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 | 2026-03-04 | none stated | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2025, because of the material weaknesses described below. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, management has concluded that as of the respective period, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective to the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting described below. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-13 | none stated | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2024, because of the material weaknesses described below. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, management has concluded that as of the respective period, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective due to the material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting described below. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-27 | none stated | NOT effective | not extracted | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of December 31, 2023, because of the material weaknesses identified below. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-09 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On October 15, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Dr. Jamey Weichert, a former director and executive officer of the Company (“Dr. Weichert”) and Dr. Anatoly Pinchuk, a former employee and consultant of the Company (“Dr. Pinchuk”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The Company alleged, among other claims, that Dr. Weichert and Dr. Pinchuk breached their contractual and fiduciary duties to the Company by diverting intellectual property that rightfully belonged to the Company to a company controlled by Dr. Weichert. Although the disputed intellectual property does not directly affect the clinical studies of iopofosine or other compounds in the Company’s clinical pipeline, the disputed intellectual property may potentially enhance future areas of research, development, and commercialization. The Company was seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in conjunction with the lawsuit. In November 2022, the Company announced that the Company, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), and Dr. Weichert and Dr. Pinchuk have resolved the lawsuit. All claims against Drs. Weichert and Pinchuk have been vo… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on our management’s evaluation (with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer), as of December 31, 2022, our management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-21 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On October 15, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit against Dr. Jamey Weichert, a former director and executive officer of the Company (“Dr. Weichert”) and Dr. Anatoly Pinchuk, a former employee and consultant of the Company (“Dr. Pinchuk”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The Company is alleging, among other claims, that Dr. Weichert and Dr. Pinchuk breached their contractual and fiduciary duties to the Company by diverting intellectual property that rightfully belonged to the Company to a company controlled by Dr. Weichert. Although the disputed intellectual property does not directly affect the clinical studies of iopofosine or other compounds in the Company’s clinical pipeline, the disputed intellectual property may potentially enhance future areas of research, development, and commercialization. The Company is seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in conjunction with this lawsuit. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on our management’s evaluation (with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer), as of December 31, 2021, our management has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms. | ||||||
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.