CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS	CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS Litigation From time to time, the Company is involved in actual or threatened legal actions, including class actions, and the Company also receives inquiries from regulators and other government authorities relating to various aspects of its business. At any given time, the Company has matters at various stages of resolution. The outcomes of these matters are not within the Company’s control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, claimants seek damages, as well as other relief including injunctive relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for material loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation, governmental proceedings and other contingencies are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties, fines, disgorgement, or punitive damages; or could result in a change in business practice. Further, in accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company records an asset in its consolidated financial statements relating to a recovery only when realization of the claim for recovery is deemed probable. An asset should be recognized to the extent that a loss has previously been recognized. Any expected proceeds in excess of a previously recognized loss or a recovery of a loss not yet recognized in the consolidated financial statements should be treated as a gain contingency. Securities Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit (the "Securities Class Action") 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 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 shares 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. On September 25, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the Securities Class Action (the “Proposed Securities Settlement”). The Company entered into the Proposed Securities Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of protracted litigation. The Proposed Securities Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the individual defendants, all of whom deny any wrongdoing. While the court preliminarily approved the Proposed Securities Settlement on October 3, 2025, it scheduled a final settlement hearing for January 27, 2026. The Proposed Securities Settlement is subject in all respects to court approval and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the Proposed Securities Settlement. If approved by the court, the Proposed Securities Settlement will fully resolve the Securities Class Action claims against the Company and the individual defendants Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, John E. Sagartz, and Carmen Wilbourn. As consideration for the Proposed Securities Settlement, the Company will cause to be paid a cash settlement payment of $8,750 (“Cash Payment”) to the members of the putative class, which is expected to include all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between September 21, 2021 and May 20, 2022 or who held shares of the Company’s common stock and were entitled to vote on matters necessary to effectuate the Company’s acquisition of Envigo RMS, LLC at a special meeting of the Company’s shareholders on November 4, 2021 (subject to certain exclusions). Plaintiff will seek attorneys’ fees and costs, the amount of which will be determined by the court and funded from the Cash Payment. The Company expects the Cash Payment to be fully funded by available insurance. 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 Action”). 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 Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Envigo and its regulatory compliance. 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. 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,” together with the Whitfield Derivative Action, the “State Derivative Actions,” and together with the consolidated Federal Derivative Actions, the “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. On September 25, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Derivative Actions (the “Proposed Derivative Settlement”). The Company agreed to the Proposed Derivative Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of protracted litigation. The Proposed Derivative Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the individual defendants or the Company as the nominal defendant, all of whom deny any wrongdoing. The Proposed Derivative Settlement is subject in all respects to court approval and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the Proposed Derivative Settlement. If approved by the court, the Proposed Derivative Settlement will fully resolve the Derivative Actions, including all claims against individual defendants Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, Scott Cragg, and Carmen Wilbourn, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The Proposed Derivative Settlement credits the plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions for the fact that the Company will receive $2,490 from certain of its insurers, which amount will be utilized by the Company as part of the Cash Payment to the members of the putative class in the Proposed Securities Settlement. The Proposed Derivative Settlement also involves the institution and maintenance of certain corporate governance measures by the Company, including, for a period of at least five years, having a separate Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairperson, maintaining a fully independent Board Chairperson, instituting certain guidelines for due diligence conducted in any future mergers and acquisitions, and maintaining a disclosure committee. Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions will, in addition, seek attorneys’ fees, the amount of which will not exceed $2,250 and will be subject to court approval. The Company expects any award of attorneys’ fees to be fully funded by available insurance. Based on the amounts included in the Proposed Securities Settlement and the Proposed Derivative Settlement, as of September 30, 2025, the Company has recorded an $11,000 liability, and an $11,000 receivable, related to the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Actions. Privacy Class Actions The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class actions relating to the cybersecurity incident experienced in August 2025 (the “2025 Cybersecurity Incident”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana: (1) Doyal v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00046 (filed on August 21, 2025); (2) Merrell v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00047 (filed on August 25, 2025); and (3) Wagner v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00049 (filed on September 2, 2025). The complaints filed in each action generally allege that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information (together, “Private Information”) was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The purported class includes all persons in the United States whose Private Information allegedly was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The complaints seek (i) an order certifying the cases as class actions, (ii) unspecified amounts of monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and (iii) certain injunctive or equitable relief relating to (a) the safeguarding of proposed class members’ Private Information, and (b) the implementation of technical and administrative cybersecurity programs, procedures and controls. On October 21, 2025, the three putative class actions were consolidated under a new caption: In re: Inotiv, Inc. Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 4:25-CV-46-PPS-JEM. As a result of the consolidation, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on November 26, 2025. No case management order has been entered by the court, and no trial date has been set. FNI Settlement On January 13, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against Freese and Nichols, Inc. ("FNI") titled Envigo RMS Holding Corp. and Envigo Global Services, Inc. v. Freese and Nichols, Inc., Case No. 22-01-61647-CV, in the District Court of Jim Wells County, Texas, 79th Judicial District related to, among other things, FNI’s failure to design an adequately sized lagoon to dispose of the current wastewater and future wastewater from expanded operations. The complaint asserted claims against FNI for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract seeking damages and attorney fees and costs. On February 14, 2025, the Company (through two of its subsidiaries) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “FNI Settlement Agreement”) with FNI to settle the lawsuit. The FNI Settlement Agreement provides that the parties fully resolve all claims set forth in such lawsuit, without any admission of liability, and that FNI will pay the Company $7,550 within 30 days following the date of the FNI Settlement Agreement. The Court granted the Company's Agreed Motion to Dismiss All Claims on March 27, 2025. The Company received the settlement payment in full prior to March 31, 2025. The $7,550 settlement payment is presented within other operating expense within the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the twelve months ended September 30, 2025. Envigo Class Action Envigo 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, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County ("Court"). The complaints allege that Envigo 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 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. On August 2, 2024, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims (the “PAGA Settlement Agreement”) that incorporated the material terms of the MOU and is subject to the Court's approval. The PAGA Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Envigo. The PAGA Settlement Agreement 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. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court on June 12, 2025, subject to the submission of a revised proposed order. The parties await the Court adopting the proposed order so that the settlement notice process may commence. The final approval hearing by the Court is scheduled for December 11, 2025. The Company took a reserve equal to the proposed settlement amount, which is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities. 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. 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, Envigo Global Services, Inc. ("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. On June 2, 2025, the SEC provided notice to the Company, through the Company’s external counsel, that the SEC’s Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) has concluded its investigation and, based on the information available to the Division as of the date of its letter, the Division does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. 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 (the "Resolution Agreement") with the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia ("USAO-WDV"), and Envigo and EGSI entered 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, Envigo and EGSI, 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) on January 20, 2025, appoint the 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 on January 20, 2030, five years from appointment of the Compliance Monitor, unless the Company is released from probation prior to completion of the five-year term, in which case the monitorship term shall expire on January 20, 2028, three years from appointment of the Compliance Monitor, or two months after the completion of probation, whichever is later. In addition, the pleas result in Envigo 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. Refer to Note 7 – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information for further discussion of payments associated with the Resolution Agreement and the Plea Agreement.

