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 | 2026-03-19 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · UAB Pulsetto v. electroCore, Inc. On June 11, 2025, Pulsetto filed a declaratory judgment action against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned UAB Pulsetto v. electroCore, Inc., Civ. No. 25-10036 (D.N.J.), asserting that its non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation product does not infringe the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 11,446,491 (the “491 Patent”). On July 16, 2025, the Company filed a responsive pleading, answering the complaint and asserting counterclaims, that Pulsetto’s non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation product infringes the ‘491 Patent, as well as the Company’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,948,873, 9,339,653, 10,874,857, 8,843,210, 9,242,092, 11,623,078, and 10,441,780, as well as claims that Pulsetto’s commercial conduct has infringed and continues to infringe the Company’s TruvagaTM and gammaCore® trademarks, and committed acts of false advertising and unfair competition in violation of state and federal law. On September 5, 2025, Pulsetto requested leave to file a motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims for lack or jurisdiction and/or insufficient pleadings. The Company has opposed that request, which has not yet been conside… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2025 our internal control over financial reporting was not effective solely due to the material weakness described below. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, as of December 31, 2025, were not effective due to the material weakness described below. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-12 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On September 26, 2019, and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company served putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400, and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653, respectively. In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for the IPO. The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who (i) purchased the Company’s common stock in the IPO or whose purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaints each alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO disclosures filed with the SEC. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Priewe case was voluntarily… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2024 our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, as of December 31, 2024, were effective. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-13 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On September 26, 2019, and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company served putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400, and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653, respectively. In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for the IPO. The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who (i) purchased the Company’s common stock in the IPO or whose purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaints each alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO disclosures filed with the SEC. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The Priewe case was voluntarily… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2023 our internal control over financial reporting was not effective for the reason stated in the following paragraph. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, as of December 31, 2023, were not effective for the reasons stated below. Item 9A · material weakness · As such, we concluded that a material weakness exists in our internal controls over financial reporting. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-08 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 8, 2019, and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of our company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19, respectively. In addition to our company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for our IPO; and two of our stockholders. On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which proceeded under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought certification of a class of stockholders who purchased our common stock in our IPO or whose purchases are traceable to that offering. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO. The complaint sought uns… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2022 our internal control over financial reporting was effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, as of December 31, 2022, were effective for the purposes stated above. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-10 | described here | not extracted | — | — | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of our company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19, respectively. In addition to our company, the defendants included present and past directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for our IPO; and two of our stockholders. On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which proceeded under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought certification of a class of stockholders who purchased our common stock in our IPO or whose purchases are traceable to that offering. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO. The complaint sought uns… | ||||||
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.