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 | 2026-03-30 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 24, 2021, Millennium Fine Art Inc. (“MFAI”) filed a complaint against the Company in the 8th District Court of Clark County, State of Nevada, captioned Millennium Fine Art Inc. v. Greenpro Capital Corp. (Case No. A-21-840033-B). MFAI alleges that on or about April 21, 2021, MFAI and the Company entered into a contract (the “Contract”) pursuant to which MFAI agreed to create approximately 7,700 non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) in exchange for $16 million in shares of the Company’s common stock. MFAI contends that the Company breached the Contract by refusing delivery of the NFTs and failing to issue the agreed-upon shares. The complaint asserts cause of action for breach of contract, special damages, and promissory estoppel, and seeks approximately $66 million in damages, specific performance of the alleged Contract, and attorney’s fees and costs. On October 18, 2021, the Company filed a motion, denying all the material allegations of the complaint, and seeking to stay the litigation and compel arbitration pursuant to the purported the Contract’s arbitration clause. The Company’s motion sought only to enforce the arbitration provision and otherwise denied the existence of a va… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2025, and have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-04-09 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff, Millennium Fine Art Inc. (“MFAI”) filed a Complaint against the Company, alleging that on or about April 21, 2021, MFAI and the Company entered into a contract (the “Contract”) by which MFAI agreed to create 7,700 non-fungible tokens (“NFT”) in exchange for sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) worth of shares of the Company. MFAI claims that the Company breached the Contract by refusing delivery of the NFTs and not delivering $16 million worth of shares to MFAI. The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, special damages and promissory estoppel, and seeks sixty-six million dollars ($66,000,000) in damages, specific performance by the Company according to the terms of the Contract, and MFAI’s attorney’s fees and costs. On October 18, 2021, the Company filed a motion, denying all the material allegations of the Complaint, and seeking to stay the case and compel arbitration pursuant to the purported Contract. In its motion, the Company only sought to enforce the terms of the Contract as it relates to arbitration but otherwise denied the existence of a valid and binding contract. Over MFAI’s opposition, the Court granted the Company’s… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2024, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2024, and have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Millennium Fine Art Inc. (“MFAI”) filed a Complaint against the Company, alleging that on or about April 21, 2021, MFAI and the Company entered into a contract (the “Contract”), by which MFAI agreed to create 7,700 non-fungible tokens (“NFT”) in exchange for sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) worth of shares of the Company. MFAI claims that the Company breached the Contract by refusing delivery of the NFTs and not delivering $16 million worth of shares to MFAI. The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, special damages and promissory estoppel, and seeks sixty-six million dollars ($66,000,000) in damages, specific performance by Company according to the terms of the Contract, and MFAI’s attorney’s fees and costs. On October 18, 2021, the Company filed a motion, denying all the material allegations of the Complaint, and seeking to stay the case and compel arbitration pursuant to the purported Contract. In its motion, the Company only sought to enforce the terms of the Contract as it relates to arbitration, but otherwise denied the existence of a valid and binding contract. Over MFAI’s opposition, the Court granted the Company’s mot… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2023, and have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-31 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Millennium Fine Art Inc. (“MFAI”) filed a Complaint against the Company, alleging that on or about April 21, 2021, MFAI and the Company entered into a contract (the “Contract”), by which MFAI agreed to create 7,700 non-fungible tokens (“NFT”) in exchange for sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) worth of shares of the Company. MFAI claims that the Company breached the Contract by refusing delivery of the NFTs and not delivering $16 million worth of shares to MFAI. The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, special damages and promissory estoppel, and seeks sixty-six million dollars ($66,000,000) in damages, specific performance by Company according to the terms of the Contract, and MFAI’s attorney’s fees and costs. On October 18, 2021, the Company filed a motion, denying all the material allegations of the Complaint, and seeking to stay the case and compel arbitration pursuant to the purported Contract. In its motion, the Company only sought to enforce the terms of the Contract as it relates to arbitration, but otherwise denied the existence of a valid and binding contract. Over MFAI’s opposition, the Court granted the Company’s mot… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2022, and have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-29 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Millennium Fine Art Inc. (“MFAI”) filed a Complaint against the Company, alleging that on or about April 21, 2021, MFAI and the Company entered into a contract (the “Contract”), by which MFAI agreed to create 7,700 non-fungible tokens (“NFT”) in exchange for sixteen million dollars ($16,000,000) worth of shares of the Company. MFAI claims that the Company breached the Contract by refusing delivery of the NFTs and not delivering $16 million worth of shares to MFAI. The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, special damages and promissory estoppel, and seeks sixty-six million dollars ($66,000,000) in damages, specific performance by Company according to the terms of the Contract, and MFAI’s attorney’s fees and costs. On October 18, 2021, the Company filed a motion, denying all the material allegations of the Complaint, and seeking to stay the case and compel arbitration pursuant to the purported Contract. In its motion, the Company only sought to enforce the terms of the Contract as it relates to arbitration, but otherwise denied the existence of a valid and binding contract. Over MFAI’s opposition, the Court granted the Company’s mot… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2021 and have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2021. | ||||||
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.