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 | 2026-02-24 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Purported Securities Class Action On February 20, 2026, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System (Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-1525). The complaint names Corcept and certain of its executive officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges, among other things, that the defendants made or are responsible for making false and materially misleading statements and omissions regarding our NDA for our product candidate, relacorilant, as a treatment for patients with hypercortisolism. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 31, 2024, to December 30, 2025 and seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and unspecified relief. We will vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit. Teva Patent Litigation In February 2018, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Applicati… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Teva Patent Litigation In February 2018, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking authorization to manufacture and sell a generic version of Korlym prior to the expiration of patents related to Korlym that are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). In March 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“D.N.J.”) against Teva for infringement of our patents. In August 2020, Teva received final approval from the FDA for its ANDA in accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act. In May 2019, Teva submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) a petition for post-grant review (“PGR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 (the “’214 patent”). In November 2020, the PTAB issued a decision upholding the validity of the ’214 patent in its entirety, which decision the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld. This matter is closed. The patents currently at issue in the D.N.J matter are the ʼ214 patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,842,800 (the “’800 patent”).… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-15 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Teva Litigation In February 2018, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that TevaPharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking authorization to manufacture and sell a generic version of Korlym prior to the expiration of patents related to Korlym that are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). In March 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“D.N.J.”) against Teva for infringement of our patents. In August 2020, Teva received final approval from the FDA for its ANDA in accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act. In May 2019, Teva submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) a petition for post-grant review (“PGR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 (the “’214 patent”). The PTAB agreed to initiate the PGR, and in November 2020, issued a decision upholding the validity of the ’214 patent in its entirety, which decision the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld. This matter is closed. In D.N.J., the parties completed briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment regarding infringement of… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Teva Litigation In February 2018, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that TevaPharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking authorization to manufacture and sell a generic version of Korlym prior to the expiration of patents related to Korlym that are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). On March 15, 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva for infringement of our patents. On October 12, 2018, Teva received tentative approval from the FDA for its ANDA. In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, however, FDA final approval of Teva’s ANDA was stayed until August 1, 2020. On July 6, 2018, we filed an amended complaint, and on February 8, 2019, we filed a separate lawsuit against Teva, asserting infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 (the “ʼ214 patent”). On December 13, 2019, we filed a third lawsuit against Teva, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,500,216 (the “ʼ216 patent”). The District Court consolidated our lawsuits against Teva in… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-02-15 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Teva ANDA Litigation In February 2018, we received a Paragraph IV Notice Letter advising that Teva had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking authorization to manufacture, use or sell a generic version of Korlym in the United States prior to the expiration of patents related to Korlym that are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). Teva’s February 5, 2018 Notice Letter alleged that our patents would not be infringed by Teva’s proposed product, were invalid and/or were unenforceable. On March 15, 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva for infringement of our patents. On October 12, 2018, Teva received tentative approval from the FDA for its ANDA. In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, however, FDA final approval of Teva’s ANDA was stayed for 30 months, until August 1, 2020. On July 6, 2018, we filed an amended complaint and on February 8, 2019, we filed a separate lawsuit against Teva, asserting infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 (the “ʼ214 patent”). On December 13, 2019, we filed a… Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
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.