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 | 2026-02-19 | in the notes | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · See information under the “Legal Proceedings and Claims” caption in Note 19. Commitments and Contingencies which we incorporated here by reference. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-20 | in the notes | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · See information under the “Legal Proceedings and Claims” caption in Note 19. Commitments And Contingencies which we incorporated here by reference. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2024, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our CEO and CFOO concluded that, as of December 31, 2024, the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-22 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 30 and August 12, 2021, two putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants Ardelyx and two current officers captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG, and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the Securities Class Actions). The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor. The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees. On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two putative class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 2, 2022. In January and February 2023, in lieu of filing a response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to further amend their complaint and defendants filed an oppos… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our CEO and CFOO concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-02 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 30 and August 12, 2021, two putative securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants Ardelyx and two current officers captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-05868-HSG, and Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06228-HSG (together, the “Securities Class Actions”). The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor. The plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ardelyx securities between August 6, 2020, and July 19, 2021. The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees. On July 19, 2022, the court consolidated the two putative class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 2, 2022. In January and February 2023, in lieu of filing a… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our CEO and CFOO concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 30, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants Ardelyx and two current officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ardelyx securities between August 6, 2020, and July 19, 2021. The plaintiff seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees. We believe the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and we have not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings. From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that as of December 31, 2021, there is no litigation pending that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition, and no contingent liabilities were accrued as of December 31, 20… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
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.