CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

Envigo RMS, LLC (“Envigo RMS”) is a defendant in a purported class action and a related action under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former non-exempt employee of Envigo RMS, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. The complaints allege that Envigo RMS violated certain wage and hour requirements under the California Labor Code. PAGA authorizes private attorneys to bring claims on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees for violations of California’s wage and hour laws. The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of similarly situated employees and the award of actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages for the alleged violations. The PAGA complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code and attorney’s fees. On June 2, 2023, Envigo RMS and the plaintiff signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that sets forth the parties’ intent to settle these matters for $795 which includes attorneys’ fees. The MOU provides that the parties will negotiate and enter into a definitive settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval. The MOU contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Envigo RMS. The MOU provides that, if the settlement is approved by the court, the settlement amount would be paid in four quarterly installments, with the first one to be funded after the court’s final approval of the settlement, and the following ones in the three subsequent quarters. The parties are in the process of finalizing the long-form settlement agreement. While the timeline for final court approval is not yet determined, the Company took a reserve equal to the proposed settlement amount, which is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A. Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.). The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company’s acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance. On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and

misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning the Company’s non-human primate business. The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion was fully briefed by April 28, 2023. On March 29, 2024, the Court issued a decision denying, in part, Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case is now in discovery. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. We cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss for this matter.

On September 9, 2022, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, and Scott Cragg as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant, captioned Grobler v. Robert W. Leasure, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00064 (N.D. Ind.) (the “Grobler Derivative Action”). On January 4, 2023, an additional shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, and Scott Cragg as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant, captioned Burkhart v. Robert W. Leasure, et al., Case No 4:23-cv-00003 (N.D. Ind.) (the “Burkhart Derivative Action,” and together with the Grobler Derivative Action, the “Federal Derivative Actions”). The Federal Derivative Actions collectively assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, as well as violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Envigo and its regulatory compliance. The Court entered orders on November 15, 2022 and May 8, 2023 in the Grobler and Burkhart Derivative Actions, respectively, staying each Action pending a resolution of a motion to dismiss in the securities class action. The stays expired following the March 29, 2024 decision on the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. The Court consolidated the Federal Derivative Actions on April 24, 2024, and Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 24, 2024. The consolidated Federal Derivative Actions are currently stayed. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes the consolidated Federal Derivative Actions to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. We cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss for any of these matters.

On April 20, 2023, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the State of Indiana Tippecanoe County Circuit Court, naming Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, and Scott Cragg as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant, captioned Whitfield v. Gregory C. Davis, et al., Case No. 79C01-2304-PL-000048 (Tippecanoe Circuit Court) (the “Whitfield Derivative Action”). On June 2, 2023, an additional shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Indiana Commercial Court of Marion County, naming Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Carmen Wilbourn, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, and Scott Cragg as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant, captioned Castro v. Robert W. Leasure, et al., Case No. 49D01-2306-PL-022213 (Marion Superior Court 1) (the “Castro Derivative Action,” and together with the Whitfield Derivative Action, the “State Derivative Actions”). The State Derivative Actions collectively assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and waste of corporate assets arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Envigo and its regulatory compliance, and the Company’s non-human primate business. On August 24, 2023, the Castro Derivative Action was transferred to the Tippecanoe County Circuit Court and consolidated with the Whitfield Derivative Action. The consolidated State Derivative Actions are currently stayed. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes the consolidated State Derivative Actions to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. We cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss for any of these matters.

The Company is party to certain other legal actions arising out of the normal course of its business. In management's opinion, none of these actions will have a material effect on the Company's operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Government Investigations and Actions

The Company is subject to and/or involved in various government investigations, inquiries and actions, including those described below. Given their inherent uncertainty, except as otherwise noted, the Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of the pending matters described below. An adverse outcome of any of the following matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations, financial condition, operating results and cash flows.

During the period from July 2021 through March 2022, Envigo RMS’s Cumberland facility was inspected on several occasions by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). USDA issued inspection reports with findings of non-compliance with certain USDA laws and regulations. Envigo RMS formally appealed certain of the findings, and made multiple remediations and improvements at the Cumberland facility, of which it kept USDA apprised.

