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 | 2026-03-27 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On November 18, 2024, James A. Cutshall filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Cutshall v. Humacyte, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-00954 (the “Securities Litigation”), against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint in the Securities Litigation asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024, based on allegations that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the BLA for the vascular trauma indication and to alleged deficiencies at the Company’s Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility. The Complaint seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs. On January 31, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On May 22, 2025, the co-lead plaintiffs filed the amended complaint in the Securities Litigation. The amended complaint expands the putative class to include persons and entities that pur… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-31 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On November 18, 2024, James A. Cutshall filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Cutshall v. Humacyte, Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-00954 (the “Securities Litigation”), against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint in the Securities Litigation asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024, based on allegations that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the BLA for the vascular trauma indication and to alleged deficiencies at the Company’s Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility. The Complaint seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs. On January 31, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On February 19, 2025, the court entered a scheduling order directing the co-lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint by April 24, 2025 and the defendants to answer or othe… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-28 | as filed | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · The Company currently is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that management believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-24 | as filed | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · The Company currently is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that management believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-29 | as filed | not extracted | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · The Company currently is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that management believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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.