Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments with Samsung BioLogics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”)

In April 2019, the Company entered into an agreement with Samsung, pursuant to which Samsung will perform technology transfer, process validation, manufacturing and supply services for the commercial supply of leronlimab effective through calendar year 2027. In 2020, the Company entered into an additional agreement, pursuant to which Samsung will perform technology transfer, process validation, vial filling and storage services for clinical, pre-approval inspection, and commercial supply of leronlimab. Samsung is obligated to procure necessary raw materials for the Company and manufacture a specified minimum number of batches, and the Company is required to provide a rolling three-year forecast of future estimated manufacturing requirements to Samsung that are binding.

On January 6, 2022, Samsung provided written notice to the Company alleging that the Company had breached the parties’ Master Services and Project Specific Agreements for failure to pay $13.5 million due on December 31, 2021. An additional $22.8 million became due under the agreements on January 31, 2022, and was included in accounts payable as of February 28, 2022. Under the agreements, Samsung may be entitled to terminate its services if the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the past due balance. Management is in ongoing discussions with Samsung regarding potential approaches to resolve these issues, including proposals by both parties of a revised schedule of payments over an extended period of time, and proposals by the Company of satisfaction of a portion of the Company’s payment obligations in equity securities of the Company and postponing or cancelling the manufacturing of additional drug product provided for in the agreements. As of May 31, 2022, the Company had past due balances of approximately $38.1 million due to Samsung which were included in accounts payable.

As of May 31, 2022, the future commitments pursuant to these agreements are estimated as follows (in thousands):

​

​

Commitments with Contract Research Organization (“CRO”)

The Company entered, and continues to maintain agreements, into project work orders, as amended, for each of our clinical trials with a CRO and related laboratory vendors. Under the terms of these agreements, the Company prepaid execution fees for direct services costs, which are recorded as a current asset in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In the event the Company were to terminate any trial, it may incur financial penalties to be payable to the CRO.

Distribution and Licensing

In December 2019, the Company entered into Commercialization and License Agreement, and Supply Agreement (together the “License Agreements”) with Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Vyera”) under which the Company granted Vyera an exclusive royalty-bearing license to commercialize pharmaceutical preparations containing leronlimab for treatment of HIV in the United States. The License Agreements gave Vyera the right to assign its rights and obligations under the License Agreements to an affiliate of Vyera. In October 2020, Vyera assigned the License Agreements to SevenScore Pharmaceuticals, which in turn, in December 2021, assigned them to Regnum Corp. Vyera, SevenScore and Regnum are each controlled by their parent Phoenixus AG.

The License Agreements, as assigned, provide that, pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Regnum will, at its cost, use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize leronlimab for treatment of HIV in the United States. The Company retained the right to license leronlimab for uses in the United States for purposes other than the treatment of HIV and for any purposes outside the United States. The License Agreements obligate Regnum to pay the Company up to $85.3 million upon the achievement of certain sales and regulatory milestones. Certain milestones are subject to reduction if not achieved within an agreed-upon timeframe. Regnum may also pay the Company additional potential milestone payments upon the regulatory approval of leronlimab for certain subsequent indications in the field. Whether a particular subsequent indication qualifies for an additional milestone payment will be

determined in good faith by the parties at the time such an event occurs. In addition, during the Royalty Term, as defined in the License Agreements, but, in any event, a period of not less than 10 years following the first commercial sale under the License Agreements, Regnum is obligated to pay the Company a royalty equal to 50% of Regnum’s net sales from product sales. The royalty is subject to reduction during the Royalty Term after patent expiry and expiry of regulatory exclusivity. Following expiration of the Royalty Term, Regnum has non-exclusive rights to commercialize the product. Regnum has the right to terminate the License Agreements (i) upon written notice to the Company on or after December 19, 2021 and prior to the Company’s receipt of approval from the FDA of the BLA for the manufacture and sale of leronlimab for HIV, (ii) if Regnum fails to achieve certain aggregate Net Sales (as defined in the License Agreements) of leronlimab during the period beginning on the date of first commercial sale and ending on the date that is two years from the date of the first commercial sale, and (iii) with 180 days’ prior written notice, at Regnum’s convenience following the second anniversary of the first commercial sale of leronlimab.

