Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-02-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Patent Infringement On July 24, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Aurobindo Pharma Limited and its affiliate Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and (ii) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and its affiliate Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and on July 30, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Hetero Labs Limited and its affiliates Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero USA Inc., (ii) MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and its affiliate MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and (iii) Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and its affiliate Cadila Healthcare Limited. These complaints, which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, allege infringement of certain of our Orange Book-listed patents covering NUPLAZID (Pimavanserin I Cases). We entered into an agreement effective April 22, 2021 with Hetero settling all claims and counterclaims in the litigation. The agreement allows Hetero to launch its generic pimavanserin product on February 27, 2038, subject to certain triggers for earlier launch. The Hetero case was dismissed by joint agreement on May 3, 2021. On September 30, 2022, we filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the claims currently asserted against Teva and… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-27 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Patent Infringement On July 24, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Aurobindo Pharma Limited and its affiliate Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and (ii) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and its affiliate Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and on July 30, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Hetero Labs Limited and its affiliates Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero USA Inc., (ii) MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and its affiliate MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and (iii) Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and its affiliate Cadila Healthcare Limited. These complaints, which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, allege infringement of certain of our Orange Book-listed patents covering NUPLAZID (Pimavanserin I Cases). We entered into an agreement effective April 22, 2021 with Hetero settling all claims and counterclaims in the litigation. The agreement allows Hetero to launch its generic pimavanserin product on February 27, 2038, subject to certain triggers for earlier launch. The Hetero case was dismissed by joint agreement on May 3, 2021. On September 30, 2022, we filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the claims currently asserted against Teva and… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that, as of December 31, 2024, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Patent Infringement On July 24, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Aurobindo Pharma Limited and its affiliate Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and (ii) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and its affiliate Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and on July 30, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Hetero Labs Limited and its affiliates Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero USA Inc., (ii) MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and its affiliate MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and (iii) Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and its affiliate Cadila Healthcare Limited. These complaints, which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, allege infringement of certain of our Orange Book-listed patents covering NUPLAZID (Pimavanserin I Cases). The cases have been assigned to the Honorable Richard G. Andrews. On September 1, 2020, Aurobindo filed its answer and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. On September 22, 2020, we filed our answer to Aurobindo’s counterclaims. On August 31, 2020, Teva filed its answer and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. On September 21, 2020, we filed our answer to Teva’s… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 24, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Aurobindo Pharma Limited and its affiliate Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and (ii) Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and its affiliate Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and on July 30, 2020, we filed complaints against (i) Hetero Labs Limited and its affiliates Hetero Labs Limited Unit-V and Hetero USA Inc., (ii) MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and its affiliate MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and (iii) Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and its affiliate Cadila Healthcare Limited. These complaints, which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, allege infringement of certain of our Orange Book-listed patents covering NUPLAZID. The cases have been assigned to the Honorable Richard G. Andrews. On September 1, 2020, Aurobindo filed its answer and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. On September 22, 2020, we filed our answer to Aurobindo’s counterclaims. On August 31, 2020, Teva filed its answer and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity. On September 21, 2020, we filed our answer to Teva’s counterclaims. On October 5, 2020, Hetero… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-01 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity about NUPLAZID, three purported stockholders of ours filed putative securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former executive officers. Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On January 3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption In re Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission. On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15, 2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations, and pros… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2021. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.