Idaho Copper Corp COPR US Equity
Idaho Copper Corp (OTC: COPR), an SEC filer in Metal Mining, closed at $3.38, +7.0%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $44M as of 2026-08-27. Institutional ownership, earnings history and filed financials are on the tabs below.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-31 | 2026-03-17 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On September 12, 2025, International Energy & Mineral Resources Investment Company Limited (“IEMR”), a shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho seeking a declaratory judgment that the Lock-Up Agreement dated December 21, 2022, and its First Amendment dated March 30, 2024 (collectively, the “Lock-Up Agreement”) have terminated according to their terms and that IEMR may freely trade its shares. The Company maintains that IEMR remains subject to the restrictions of the Lock-Up Agreement and filed its response to the lawsuit on September 30, 2025. On November 4, 2025, IEMR filed a motion for summary judgement on its declaratory judgement claim. The Company’s response in opposition to the motion for summary judgement was due on January 29, 2026. At that time, IEMR moved to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, and the court issued a stipulation dismissing the case. Additionally, we are involved in a federal district court lawsuit with the Forest Service which is challenging the Exploration PoO P anticipated to be filed in June 2025 by environmental and nongovernment organizations in opposition to exploration at CuMo, where the Company has i… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of these disclosure controls and procedures, and in light of the material weaknesses found in our internal controls over financial reporting, primarily due to the lack of separation of duties due to a small staff, our senior management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
| 2025-01-31 | 2025-04-22 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Other than the potential challenges to the Exploration PoP anticipated to be filed by environmental and non-government organizations in opposition to exploration at CuMo, we have no knowledge of any material, active, pending or threatened proceeding against us or our subsidiaries, nor are we, or any subsidiary, involved as a plaintiff or defendant in any material proceeding or pending litigation. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of these disclosure controls and procedures, and in light of the material weaknesses found in our internal controls over financial reporting, primarily due to the lack of separation of duties due to a small staff, our senior management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
| 2024-01-31 | 2024-05-15 | as filed | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We have no knowledge of any material, active, pending or threatened proceeding against us or our subsidiaries, nor are we, or any subsidiary, involved as a plaintiff or defendant in any material proceeding or pending litigation. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of these disclosure controls and procedures, and in light of the material weaknesses found in our internal controls over financial reporting, primarily due to the lack of separation of duties due to a small staff, our senior management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-10 | described here | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We have no knowledge of any material, active, pending or threatened proceeding against us or our subsidiaries, nor are we, or any subsidiary, involved as a plaintiff or defendant in any material proceeding or pending litigation. There has, however, been a legal challenge made against governmental approval of certain operational plans proposed by the Company for the CuMo Project property, as further described below. Permitting for Drilling and Exploration Activities; Legal Challenges Exploration on federal lands requires a permit to conduct exploration except for sampling of rocks and soils by hand and other activities that create no land disturbance. There are three levels of permits reflecting increasing disturbance: ICUMO’s predecessor, Mosquito Mining Corporation, submitted an exploration plan of operations (the “POO”) in 2007 to the USFS for exploration activities which would result in about twenty (20) miles of drill road, of which 4.7 miles were existing unauthorized drill roads from previous operators and 13.3 miles of new temporary roads. An environmental assessment for these activities was prepared by the USFS. On June 14, 2010, the Environmental Assessment was completed a… Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of these disclosure controls and procedures, and in light of the material weaknesses found in our internal controls over financial reporting, our senior management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-30 | as filed | not extracted | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. We have no knowledge of any material, active, pending or threatened proceeding against us or our subsidiaries, nor are we, or any subsidiary, involved as a plaintiff or defendant in any material proceeding or pending litigation. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Ramon Lata, President, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective. Item 9A · material weakness · Based on the evaluation of these disclosure controls and procedures, and in light of the material weaknesses found in our internal controls over financial reporting, Mr. | ||||||
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.