From time to time, the Company is involved in actual or threatened legal actions, including class actions, and the Company also receives inquiries from regulators and other government authorities relating to various aspects of its business. At any given time, the Company has matters at various stages of resolution. The outcomes of these matters are not within the Company’s control and may not be known for prolonged periods of time. In some actions, claimants seek damages, as well as other relief including injunctive relief, that could require significant expenditures or result in lost revenues.

In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for material loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. Estimates of probable losses resulting from litigation, governmental proceedings and other contingencies are inherently difficult to predict, particularly when the matters are in early procedural stages, with incomplete facts or legal discovery; involve unsubstantiated or indeterminate claims for damages; potentially involve penalties, fines, disgorgement, or punitive damages; or could result in a change in business practice.

Further, in accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company records an asset in its consolidated financial statements relating to a recovery only when realization of the claim for recovery is deemed probable. An asset should be recognized to the extent that a loss has previously been recognized. Any expected proceeds in excess of a previously recognized loss or a recovery of a loss not yet recognized in the consolidated financial statements should be treated as a gain contingency.

On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit (the "Securities Class Action") 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 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 shares 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. On September 25, 2025, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the Securities Class Action (the “Proposed Securities Settlement”).

The Company entered into the Proposed Securities Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of protracted litigation. The Proposed Securities Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the individual defendants, all of whom deny any wrongdoing. While the court preliminarily approved the Proposed Securities Settlement on October 3, 2025, it scheduled a final settlement hearing for January 27, 2026. The Proposed Securities Settlement is subject in all respects to court approval and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the Proposed Securities Settlement.

If approved by the court, the Proposed Securities Settlement will fully resolve the Securities Class Action claims against the Company and the individual defendants Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, John E. Sagartz, and Carmen Wilbourn. As consideration for the Proposed Securities Settlement, the Company will cause to be paid a cash settlement payment of $8,750 (“Cash Payment”) to the members of the putative class, which is expected to include all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between September 21, 2021 and May 20, 2022 or who held shares of the Company’s common stock and were entitled to vote on matters necessary to effectuate the Company’s acquisition of Envigo RMS, LLC at a special meeting of the Company’s shareholders on November 4, 2021 (subject to certain exclusions). Plaintiff will seek attorneys’ fees and costs, the amount of which will be determined by the court and funded from the Cash Payment. The Company expects the Cash Payment to be fully funded by available insurance.

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 Action”). 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 Exchange Act arising out of the Company’s acquisition of Envigo and its regulatory compliance. 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.

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,” together with the Whitfield Derivative Action, the “State Derivative Actions,” and together with the consolidated Federal Derivative Actions, the “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.

