Many of the long-term NNVC holders on the board here have confirmed the "new" shareholder lawsuit is related to earlier legal actions by the same party covered in multiple previous NNVC 10-K and 10-Q regulatory filings.
Since I didn't see excerpts posted previously, I've posted the excerpted "Legal Proceedings" section of the most recent Q3 10-Q filing below (first reported publicly in the Annual Report 10-K released Sept 30 - nearly 2 months ago). Previous legal actions by the same party are covered in this (Q3) 10-Q, the recent 10-K and earlier 10-Qs. All the regulatory filings for NNVC are provided on their website http://nanoviricides.com/secfiling.html.
In the excerpt below, I've highlighted in red the most recent complaint, filed in the Colorado District Court (maybe because they didn't get anywhere in previous suits in Nevada?). I've marked in bold italics the company's position - that "no facts have been submitted to support such claim" and "Management has determined that such claims are specious" and "no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation" indicating the company does not deem it warranted to set aside funds to cover costs for litigation or settlement.
I realize that although the company denies the lawsuit has merit, that doesn't mean the company is right. However, the fact that previous, very similar lawsuits by the same party have only resulted in the company having to release statutory public information seems to me (in my admittedly inexpert opinion) to indicate this lawsuit will end up in a very similar way.
There have been plenty of other posts and links on the many mistakes in the internet reports (journalism?!?) and the very odd reports on the background of the reporter, so no need to go further into that.
Legal Proceedings (excerpted from NNVC 3Q 10-Q filing, also covered in previous Annual 10-K)
On or around January 18, 2012, the Nevada Agency and Transfer Company, as agent for service of process for the Company in Nevada, was served with a Summons and Complaint in the case entitled Yidam, Ltd. v. Eugene Seymour, Anil Diwan, and NanoViricides, Inc. (Case No. A- 12-654437-B) answerable in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada – Clark County (“Court”). The Complaint seeks to compel inspection of the Company’s books and records. On or about February 14, 2012 we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Complaint further seeks unspecified “injunctive relief” in furtherance of the demand for inspection to which it is not entitled. The Complaint by a holder of less than 1 percent of the common stock of the Company seeks to, inter alia, inspect documents and records of the company to which it is not entitled and in a form and manner the Company argues is not authorized by statute. Management believes that this lawsuit has no merit or basis and intends to vigorously defend it. Monetary damages have not been claimed and as a result no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation. On April 9, 2012, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a Claim for which relief could be granted. F- 17 ? On or about April 13, 2012, the Nevada Agency and Transfer Company, as agent for service of process for the Company in Nevada, was served with a Summons and Complaint in the case entitled Yidam, Ltd. v. Eugene Seymour, Anil Diwan, and NanoViricides, Inc. (Case No. A-12- 659535-B) answerable in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada – Clark County (“Court”). The Complaint seeks to compel inspection of the Company’s books and records. On or about May 2, 2012, the Company filed a Demand for Security of Costs. Upon filing of the Demand, proceedings relative to the Company are stayed pending posting of the demanded security (or plaintiff engages in motion practice about the Demand). The Company may seek dismissal of the complaint if plaintiff has not posted the demanded security (or engaged the court). The Complaint further seeks unspecified “injunctive relief” in furtherance of the demand for inspection to which the Company believes it is not entitled. The Complaint, by a holder of less than 1 percent of the common stock of the Company, seeks to, inter alia, inspect documents and records of the company to which it is not entitled and in a form and manner the Company argues is not authorized by statute. On or about July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff moved to amend its answer. On or about August 8, 2012, we filed our opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On or about September 13, 2012 the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. On or about September 17, 2012 the Plaintiff served its “Second Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint” upon our Counsel in Nevada. As in the prior two complaints that this Plaintiff has filed in this action, the Second Amended Complaint sought to compel inspection of the Company’s books and records, sought injunctive relief, an accounting and alleges breach of Fiduciary by Dr. Seymour and Dr. Diwan.
On or about October 11, 2012, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On or about December 4, 2012, the Court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to Dr. Seymour and Dr. Diwan and ordered the case dismissed as to all claims but the Plaintiff’s request to compel documents required to be maintained by the Company’s registered agent in Nevada pursuant to NRS 78.105. On or about December 26, 2012, the Company provided the Plaintiff with each of the documents to which it is entitled. Management believes that the Plaintiff does not have a legal or good faith basis for inspection or copying of its shareholder’s list and intends to vigorously defend the production thereof.
In May, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion for permission to file a third amended complaint. The Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and for Summary Judgment. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and ordered the Plaintiff to file its Third Amended Complaint. On or about July 15, 2013 the Company Petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus reversing the trial Court’s denial of Summary Judgment. Thereafter, on or about September 20, 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the Company’s Writ Petition. The Company filed its answer to the Third Amended Complaint, which contains only one cause of action which is identical to the sole cause of action which was not dismissed from the Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Third Amended Complaint seeks only to compel production of books and records required to be maintained by the Company’s Registered Agent pursuant to NRS 78.105 Management believes that the Company’s registered Agent has provided the Plaintiff with all documents to which it is entitled pursuant to NRS 78.105 and that this lawsuit has no merit or basis. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Specific monetary damages have not been claimed and as a result no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation.
On or about July 15, 2013 the same Plaintiff that had filed the repetitive complaints in the Nevada action as set forth in the preceding paragraphs (Yidam, Ltd. v. Eugene Seymour, Anil Diwan, and NanoViricides, Inc.) filed a Shareholder Derivative complaint with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado . The Plaintiff asserts the action is a shareholder derivative action and the Company is solely a nominal defendant. The Company maintains that it, as well as the individual defendants, Messrs. Seymour and Diwan, have not been served in the action. However, a default was filed against the Company, which has been vacated. The Complaint alleges that the Company has failed to deliver information requested by the Plaintiff, the identical information the Plaintiff is seeking inspection of in the Nevada action, and that the individual defendants, Messrs. Seymour and Diwan, breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and caused it financial harm. The Plaintiff demands an order to inspect the Company’s records, an order revoking Messrs. Diwan and Seymour from the Board of Directors, equitable relief, and consequential and punitive damages. The Company believes these claims have no merit and the Company intends to defend this action vigorously. The Company intends to move the District Court to dismiss the action in its entirety. Though consequential and punitive damages are claimed, no facts have been submitted to support such claim. Management has determined that such claims are specious and not relevant to the Company and no accrual has been made in relation to this litigation.
There are no other legal proceedings against the Company to the best of the Company’s knowledge as of the date hereof and to the Company’s knowledge, no action, suit or proceeding has been threatened against the Company.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