On May 18, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), together with federal and state law enforcement agents, executed a search and seizure warrant on the Cumberland facility. The warrant was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on May 13, 2022. In 2022, Envigo Global Services, Inc. ("EGSI") and Inotiv received grand jury subpoenas and other requests from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia (“USAO-WDVA”) for documents and information related to the companies’ compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”), the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), the Virginia State Water Control Law and local pretreatment requirements from January 2017 to present. On July 23, 2023, EGSI and Inotiv received a grand jury subpoena from USAO-WDVA for documents related to the Cumberland facility’s compliance with the Clean Air Act, Virginia Air Pollution Control Laws and Regulations, and local requirements from January 1, 2017 to present. Also on July 23, 2023, Inotiv received a grand jury subpoena from USAO-WDVA for documents and information related to the Company’s Alice, Texas facilities’ compliance with the CWA, the Texas State Water Control Law, and local pretreatment requirements from January 1, 2020 to present. Certain current and former employees have also received subpoenas for testimony and documents related to these matters.

On June 3, 2024, the Company reached agreement to resolve this criminal investigation by the DOJ and other federal and state law enforcement agencies as to the Company, EGSI and Envigo RMS. In connection with such resolution, the Company and its related entities entered into a Resolution Agreement (the “Resolution Agreement”) with the DOJ and the USAO-WDVA, and Envigo RMS and EGSI entered into a Plea Agreement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the DOJ and the USAO-WDVA. On June 3, 2024, before the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia ("Court"), Envigo RMS pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to violate the Animal Welfare Act and EGSI pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act. On October 24, 2024, the Court sentenced Envigo RMS and EGSI according to the terms agreed to between the DOJ and the Company in the Resolution Agreement and Plea Agreement. The Company has and continues to comply with all obligations of the Resolution Agreement and Plea Agreement. Refer to the "Resolution Agreement and Plea Agreement" section below for further information.

As previously disclosed, on May 19, 2022, a civil complaint was filed by DOJ against Envigo RMS in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia alleging violations of the AWA at the Cumberland facility. On July 15, 2022, the court approved a settlement entered into by Envigo RMS, DOJ and the USDA in this civil case, which also comprised USDA’s administrative claims against Envigo RMS for the Cumberland facility, and the civil and administrative complaints were dismissed with prejudice on September 14, 2022. This matter is now fully resolved.

On June 15, 2021, EGSI, a subsidiary of the Company acquired in the Envigo acquisition, received a grand jury subpoena requested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”) for the production of documents related to the procurement of NHPs from foreign suppliers for the period January 1, 2018 through June 1, 2021. The subpoena relates to an earlier grand jury subpoena requested by the USAO-SDFL and received by EGSI’s predecessor entity, Covance Research Products, in April 2019. Envigo acquired EGSI from Covance, Inc., a subsidiary of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, in June 2019.

On January 27, 2022, EGSI acquired OBRC, which owns and operates a primate quarantine and holding facility located near Alice, Texas. In 2019, OBRC received grand jury subpoenas requested by the USAO-SDFL requiring the production of documents and information related to its importation of NHPs into the United States. On June 16, 2021, OBRC received a grand jury subpoena requested by the USAO-SDFL requiring the production of documents related to the procurement of NHPs from foreign suppliers for the period January 1, 2018 through June 1, 2021. The OBRC purchase agreement provides for indemnification of EGSI and its officers, directors and affiliates by the Seller, Orient Bio, Inc., for liabilities resulting from actions, inactions, errors or omissions of Orient Bio, Inc. or OBRC related to any period prior to the closing date.

On November 16, 2022 the Company disclosed that employees of the principal supplier of NHPs to the Company, along with two Cambodian government officials, had been criminally charged by the USAO-SDFL with conspiring to illegally import NHPs into the United States from December 2017 through January 2022 and in connection with seven specific imports between July 2018 and December 2021. One of these Cambodian officials was tried in March 2024 and prevailed on all charges.

In connection with the matters described herein, on July 23, 2024, USAO-SDFL informed the Company that it was no longer investigating the Company or its subsidiaries with respect to their procurement of NHPs from foreign suppliers or NHP importation practices.

