Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. ASTI US Equity
Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASTI), an SEC filer in Semiconductors & Related Devices, closed at $2.92, -6.1%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $31M as of 2026-08-27, a return on equity of -233.2%, a net margin of -10202.5% and 3-year sales growth of -60.3%. 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 | 2026-03-20 | as filed | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Details of the Company’s legal proceedings are included "Note 17 - Commitments and Contingencies" to our financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded our internal control over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-31 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Except as noted below, we are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, the adverse outcome of which, in our management’s opinion, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations or financial position. There are no material proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates or any registered or beneficial stockholder of more than 5% of our common stock is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest. On August 15, 2023, H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (“Wainwright”) filed an action against the Company in the New York State Supreme Court in New York County. The complaint alleges a breach by the Company of an investment banking engagement letter entered into in October 2021. The Wainwright engagement letter expired in April 2022 without any financing transaction having been completed. The complaint claims that Wainright is entitled, under a “tail provision”, to an 8% fee and 7% warrant coverage on the Company’s $15 million secured convertible note f… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded our internal control over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-21 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. Except as noted below, we are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings, the adverse outcome of which, in our management’s opinion, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations or financial position. There are no material proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates or any registered or beneficial stockholder of more than 5% of our common stock is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest. On August 15, 2023, H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (“Wainwright”) filed an action against the Company in the New York State Supreme Court in New York County. The complaint alleges a breach by the Company of an investment banking engagement letter entered into in October 2021. The Wainwright engagement letter expired in April 2022 without any financing transaction having been completed. The complaint claims that Wainright is entitled, under a “tail provision”, to an 8% fee and 7% warrant coverage on the Company’s $15 million secured convertible note f… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded our internal control over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-10 | in the notes | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Details of the Company’s legal proceedings are included in Note 18 to the financial statements within Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded our internal control over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-14 | in the notes | not extracted | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Details of the Company’s legal proceedings are included in Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements within Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded our internal control over financial reporting were effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · material weakness · Material Weakness Identified in 2020 As disclosed in Item 9A, “Controls and Procedures,” of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, management concluded that a material weakness existed in its internal control over financial reporting as it related to the lack of accounting resourcing with technical expertise to ensure that all Company transactions were accounted for in accordance with US GAAP. | ||||||
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.