Cerence Inc

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers' Retirement Trust Action

On February 25, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned as City Of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Cerence Inc., et al. (the “Securities Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and two of its former officers as defendants. Following the court’s selection of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, an amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2022. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 16, 2020 and February 4, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding the Company’s operations, financial performance and prospects were made in the Company’s public disclosures during the period from November 16, 2020 to February 4, 2022, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. On September 9, 2022, the defendants in the Securities Action moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. On March 25, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing certain of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions while allowing claims challenging certain other alleged misrepresentations and omissions to proceed. On April 15, 2024, the defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On August 14, 2024, the parties conducted a mediation and thereafter the parties agreed to settle the matter for $30.0 million, subject to court approval. On September 18, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and, on December 18, 2024 the Court approved the final settlement. During the three months ended December 31, 2024, the entire settlement amount was paid by insurance proceeds.

Derivative Actions

On May 10 and 12, 2022, respectively, plaintiffs William Shafer and Peter Morse filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Cerence Inc. against defendants (and former officers) Sanjay Dwahan and Mark J. Gallenberger as well as board members Arun Sarin, Thomas Beaudoin, Marianne Budnik, Sanjay Jha, Kristi Ann Matus, Alfred Nietzel and then-current CEO and board member Stefan Ortmanns. These actions are premised on factual contentions substantially similar to those made in the Securities Action and contain substantially similar legal contentions. As such, on June 13, 2022, at the parties’ request, the court consolidated these derivative actions into a single action and appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in that consolidated action. On May 24, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss under the forum selection clause in the Company’s charter which the court denied on December 20, 2024. Under the current schedule, defendants have until February 3, 2025 to file a further motion to dismiss on the grounds of demand futility and failure to state a claim, and that motion will be fully briefed by April 3, 2025.

Three shareholder derivative complaints making factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those raised in the consolidated federal derivative action have been also filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: the first filed on October 19, 2022 by plaintiff Melinda Hipp against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action and board member Douglas Davis, the second filed on August 17, 2023 by plaintiff Catherine Fleming against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action, and the third filed on July 10, 2024 by plaintiff Alberto Goncalves against the defendants named in the consolidated federal derivative action. On October 20, 2023, Ms. Hipp voluntarily dismissed her action with prejudice. On June 26, 2024, the court stayed the Fleming action pending the outcome of mediation. On August 12, 2024, the court stayed the Goncalves action pending the outcome of mediation.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the cases, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, derivative standing and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from these derivative actions.

A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena and Carlos Pena Action

On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence’s Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence’s Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence has filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion to certify the Court’s order on Cerence’s motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal Court. Cerence’s answers in the Federal Court and Circuit Court were due on July 15 and July 18, 2024, respectively, which the Company filed on such dates. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

March 15, 2024, Cerence filed its second patent infringement complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of four Cerence patents. In its responsive pleading on July 10, 2024, Samsung asserted counterclaims, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,395,657; 10,720,162; 11,823,682; and 9,583,103 against the Cerence Assistant. Samsung seeks damages, including trebled damages, and its costs and fees. Cerence filed its answer denying the allegations and counterclaims of invalidity and noninfringement on September 4, 2024. Trial is scheduled to begin in January 2026. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action.

Other Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become a party to other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, product liability claims, employment matters, commercial disputes, governmental inquiries and investigations (which may in some cases involve our entering into settlement arrangements or consent decrees), and other matters arising out of the ordinary course of our business. While the results of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty, in our opinion none of our pending matters are currently anticipated to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.