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 | 2026-02-25 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various lawsuits, claims, and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently a party to legal proceedings that we believe would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. We are not aware of any material legal proceedings to which we or any of our subsidiaries are a party or to which any of our property is subject, nor are we aware of any such legal proceedings contemplated by government agencies. Item 9A · ICFR · With the assistance of a third-party professional consulting firm, management evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and were operating at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-20 | described here | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various lawsuits, claims, and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We are not currently a party to legal proceedings that we believe would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. We are not aware of any material legal proceedings to which we or any of our subsidiaries are a party or to which any of our property is subject, nor are we aware of any such legal proceedings contemplated by government agencies. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the foregoing, our Co-Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and were operating at a reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
2 of 2 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.