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 | 2026-03-02 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · In the normal course of our business, we may periodically become subject to various lawsuits. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment using those criteria, management concluded that as of December 31, 2025, our internal control over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · In the normal course of our business, we may periodically become subject to various lawsuits. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment using those criteria, management concluded that as of December 31, 2024, our internal control over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2024, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-21 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 11, 2019, Dr. Bessie (Chia) Soo and Dr. Kang (Eric) Ting (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, Bruce Stroever (“Stroever”), John Booth (“Booth”), Stephen LaNeve (“LaNeve”, and together with Stroever and Booth, the “Individual Defendants”), and MTF Biologics (f/k/a The Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Inc.) (“MTF”). The Complaint alleged claims for breach of contract against the Company and tortious interference with contract against the Individual Defendants and MTF arising from the termination of the Professional Service Agreements, dated as of January 8, 2016, between the Company and each of the Plaintiffs. The Individual Defendants were sued for actions taken by them in connection with their service to the Company as directors and/or officers of the Company. As such, we have certain indemnification obligations to the Individual Defendants. On January 10, 2024 we entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release (the “Agreement”) with the Plaintiffs on the one hand, and the Company and LaNeve on the other hand, in settlement of the claims for breach o… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment using those criteria, management concluded that as of December 31, 2023, our internal control over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2023, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-30 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · In July 2019, Dr. Bessie (Chia) Soo and Dr. Kang (Eric) Ting (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in federal court in Massachusetts against the Company, Bruce Stroever (“Stroever”), John Booth (“Booth”), Stephen LaNeve (“LaNeve”, and together with Stroever and Booth, the “Individual Defendants”), and MTF Biologics (f/k/a The Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Inc.) (“MTF”). The Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract against the Company and tortious interference with contract against the Individual Defendants and MTF arising from the termination of the Professional Service Agreements, dated as of January 8, 2016, between the Company and each of the Plaintiffs. The Individual Defendants have been sued for actions taken by them in connection with their service to the Company as directors and/or officers of the Company. As such, the Company has certain indemnification obligations to the Individual Defendants. The Company and the Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Complaint. Although the Complaint was filed several years ago, due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and long delays in the court ruling on various motions to dis… Item 9A · ICFR · As of December 31, 2022, management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and based on that evaluation assessment, concluded that our internal control over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-15 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · In July 2019, Dr. Bessie (Chia) Soo and Dr. Kang (Eric) Ting (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in federal court in Massachusetts against the Company, Bruce Stroever (“Stroever”), John Booth (“Booth”), Stephen LaNeve (“LaNeve”, and together with Stroever and Booth, the “Individual Defendants”), and MTF Biologics (f/k/a The Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Inc.) (“MTF”). The Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract against the Company and tortious interference with contract against the Individual Defendants and MTF arising from the termination of the Professional Service Agreements, dated as of January 8, 2016, between the Company and each of the Plaintiffs. The Individual Defendants have been sued for actions taken by them in connection with their service to the Company as directors and/or officers of the Company. As such, the Company has certain indemnification obligations to the Individual Defendants. The Company and the Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Complaint. Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of any possible loss arising from the expe… Item 9A · ICFR · As of December 31, 2021, management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and based on that evaluation assessment, we identified a material weakness in internal controls and procedures were not effective over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021 as further described below. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Executive Officer concluded that as of December 31, 2021, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
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.