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 | 2026-02-09 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · LEGAL PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS Mesabi Metallics Adversary Proceeding. On September 7, 2017, Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (f/k/a Essar Steel Minnesota LLC) (“Mesabi Metallics”) filed a complaint against Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. in the Essar Steel Minnesota LLC and ESML Holdings Inc. bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). Mesabi Metallics alleged tortious interference with its contractual rights and business relations involving certain vendors, suppliers and contractors, violations of federal and Minnesota antitrust laws through monopolization, attempted monopolization and restraint of trade, violation of the automatic stay, and civil conspiracy with unnamed Doe defendants. Mesabi Metallics amended its complaint to add additional defendants, including, among others, our subsidiary, Cleveland-Cliffs Minnesota Land Development Company LLC (“Cliffs Minnesota Land”), and to add additional claims, including avoidance and recovery of unauthorized post-petition transfers of real estate interests, claims disallowance, civil contempt and declaratory relief. Mesabi Metallics seeks to hold the defendants jointly and s… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on such assessment, management has concluded that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-25 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · LEGAL PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS JSW Steel Litigation.On June 8, 2021, JSW Steel filed a complaint against Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., AK Steel Holding Corporation (now known as Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Holding Corporation), Nucor Corporation and U. S. Steel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. JSW Steel alleges that the defendants engaged in a group boycott against JSW Steel in violation of federal and Texas antitrust laws by refusing to sell semi-finished steel slabs to JSW Steel, beginning in 2018 and continuing through the filing of the complaint; civil conspiracy among the defendants; and tortious interference with JSW Steel’s contractual rights and business relations involving its vendors and customers. JSW Steel’s allegations involve the tariffs and quotas imposed on steel imports by the U.S. government under Section 232 beginning in March 2018, which JSW Steel alleges raised the price of imported slabs, and statements made to the U.S. government related to exemption requests submitted by JSW Steel in 2018 and 2021. JSW Steel further claims that this alleged anticompetitive conduct negatively impacted JSW Steel’s costs, production and re… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on such assessment, management has concluded that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-08 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · LEGAL PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS JSW Steel Litigation. On June 8, 2021, JSW Steel filed a complaint against Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., AK Steel Holding Corporation (now known as Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Holding Corporation), Nucor Corporation and U.S. Steel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. JSW Steel alleges that the defendants engaged in a group boycott against JSW Steel in violation of federal and Texas antitrust laws by refusing to sell semi-finished steel slabs to JSW Steel, beginning in 2018 and continuing through the present; civil conspiracy among the defendants; and tortious interference with JSW Steel’s contractual rights and business relations involving its vendors and customers. JSW Steel’s allegations involve the tariffs and quotas imposed on steel imports by the U.S. government under Section 232 beginning in March 2018, which JSW Steel alleges raised the price of imported slabs, and statements made to the U.S. government related to exemption requests submitted by JSW Steel in 2018 and 2021. JSW Steel further claims that this alleged anticompetitive conduct negatively impacted JSW Steel’s costs, production and revenues and preve… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on such assessment, management has concluded that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-14 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · LEGAL PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS JSW Steel Litigation. On June 8, 2021, JSW Steel filed a complaint against Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., AK Steel Holding Corporation (now known as Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Holding Corporation), Nucor Corporation and U.S. Steel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. JSW Steel alleges that the defendants engaged in a group boycott against JSW Steel in violation of federal and Texas antitrust laws by refusing to sell semi-finished steel slabs to JSW Steel, beginning in 2018 and continuing through the present; civil conspiracy among the defendants; and tortious interference with JSW Steel’s contractual rights and business relations involving its vendors and customers. JSW Steel’s allegations involve the tariffs and quotas imposed on steel imports by the U.S. government under Section 232 beginning in March 2018, which JSW Steel alleges raised the price of imported slabs, and statements made to the U.S. government related to exemption requests submitted by JSW Steel in 2018 and 2021. JSW Steel further claims that this alleged anticompetitive conduct negatively impacted JSW Steel’s costs, production and revenues and preve… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on such assessment, management has concluded that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-02-11 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Legal Proceedings Relating to our Business JSW Steel Litigation. On June 8, 2021, JSW Steel filed a complaint against Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., AK Steel Holding Corporation (now known as Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Holding Corporation), Nucor Corporation and U.S. Steel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. JSW Steel alleges that the defendants engaged in a group boycott against JSW Steel in violation of federal and Texas antitrust laws by refusing to sell semi-finished steel slabs to JSW Steel, beginning in 2018 and continuing through the present; civil conspiracy among the defendants; and tortious interference with JSW Steel’s contractual rights and business relations involving its vendors and customers. JSW Steel’s allegations involve the tariffs and quotas imposed on steel imports by the U.S. government under Section 232 beginning in March 2018, which JSW Steel alleges raised the price of imported slabs, and statements made to the U.S. government related to exemption requests submitted by JSW Steel in 2018 and 2021. JSW Steel further claims that this alleged anticompetitive conduct negatively impacted JSW Steel’s costs, production and revenues and preve… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on such assessment, management has concluded that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were 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.