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 | 2026-02-27 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We are party to various legal proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of business. We carry insurance, subject to specified deductibles under the policies, to protect against losses from certain types of legal claims. At this time, we do not anticipate that any of these other proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under the COSO framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025 to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon the evaluation described above, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2025, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We are party to various legal proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of business. We carry insurance, subject to specified deductibles under the policies, to protect against losses from certain types of legal claims. At this time, we do not anticipate that any of these other proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under the COSO framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024 to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon the evaluation described above, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2024, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-01 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We are party to various legal proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of business. We carry insurance, subject to specified deductibles under the policies, to protect against losses from certain types of legal claims. At this time, we do not anticipate that any of these other proceedings arising in the normal course of business will have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under the COSO framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023 to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon the evaluation described above, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-24 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Civil investigative demand On June 21, 2022, the Company received a civil investigative demand (CID) from the United States Attorney’s Office for the NorthernDistrict of Iowa. The CID states that it was issued in a False Claims Act investigation to determine whether there is or has been a violation of the False Claims Act and that the investigation involves concerns of inappropriate kickbacks provided by certain manufacturers of portable oxygen concentrators and related products in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The CID followed informal requests from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa begun in late 2020, with which the Company voluntarily complied, to obtain information concerning the Company’s participation in (i) zero-interest or below market-rate loans through a third party lender to finance customer purchases; (ii) guaranteeing the obligation of a customer to a finance company in connection with financing of purchases of Company equipment; and (iii) entering into an agreement with a customer that included marketing, exclusivity, discount, and favorable financing terms. The Company is cooperating in the investigation. The Company is c… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under the COSO framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022 to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon the evaluation described above, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-02-24 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Securities class action and derivative lawsuits On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s securities. On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court. On May 20, 2019, the court issued an order consolidating the two lawsuits under the name In re Inogen, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:19-cv-01643-FMO-AGR, appointing Dr. John Vasil and Paragon Fund Management as lead plaintiffs, and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead plaintiffs’ counsel. On July 10, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between November 8, 2017 and May 7, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had misstated the basis for its calculatio… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under the COSO framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021 to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon the evaluation described above, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
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.