants in the same court (“Second Derivative Suit”), which includes allegations and claims similar to those made in the First Derivative Suit, adding claims against certain individual defendants based on allegedly false and misleading proxy

statement disclosures and for breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged insider trading, and seeking similar relief as the First Derivative Suit. On August 18, 2021, a third shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against the same defendants in the same court, which includes allegations and claims similar to those made in the First Derivative Suit and Second Derivative Suit. The court has consolidated these three lawsuits for all purposes (“Consolidated Derivative Suit”). The Company and the individual defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. In light of the fact that the Consolidated Derivative Suit is in an early stage and the claims do not specify an amount of damages, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the Consolidated Derivative Suit and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss the Company may incur.

Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice Investigations

The Company has received subpoenas from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission requesting documents and information concerning, among other matters, leronlimab, the Company’s public statements regarding the use of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19 and related communications with the FDA, investors, and others, and trading in the securities of CytoDyn. The SEC informed the Company that this inquiry should not be construed as an indication that any violations of law have occurred or that the SEC has any negative opinion of any person, entity or security.

In addition, the Company and certain of its executives have received subpoenas in connection with an investigation being conducted by the United States Department of Justice. The subpoenas seek testimony and/or records concerning, among other matters, leronlimab, the Company’s public statements regarding the use of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19 and related communications with the FDA, investors, and others, and trading in the securities of CytoDyn.

The Company is cooperating fully with these non-public, fact-finding investigations, and as of the date of this filing, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and cannot reasonably estimate the potential possible loss or range of loss, if any.

September 2021 Delaware Court of Chancery Lawsuit

On September 22, 2021, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its board members in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint generally alleges that Article VI, Section 5 of the Company’s certificate of incorporation, which concerns the removal of directors (“Removal Provision”), violates Delaware law. The plaintiffs seek a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action, a declaration that the Removal Provision is invalid and unenforceable, an order enjoining the defendants from attempting to enforce the Removal Provision, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company and the individual defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend the matter. In light of the fact that this case is in an early stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that the Company may incur.

Placement Agent Tail Fees Dispute Settlement

During the three months ended August 31, 2021, the Company and Paulson Investment Company, LLC (“Paulson”) settled a dispute in which Paulson alleged it was owed tail fees related to various placement agent agreements entered into in prior years. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to a cash payment of $0.2 million and recognized stock-based expense of approximately $1.7 million resulting from the issuance of warrants covering 1.6 million shares of common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share with a seven-year expiration. See Note 6 above.

Amarex Dispute

On October 4, 2021, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and motion for a preliminary injunction against NSF International, Inc. and its subsidiary Amarex Clinical Research LLC (“Amarex”), the Company’s former contract research organization (“CRO”). Over the past eight years, Amarex provided clinical trial

management services to the Company and managed numerous clinical studies of the Company’s drug product candidate, leronlimab. The Company’s complaint alleges that Amarex failed to perform its obligations under the master services agreement and work orders that governed the relationship between the parties. As a result, the Company suffered substantial damages. The Company’s lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seeks a declaration that Amarex breached its contracts with CytoDyn, as well as an injunction requiring Amarex to provide CytoDyn access to databases of clinical trial data that Amarex has been wrongfully withholding.

The Company simultaneously filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration demand alleges that Amarex failed to perform services to an acceptable professional standard and failed to perform certain services required by the parties’ agreements. Further, the demand alleges that Amarex billed the Company for services it did not perform. The Company contends that due to Amarex’s failures, it has suffered avoidable delays in obtaining regulatory approval of leronlimab and has paid for services not performed.