On April 6, 2021, the Company entered into an exclusive supply and distribution agreement with Biomm S.A., a Brazilian pharmaceutical company, granting the exclusive right to distribute and sell leronlimab in Brazil upon Brazilian regulatory approval.

PRO 140 Acquisition and Licensing Arrangements

We originally acquired leronlimab, as well as certain other related assets, including the existing inventory of PRO 140 bulk drug substance, intellectual property, and FDA regulatory filings, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 25, 2012, and effective October 16, 2012 (the “Progenics Purchase Agreement”), between CytoDyn and Progenics. Pursuant to the Progenics Purchase Agreement, we are required to pay Progenics a milestone payment and royalties as follows: (i) $5,000,000 at the time of the first U.S. new drug application approval by the FDA or other non-U.S. approval for the sale of leronlimab; and (ii) royalty payments of up to 5% on net sales during the period beginning on the date of the first commercial sale of leronlimab until the later of (a) the expiration of the last to expire patent included in the acquired assets, and (b) 10 years, in each case determined on a country-by-country basis. To the extent that such remaining milestone payment and royalties are not timely made, under the terms of the Progenics Purchase Agreement, Progenics has certain repurchase rights relating to the assets sold to us thereunder.

Payments to Progenics are in addition to payments due under a Development and License Agreement, dated April 30, 1999 (the “PDL License”), between Protein Design Labs (now AbbVie Inc.) and Progenics, which was assigned to us in the Progenics Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which we have an exclusive worldwide license to develop, make, have made, import, use, sell, offer to sell or have sold products that incorporate the humanized form of the leronlimab antibody developed under the agreement. Pursuant to the PDL License, we are required to pay AbbVie Inc. milestone payments and royalties as follows: (i) $500,000 upon filing a Biologic License Application with the FDA or non-U.S. equivalent regulatory body; (ii) $500,000 upon FDA approval or approval by another non-U.S. equivalent regulatory body; and (iii) royalties of up to 3.5% of net sales for the longer of 10 years and the date of expiration of the last to expire licensed patent. Additionally, the PDL License provides for an annual maintenance fee of $150,000 until royalties paid exceed that amount. To the extent that such remaining milestone payments and royalties are not timely made, under the terms of the PDL License, AbbVie Inc. has certain termination rights relating to our license of leronlimab thereunder.

Effective July 29, 2015, we entered into a License Agreement (the “Lonza Agreement”) with Lonza Sales AG (“Lonza”) covering Lonza’s “system know-how” technology with respect to our use of proprietary cell lines to manufacture new leronlimab material. The Lonza Agreement provides for an annual license fee and future royalty payments, both of which varies based on whether Lonza, or we or our strategic partner manufactures leronlimab. We currently use two independent parties as contract manufacturers for leronlimab. Therefore, if this arrangement continues, an annual license fee of £0.6 million (approximately $0.7 million given current exchange rate) would continue to apply, as well as a royalty, up to 2% of the net selling price upon commercialization of leronlimab, excluding value added taxes and similar amounts.

Operating Leases

We lease our principal office location in Vancouver, Washington. The Vancouver lease expires on April 30, 2026. Consistent with the guidance in ASC 842, Leases, we have recorded this lease in our consolidated balance sheet as an operating lease. For the purpose of determining the right of use asset and associated lease liability, we determined that the renewal of the Vancouver lease was not reasonably probable. The lease does not include any restrictions or

covenants requiring special treatment under ASC 842. During the fiscal years ended May 31, 2022 and 2021, we recognized $0.2 million and $0.3 million of operating lease costs.

