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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-31 | 2025-10-16 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be involved from time to time in ordinary litigation, negotiation, and settlement matters that will not have a material effect on our operations or finances. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Company. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of July 31, 2025, our internal control over financial reporting was effective at the reasonable assurance level. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal accounting and financial officer have concluded that as of July 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-07-31 | 2024-10-29 | as filed | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be involved from time to time in ordinary litigation, negotiation, and settlement matters that will not have a material effect on our operations or finances. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of July 31, 2024, our internal control over financial reporting was effective at the reasonable assurance level. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal accounting and financial officer have concluded that as of July 31, 2024, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2023-07-31 | 2023-10-25 | as filed | effective | effective | remediated (prior year) | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be involved from time to time in ordinary litigation, negotiation, and settlement matters that will not have a material effect on our operations or finances. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of July 31, 2023, our internal control over financial reporting was effective at the reasonable assurance level. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal accounting and financial officer have concluded that as of July 31, 2023, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. Item 9A · material weakness · All control deficiencies that contributed to the material weakness as at Jul 31, 2022 were found to be effectively remediated. | ||||||
| 2022-07-31 | 2022-10-28 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We may be involved from time to time in ordinary litigation, negotiation, and settlement matters that will not have a material effect on our operations or finances. On May 19, 2021, Alpha Capital Anstalt (“Alpha”) filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, New York County against BriaCell Therapeutics Corp. (“BriaCell”), alleging that BriaCell breached a loan contract when it refused to reprice and extend the term of warrants purported held by Alpha in spring 2021, seeking monetary and injunctive relief for delivery of those amended warrants. Counterclaiming and defending against Alpha’s complaint, BriaCell alleges that Alpha’s loan to BriaCell is unenforceable both because the loan is criminally usurious under New York law and because Alpha acted as an unregistered securities dealer in violation of American securities law. BriaCell also has alleged that Canadian securities law, regulation, and rules prohibited it from amending the warrants to comply with Alpha’s spring 2021 demands. On May 11, 2022, Alpha moved to dismiss BriaCell’s operative Amended Counterclaim. The parties have fully briefed that motion, and the Court has calendared oral argument… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on such evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal accounting and financial officer have concluded that as of July 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of such date as a result of material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. | ||||||
4 of 4 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.