On May 23, 2023, Inotiv received a voluntary request from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeking documents and information for the period December 1, 2017 to the present regarding the Company, EGSI, and OBRC’s importation of NHPs from Asia, including information relating to whether their importation practices complied with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In March 2024, the SEC provided the Company a formal order of investigation concerning this matter that is dated January 9, 2024, and on April 12, 2024, the SEC provided supplemental document requests to the Company. The Company is cooperating with the SEC.

Resolution Agreement and Plea Agreement

On June 3, 2024, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the DOJ to resolve a previously-announced criminal investigation into its shuttered canine breeding facility located in Cumberland, Virginia, which was operated originally by Envigo RMS in November 2021. In connection with such resolution, the Company and its related entities entered into the Resolution Agreement with the DOJ and the USAO-WDV, and Envigoentered into the Plea Agreement (the “Plea Agreement”) with the DOJ and the USAO-WDV. On June 3, 2024, before the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Envigo RMS pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to violate the Animal Welfare Act and EGSI pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act. On October 24, 2024, the Court sentenced Envigo RMS and EGSI according to the terms agreed to between the DOJ and the Company in the Resolution Agreement and Plea Agreement.

Pursuant to the Resolution Agreement and the Plea Agreement, the Company and Envigo, among other matters, have agreed to: (i) make payments totaling $22,000 in fines, with $5,000 payable on each of June 3, 2025, 2026 and 2027, and $7,000 (plus accrued interest beginning on the sentencing date) payable on June 3, 2028; (ii) on June 3, 2024, pay $3,000, split between the Virginia Animal Fighting Taskforce and the Humane Society of the United States in recognition of assistance provided to the U.S. Government’s investigation; (iii) on June 3, 2024, pay $3,500 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to fund environmental projects, studies, and initiatives in Cumberland County, Virginia; (iv) expend at least $7,000 ($2,500 by June 3, 2025, $2,500 by June 3, 2026, and $2,000 by June 3, 2027) for improvements to its facilities and personnel related to the welfare of animals; (v) provide a lien to the United States against sufficient Company assets to secure the deferred payments in connection with the $22,000 fine, which lien will be junior to only the lien provided by the Company to lenders under its credit facility as of April 1, 2024 and additional liens to secure up to $100,000 of additional debt; (vi) meet specified standards with respect to the health, safety and well-being of animals under the Company’s care; (vii) develop, adopt, implement, fund and comply with a comprehensive nationwide compliance plan related to applicable laws; and (viii) the appointment of a Compliance Monitor to review the Company’s care of animals and compliance with certain laws, and to pay all associated costs, which Compliance Monitor shall serve for a term that expires five years after the completion of the selection process for the Compliance Monitor, unless Envigo is released from probation prior to completion of the five-year term, in which case the monitorship term shall expire three years after the completion of the selection process, or two months after the completion of probation, whichever is later. In addition, the pleas result in Envigo RMS and EGSI being subject to probation for up to five years, with the potential to end the term early at a minimum of three years if the Company complies with the elements of the resolution.

For the twelve months ended September 30, 2024, the Company has expensed $28,500 related to the Resolution and Plea Agreements, which is presented within other operating expense in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations. In line with the Resolution and Plea Agreements, the Company paid $6,500 during the twelve months ended September 30, 2024 and expects to pay an additional $22,000 over multiple years. Accordingly, the Company has included $5,000 in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2024 and within “Changes in operating assets and liabilities – accrued expenses and other current liabilities” in its Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the twelve months ended September 30, 2024 and the Company has included $17,000 in other long-term liabilities on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2024 and “Changes in operating assets and liabilities – other assets and liabilities” in its Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the twelve months ended September 30, 2024. The total $28,500 charge is reflected in the operating loss of the RMS segment. The charge of $28,500 is non-deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Further, there were multiple amendments to the Credit Agreement, which, among other changes, permit charges or expenses attributable to or related to the Resolution Agreement and the Plea Agreement to be added back to the Company’s Consolidated EBITDA for purposes of the financial covenants under the Credit Agreement. The Company expects to have additional cash outlays in connection with certain costs related to the Resolution Agreement, which would be paid over the next three to five years. The additional cash outlays could include ongoing

monitoring and compliance costs, legal expenses and other payments required to comply with the Resolution Agreement, subject to final approvals, and at this time, the Company expects that such costs would be expensed as incurred.