Alpha Pro Tech Ltd APT US Equity
Alpha Pro Tech Ltd (NYSE: APT), an SEC filer in Orthopedic, Prosthetic & Surgical Appliances & Supplies, closed at $5.35, -2.2%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $56M as of 2026-08-27, a trailing P/E of 16.6, a return on equity of 5.7%, a net margin of 6.0% and 3-year sales growth of -1.6%. 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 | 2026-03-11 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · The Company is subject to various pending and threatened litigation actions in the ordinary course of business. Although it is not possible to determine with certainty at this point in time what liability, if any, the Company will have as a result of such litigation, based on consultation with legal counsel, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from such litigation will have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of the end of the period covered by this report. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-12 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On June 7, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”) in Utah naming as defendants the vendors from which the Company ordered equipment for its facility in Utah (collectively the “Defendants”). The Lawsuit relates to certain equipment ordered from Defendants and paid for by the Company, which Defendants never delivered. In the Lawsuit the Company is seeking the following relief: compensatory damages in the amount $490,000, representing the money the Company paid for the machines it never received, lost profits in the form of mask sales it could have made if Defendants had delivered the machines on the promised date, and other monetary and equitable relief. In 2022, the Company wrote off the $490,000 balance of the deposit paid for the equipment, pending any recovery in the Lawsuit. As of the date hereof, no counterclaims have been asserted against the Company. The Company believes there would not be any meritorious claims against the Company in the Lawsuit. The final outcome of the Lawsuit, including the potential amount of any recovery for the Company’s claims, is uncertain. Any potential recovery represents a gain contingency in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, that… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of the end of the period covered by this report. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-13 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On June 7, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”) in Utah naming as defendants the vendors from which the Company ordered equipment for its facility in Utah (collectively the “Defendants”). The Lawsuit relates to certain equipment ordered from Defendants and paid for by the Company, which Defendants never delivered. In the Lawsuit the Company is seeking the following relief: compensatory damages in the amount $490,000, representing the money the Company paid for the machines it never received, lost profits in the form of mask sales it could have made if Defendants had delivered the machines on the promised date, and other monetary and equitable relief. In 2022, the Company wrote off the $490,000 balance of the deposit paid for the equipment, pending any recovery in the Lawsuit. As of the date hereof, no counterclaims have been asserted against the Company. The Company believes there would not be any meritorious claims against the Company in the Lawsuit. The final outcome of the Lawsuit, including the potential amount of any recovery for the Company’s claims, is uncertain. Any potential recovery represents a gain contingency in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, that… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of the end of the period covered by this report. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-16 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On June 7, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”) in Utah naming as defendants the vendors from which the Company ordered equipment for its facility in Utah (collectively the “Defendants”). The Lawsuit relates to certain equipment ordered from Defendants and paid for by the Company, which Defendants never delivered. In the Lawsuit the Company is seeking the following relief: compensatory damages in the amount $490,000, representing the money the Company paid for the machines it never received, lost profits in the form of mask sales it could have made if Defendants had delivered the machines on the promised date, and other monetary and equitable relief. As of December 31, 2022, the Company has written off the $490,000 balance of the deposit paid for the equipment, pending any recovery in the Lawsuit. As of the date hereof, no counterclaims have been asserted against the Company. The Company believes there would not be any meritorious claims against the Company in the Lawsuit. The Lawsuit is in its early stages and the final outcome, including the potential amount of any recovery for the Company’s claims, is uncertain. Any potential recovery represents a gain contingency i… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective as of December 31, 2022 due to the material weaknesses identified and described in the Management report on internal control over financial reporting. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-11 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · The Company is subject to various pending and threatened litigation actions in the ordinary course of business. Although it is not possible to determine with certainty at this point in time what liability, if any, the Company will have as a result of such litigation, based on consultation with legal counsel, management does not anticipate that the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from such litigation will have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation, our principal executive and financial officers concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of the end of the period covered by this report. | ||||||
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.