Item 4. Controls and Procedures.
Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures. Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report. Based on this evaluation, our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of March 31, 2025 to ensure that all material information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to them as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure and that all such information is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.
Changes in internal control over financial reporting. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the most recent fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Limitations of the effectiveness of internal control. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the internal control system are met. Because of the inherent limitations of any internal control system, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues, if any, within a company have been detected.
PART II—OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
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 now settled securities class action filed on February 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which alleged 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. 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 February 3, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of demand futility and failure to state a claim, which motion is fully briefed as of April 3, 2025. Plaintiffs in the derivative actions seek, among other things, the implementation of purported corporate governance reforms and a requirement that the individual defendants pay unspecified damages and reimbursement of compensation to the Company.
Three shareholder derivative complaints making factual and legal contentions substantially similar to those raised in the consolidated federal derivative action have also been 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.
On 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