aibioBioVie securities class certified in Nevada; three derivative suits stayed
Tickers BIVI
The 10-K says the court certified the class on June 18, 2026 in In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation. BioVie and unnamed officers are defendants; insurance carries a $2 million deductible.
Key facts
- Company
- BioVie Inc. (NASDAQ: BIVI)
- News type
- Legal
- Primary source
- BioVie 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026 (SEC EDGAR)
BioVie (Nasdaq: BIVI) said in its annual report on Form 10-K filed August 13, 2026 that a federal court in Nevada certified a class on June 18, 2026 in a securities class action over its Alzheimer's candidate bezisterim. The case is In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The defendants are BioVie and certain of its officers, whom the filing does not name. Three related shareholder derivative suits are stayed.
The class action began with Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., filed on January 19, 2024. A second suit, Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361, followed on February 22, 2024. On April 15, 2024 the court consolidated the two, appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel. The derivative plaintiffs are Andrew Hulm (filed December 30, 2024), William Settel (April 28, 2025) and Cline Wilkerson (September 11, 2025), all in the same court.
The case
The amended complaint, filed June 21, 2024, alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions about BioVie's business, operations, compliance and prospects, including the NM101 Phase 3 study of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable Alzheimer's disease. It cites Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The class covers buyers of BioVie securities from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.
The derivative suits allege that the officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the violations alleged in the class action. They add claims for unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and abuse of control. All of this is allegation.
Defendants
The 10-K names no individual defendants. It says the class action names the company and certain of its officers, and that each derivative suit names the same current and former officers and directors. It does not say which people those are.
BioVie's 10-K filed September 27, 2022, shortly before the class period began, was signed by Cuong Do as chief executive officer and Joanne Wendy Kim as chief financial officer. Its directors were Terren Piezer (chairman), Jim Lang, Michael Sherman, Richard J. Berman, Steve Gorlin, Robert Hariri and Sigmund Rogich. The 10-K filed September 30, 2024, before the first derivative suit, showed Lang, Sherman, Berman, Hariri and Rogich as directors. The 10-K filed August 15, 2025, before the last, showed Lang, Sherman, Amy Chappell, Kameel Farag and Rogich. The filings do not say which of these people are sued.
Where it stands
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and the court denied the motion on March 27, 2025. The case moved into fact discovery. On February 13, 2026 the plaintiffs moved for class certification and for leave to file a second amended complaint, and the defendants opposed leave to amend. The court granted leave on June 5, 2026, and the plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint the same day. On June 15 the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition and reservation of rights on certification, the court certified the class on June 18 subject to that reservation of rights, and the defendants answered on June 22.
The court consolidated the derivative suits on September 29, 2025 as In re BioVie Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-0602-CSD. On January 27, 2026 it stayed that case until the court resolves a summary judgment motion by the defendants in the class action.
Why it matters to shareholders
BioVie says the claims are without merit and it intends to defend vigorously, but it cannot be sure of the outcome. It says it cannot yet estimate the possible cost to it and has set up no reserve for the lawsuits. Its insurance coverage is subject to a $2 million deductible, so the company bears the first $2 million of loss, including defense costs and damages. It warns that insurance may fall short and its assets may be insufficient to cover amounts above coverage.
The company also says it has no products approved for commercial sale and has never generated revenue.