Greenwave Technology Solutions, Inc. GWAV US Equity
Greenwave Technology Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: GWAV), an SEC filer in Wholesale-Metals Service Centers & of fices, closed at $4.68, +7.6%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $4M as of 2026-08-27, a return on equity of -68.7%, a net margin of -46.3% and 3-year sales growth of 11.2%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-06-15 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. We investigate these claims as they arise and accrue estimates for resolution of legal and other contingencies when losses are probable and estimable. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity and reputational harm, and other factors. Except as set forth below, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. On October 25, 2024, Arena Special Opportunities Fund, LP and related entities ("Arena") filed a lawsuit against the Company in New York State Court (Index No. 655660/2024) (the "Action"), arising from promissory notes previously issued to Arena and their conversion into the Company's common stock. The complaint alleges, among other… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, management concluded that the Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025 due to material weaknesses, including the lack of segregation of duties and the need for a stronger internal control environment, as well as an insufficient process to ensure appropriate levels of review of accounting and financial reporting matters, which resulted in the closing process not identifying all required adjustments and disclosures in a timely manner. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon such evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2025 were not effective (at a reasonable assurance level) due to identified control deficiencies regarding the lack of segregation of duties and the need for a stronger internal control environment. Item 9A · material weakness · To address the material weaknesses, we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in an effort to ensure our financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-04-15 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as set forth below, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. On October 25, 2024, Arena Special Opportunities Fund, LP and other related entities (“Arena”) filed a lawsuit in New York State Court (the “Action”). The complaint for the lawsuit alleges, among other things, a purported breach of contract based on an alleged equity conditions failure. The Company believes that the Action lacks merit. In the event this Action is not summarily dismissed, the Company intends to vigorously defend against it. We are unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We investigate thes… Item 9A · ICFR · Because of the above material weakness, management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024, based on the criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the COSO. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon such evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2024 were not effective (at a reasonable assurance level) due to identified control deficiencies regarding the lack of segregation of duties and the need for a stronger internal control environment. Item 9A · material weakness · To address the material weaknesses, we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in an effort to ensure our financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-04-16 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 1, 2020, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”), the Company’s former securities counsel, filed a demand for arbitration at JAMS in New York, New York against the Company, alleging the Company’s breach of an engagement agreement dated January 4, 2018, and a failure of the Company to pay $487,390.73 of outstanding legal fees to Sheppard Mullin. Sheppard Mullin was awarded $459,250.88 in unpaid legal fees, disbursements and interest on June 25, 2021. A judgement confirming the arbitration award was entered on September 8, 2021 in the Federal District Court located in Denver, Colorado. On September 23, 2021, the Company entered into a Resolution Agreement and Release (the “Resolution Agreement”) with Sheppard Mullin concerning the $459,250.88 judgement entered against the Company. Under the terms of the Resolution Agreement, the Company was required to make a $25,000 initial payment by September 30, 2021 and is required to make $15,000 monthly payments from October 2021 to January 2023 with a final $10,000 payment due in February 2023. The Company has made all of its required payments under the Resolution Agreement. We are unable to estimate a reasonab… Item 9A · ICFR · Because of the above material weakness, management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023, based on the criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the COSO. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon such evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2023 were not effective (at a reasonable assurance level) due to identified control deficiencies regarding the lack of segregation of duties and the need for a stronger internal control environment. Item 9A · material weakness · To address the material weaknesses, we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in an effort to ensure our financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-31 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 1, 2020, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”), the Company’s former securities counsel, filed a demand for arbitration at JAMS in New York, New York against the Company, alleging the Company’s breach of an engagement agreement dated January 4, 2018, and a failure of the Company to pay $487,390.73 of outstanding legal fees to Sheppard Mullin. Sheppard Mullin was awarded $459,250.88 in unpaid legal fees, disbursements and interest on June 25, 2021. A judgement confirming the arbitration award was entered on September 8, 2021 in the Federal District Court located in Denver, Colorado. On September 23, 2021, the Company entered into a Resolution Agreement and Release (the “Resolution Agreement”) with Sheppard Mullin concerning the $459,250.88 judgement entered against the Company. Under the terms of the Resolution Agreement, the Company was required to make a $25,000 initial payment by September 30, 2021 and is required to make $15,000 monthly payments from October 2021 to January 2023 with a final $10,000 payment due in February 2023. The Company has made all of its required payments under the Resolution Agreement. We are unable to estimate a reasonab… Item 9A · ICFR · Because of the above material weakness, management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2022, based on the criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the COSO. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon such evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2022 were not effective (at a reasonable assurance level) due to identified control deficiencies regarding the lack of segregation of duties and the need for a stronger internal control environment. Item 9A · material weakness · To address the material weaknesses, we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in an effort to ensure our financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-04-14 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 1, 2020, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (“Sheppard Mullin”), the Company’s former securities counsel, filed a demand for arbitration at JAMS in New York, New York against the Company, alleging the Company’s breach of an engagement agreement dated January 4, 2018, and a failure of the Company to pay $487,390.73 of outstanding legal fees to Sheppard Mullin. Sheppard Mullin was awarded $459,250.88 in unpaid legal fees, disbursements and interest on June 25, 2021. A judgement confirming the arbitration award was entered on September 8, 2021 in the Federal District Court located in Denver, Colorado. On September 23, 2021, the Company entered into a Resolution Agreement and Release (the “Resolution Agreement”) with Sheppard Mullin concerning the $459,250.88 judgement entered against the Company. Under the terms of the Resolution Agreement, the Company was required to make a $25,000 initial payment by September 30, 2021 and is required to make $15,000 monthly payments from October 2021 to January 2023 with a final $10,000 payment due in February 2023. The Company has made the monthly payments due for September 2021 to March 2022. We are unable to estimate a reasonably… Item 9A · ICFR · Because of the above material weakness, management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on the criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the COSO. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon such evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2021 were not effective (at a reasonable assurance level) due to identified control deficiencies regarding the lack of segregation of duties and the need for a stronger internal control environment. Item 9A · material weakness · To address the material weaknesses, we performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures in an effort to ensure our financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. | ||||||
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.