Amaze Holdings, Inc. AMZE US Equity
Amaze Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMZE), an SEC filer in Retail-Catalog & Mail-Order Houses, closed at $0.17, +2.7%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $4M, a return on equity of -980.9%, a net margin of -2804.3% and 3-year sales growth of -11.7%. Institutional ownership, earnings history and filed financials are on the tabs below.
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 | 2026-04-01 | described here | NOT effective | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be subject to legal disputes and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. Except as set forth below, we are not a party or subject to any pending legal proceedings the resolution of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition. Michaels v. Amaze Holdings, Inc.: Lawsuit filed in 2022 alleging breach of plaintiff’s separation agreement. At trial the jury awarded $585,976.25. Judgment was entered in 2024 and now exceeds $600,000 with additional awards of interest and costs. Mr. Michaels has commenced garnishment proceedings against certain of the Company’s bank accounts and other third parties and is seeking the appointment of a limited receiver over the Company’s assets in an attempt to collect on the judgment and such proceedings remain pending. The Company appealed the verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment in February 2025, which granted approximately $22,000 in additional damages to Mr. Michaels. On March 12, 2025, the Company petitioned the supreme court for review. On May 13, 2025, the supreme court denied the petition. At December 31, 2025 and December 3… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were not effective as of December 31, 2025 due to the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting as described below. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-31 | described here | NOT effective | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be subject to legal disputes and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. Except as set forth below, we are not a party or subject to any pending legal proceedings the resolution of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition. Timothy Michaels Lawsuit The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit styled Timothy Michaels v. Fresh Vine Wine, Inc. filed May 27, 2022 in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The lawsuit related to a complaint filed by Mr. Michaels resulting from the Company including a restricted “lock-up” legend on shares of the Company’s common stock issued to Mr. Michaels pursuant to a settlement agreement that the Company entered into with Mr. Michaels following termination of his employment and for not removing or directing the Company’s transfer agent to remove such legend. On January 25, 2024, the jury in the lawsuit rendered a verdict against the Company awarding damages to Mr. Michaels in the amount of $585,976.25. On February 22, 2024, the Company filed a renewed motion for post-verdict judgment in favor of the Company as a matter o… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were not effective as of December 31, 2024 due to the material weakness in internal control over financial reporting as described below. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-08 | described here | NOT effective | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be subject to legal disputes and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. Except as set forth below, we are not a party or subject to any pending legal proceedings the resolution of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition. Timothy Michaels Lawsuit The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit styled Timothy Michaels v. Fresh Vine Wine, Inc. filed May 27, 2022 in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The lawsuit related to a complaint filed by Mr. Michaels resulting from the Company including a restricted “lock-up” legend on shares of the Company’s common stock issued to Mr. Michaels pursuant to a settlement agreement that the Company entered into with Mr. Michaels following termination of his employment and for not removing or directing the Company’s transfer agent to remove such legend. A jury trial commenced on January 23, 2024. During trial, on January 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion for judgement in favor of the Company as a matter of law, which was denied by the Court. On January 25, 2024, the jury in the lawsuit rendered a verdict against… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were not effective as of December 31, 2023 due to the material weakness in internal control over financial reporting as described below. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-31 | described here | NOT effective | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be subject to legal disputes and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. Except as set forth below, we are not a party or subject to any pending legal proceedings the resolution of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition. Timothy Michaels Lawsuit On February 24, 2022, Timothy Michaels, the former Chief Operating Officer of the Company, signed a Separation Agreement and Release (the “Separation Agreement”) in connection with the termination of his employment with the Company, which occurred on February 7, 2022. On May 27, 2022, Mr. Michaels filed a complaint against the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that the Company breached a February 24, 2022 Separation Agreement entered into with Mr. Michael following termination of his employment by including a restricted “lock-up” legend on certain shares of the Company’s common stock issued to Mr. Michaels pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The complaint also included counts alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, issuer liability under Minn. S… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were not effective as of December 31, 2022 due to the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting as described below. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-31 | described here | not extracted | — | — | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be subject to legal disputes and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. We are not a party or subject to any pending legal proceedings the resolution of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, cash flows or financial condition. | ||||||
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.