The following table summarizes the presentation of the operating leases in our consolidated balance sheet at May 31, 2022 and 2021:

​

​

The minimum (base rental) lease payments reconciled to the carrying value of the operating lease liabilities as of May 31, 2022 are expected to be as follows (in thousands):

​

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.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act

On September 10, 2020, certain stockholders of the Company filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against then CEO Nader Z. Pourhassan, Ph.D. The plaintiffs claimed that certain of Dr. Pourhassan’s transactions in the Company’s common stock violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company was only a nominal defendant in the action, and the plaintiffs sought no relief against the Company. On March 12, 2021, the district court granted Dr. Pourhassan’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs timely appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 8, 2022, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Pestell Employment Dispute

On May 19, 2022, the Company and its subsidiary CytoDyn Operations Inc. entered into a Settlement Agreement with Richard G. Pestell, M.D. Ph.D. (“Dr. Pestell”), its former Chief Medical Officer. The Settlement Agreement terminated a lawsuit brought by Dr. Pestell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in August 2019 denominated Pestell v. CytoDyn Inc., et al. (the “Lawsuit”) that alleged breach of Pestell’s employment agreement with the Company, and the Company’s failure to release from escrow 8,342,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the

“Escrowed Stock”), issued in connection with the Company’s 2018 acquisition of ProstaGene LLC, of which Dr. Pestell was a controlling owner. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to: (1) relinquish all rights to, and remove all transfer restrictions from, the Common Stock; (2) transfer and assign to Dr. Pestell all rights, title and interest (if any) in and to certain intangible assets that had been acquired in the ProstaGene transaction; (3) grant to Dr. Pestell warrants with a three-year term to purchase 7,000,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.37 per share (the “Warrants”); and (4) include the shares issuable upon exercise of the Warrants in a registration statement to be filed by the Company with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, in connection with a private placement of shares of Common Stock and warrants as described in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 12, 2022. Except as described above, the Warrants have substantially the same terms as the form of warrant filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed on September 7, 2021. In addition, each of the parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit and to release the other party from all claims, whether known or unknown as of May 19, 2022, other than the rights and obligations arising out of or in connection with the Settlement Agreement.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action lawsuit (the “March 17, 2021 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. 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 March 17, 2021 lawsuit. On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 27, 2020 and May 17, 2021. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the Company’s CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV BLA. The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the Company’s common stock purportedly while in possession of material nonpublic information. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 24, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the Company’s common stock between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, makes similar allegations, names the same defendants, and asserts the same claims as the prior complaint, adds a claim for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder, and seeks the same relief as the prior complaint. The Company and the individual defendants deny all 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.

2021 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 current and former Board members, and the Company as a nominal defendant, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Two additional shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the same court on June 25, 2021 and August 18, 2021, respectively. The court has consolidated these three lawsuits for all purposes (“Consolidated Derivative Suit”). On January 20, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding, among other things, the safety and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the Company’s CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV BLA, and by failing to maintain an adequate system of oversight and controls. The consolidated complaint also asserts claims against one or more individual defendants for waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, contribution for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, and for breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged insider trading. The consolidated complaint seeks declaratory and equitable relief, an unspecified amount of damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company and the individual defendants deny all 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 (“SEC”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) 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, HIV, and triple-negative breast cancer, related communications with the FDA, investors, and others, litigation involving former employees, the Company’s retention of investor relations consultants, and trading in the Company’s securities. Certain Company executives have received subpoenas concerning similar issues and may be interviewed by the DOJ or SEC in the future. The SEC informed the Company that its 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. 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.

Amarex Dispute

On October 4, 2021, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a motion for a preliminary injunction against NSF International, Inc. and its subsidiary Amarex Clinical Research LLC (“Amarex”), the Company’s former 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. On December 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction requiring Amarex to provide the Company with access to all of its materials in the possession of Amarex. The court also granted CytoDyn the right to conduct an audit of Amarex’s work for CytoDyn. That case has been administratively closed.

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. Amarex has counterclaimed alleging that CytoDyn has failed to pay invoices due under the contract between the parties. In light of the fact that this dispute 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.