On September 25, 2025, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Derivative Actions (the “Proposed Derivative Settlement”). The Company agreed to the Proposed Derivative Settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of protracted litigation. The Proposed Derivative Settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the individual defendants or the Company as the nominal defendant, all of whom deny any wrongdoing. The Proposed Derivative Settlement is subject in all respects to court approval and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the Proposed Derivative Settlement.

If approved by the court, the Proposed Derivative Settlement will fully resolve the Derivative Actions, including all claims against individual defendants Robert W. Leasure, Beth A. Taylor, Gregory C. Davis, R. Matthew Neff, Richard A. Johnson, John E. Sagartz, Nigel Brown, Scott Cragg, and Carmen Wilbourn, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The Proposed Derivative Settlement credits the plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions for the fact that the Company will receive $2,490 from certain of its insurers, which amount will be utilized by the Company as part of the Cash Payment to the members of the putative class in the Proposed Securities Settlement. The Proposed Derivative Settlement also involves the institution and maintenance of certain corporate governance measures by the Company, including, for a period of at least five years, having a separate Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairperson, maintaining a fully independent Board Chairperson, instituting certain guidelines for due diligence conducted in any future mergers and acquisitions, and maintaining a disclosure committee. Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions will, in addition, seek attorneys’ fees, the amount of which will not exceed $2,250 and will be subject to court approval. The Company expects any award of attorneys’ fees to be fully funded by available insurance.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class actions relating to the cybersecurity incident experienced in August 2025 (the “2025 Cybersecurity Incident”) pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana: (1) Doyal v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00046 (filed on August 21, 2025); (2) Merrell v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00047 (filed on August 25, 2025); and (3) Wagner v. Inotiv, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00049 (filed on September 2, 2025). The complaints filed in each action generally allege that the plaintiffs and the proposed class members were harmed when their personally identifying information and protected health information (together, “Private Information”) was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The purported class includes all persons in the United States whose Private Information allegedly was impacted by the 2025 Cybersecurity Incident. The complaints seek (i) an order certifying the cases as class actions, (ii) unspecified amounts of monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and (iii) certain injunctive or equitable relief relating to (a) the safeguarding of proposed class members’ Private Information, and (b) the implementation of technical and administrative cybersecurity programs, procedures and controls. On October 21, 2025, the three putative class actions were consolidated under a new caption: In re: Inotiv, Inc. Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 4:25-CV-46-PPS-JEM. As a result of the consolidation, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on November 26, 2025. No case management order has been entered by the court, and no trial date has been set.

On January 13, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against Freese and Nichols, Inc. ("FNI") titled Envigo RMS Holding Corp. and Envigo Global Services, Inc. v. Freese and Nichols, Inc., Case No. 22-01-61647-CV, in the District Court of Jim Wells County, Texas, 79th Judicial District related to, among other things, FNI’s failure to design an adequately sized lagoon to dispose of the current wastewater and future wastewater from expanded operations. The complaint asserted claims against FNI for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract seeking damages and attorney fees and costs. On February 14, 2025, the Company (through two of its subsidiaries) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “FNI Settlement Agreement”) with FNI to settle the lawsuit. The FNI Settlement Agreement provides that the parties fully resolve all claims set forth in such lawsuit, without any admission of liability, and that FNI will pay the Company $7,550 within 30 days following the date of the FNI Settlement Agreement. The Court granted the Company's Agreed Motion to Dismiss All Claims on March 27, 2025. The Company received the settlement payment in full prior to March 31, 2025. The $7,550 settlement payment is presented within other operating expense within the condensed consolidated statement of operations for the twelve months ended September 30, 2025.

Envigo 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, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County ("Court"). The complaints allege that Envigo 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 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. On August 2, 2024, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims (the “PAGA Settlement Agreement”) that incorporated the material terms of the MOU and is subject to the Court's approval. The PAGA Settlement Agreement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Envigo. The PAGA Settlement Agreement 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. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court on June 12, 2025, subject to the submission of a revised proposed order. The parties await the Court adopting the proposed order so that the settlement notice process may commence. The final approval hearing by the Court is scheduled for December 11, 2025. The Company took a reserve equal to the proposed settlement amount, which is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities.

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.

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, Envigo Global Services, Inc. ("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. On June 2, 2025, the SEC provided notice to the Company, through the Company’s external counsel, that the SEC’s Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) has concluded its investigation and, based on the information available to the Division as of the date of its letter, the Division does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company.

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 (the "Resolution Agreement") with the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia ("USAO-WDV"), and Envigo and EGSI entered 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, Envigo and EGSI, 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) on January 20, 2025, appoint the 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 on January 20, 2030, five years from appointment of the Compliance Monitor, unless the Company is released from probation prior to completion of the five-year term, in which case the monitorship term shall expire on January 20, 2028, three years from appointment of the Compliance Monitor, or two months after the completion of probation, whichever is later. In addition, the pleas result in Envigo 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. Refer to Note 7 – Supplemental Balance Sheet Information for further discussion of payments associated with the Resolution Agreement and the Plea Agreement.