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 | none stated | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of our operations, and from time-to-time, we are party to various claims and lawsuits. We are not party to any material legal proceedings, and no such proceedings are, to management’s knowledge, threatened against us. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2025, as a result of the material weaknesses described above. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective based on the material weaknesses discussed in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting described below. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-12 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · In the ordinary course of our operations, and from time-to-time, we are party to various claims and lawsuits. The Company has received a legal claim in connection with an equity raise undertaken in 2024 and the subsequent Nasdaq IPO. Anteris denies the claims and no court proceedings have been filed at this stage. A provision of $1.4 million has been recognized in relation to this claim. Any further developments that could impact this estimate will be assessed in future reporting periods. We are not party to any additional material legal proceedings, and no such proceedings are, to management’s knowledge, threatened against us. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, solely as a result of the material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting described below, as of December 31, 2024, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
2 of 2 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.