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 | 2026-03-31 | none stated | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. As of December 31, 2025, we are not a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows if determined adversely to us. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Item 9A · ICFR · As a result of that assessment, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-27 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The following is a brief description of the more significant legal proceedings in which we have been involved. Securities Class Actions Starting in June 2021, putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us and certain of our current and former members of management and the board of directors. After these lawsuits were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed to represent the putative class, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 7, 2022, which asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that our initial public offering, or IPO, and secondary public offering, or SPO, registration statements and/or other public statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted to state that certain of our former CEO’s published doctoral research papers at Washington State University, or WSU, contained allegedly imp… Item 9A · ICFR · As a result of that assessment, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-22 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The following is a brief description of the more significant legal proceedings in which we are involved. Securities Class Actions On June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Fan Wang and Hang Gao filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us and our former chief executive officer, Dr. Leen Kawas, captioned Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00861. Plaintiffs Wang and Gao assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding our business. Specifically, the Wang plaintiffs allege that we failed to disclose to investors that certain research conducted by Dr. Kawas was allegedly tainted by scientific misconduct during her doctoral work at WSU including the manipulation of data, and that as a result, the defendants’ positive statements about our business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. The Wang plaintiffs seek unspeci… Item 9A · ICFR · As a result of that assessment, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-23 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The following is a brief description of the more significant legal proceedings. Securities Class Actions On June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Fan Wang and Hang Gao filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us and our former chief executive officer, Dr. Leen Kawas, captioned Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00861. Plaintiffs Wang and Gao assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding our business. Specifically, the Wang plaintiffs allege that we failed to disclose to investors that certain research conducted by Dr. Kawas was allegedly tainted by scientific misconduct during her doctoral work at WSU including the manipulation of data, and that as a result, the defendants’ positive statements about our business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. The Wang plaintiffs s… Item 9A · ICFR · As a result of that assessment, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-28 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings or claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. The following is a brief description of the more significant legal proceedings. Securities Class Actions On June 25, 2021, plaintiffs Fan Wang and Hang Gao filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against us and our former Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen Kawas, captioned Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00861. Plaintiffs Wang and Gao assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding our business. Specifically, the Wang plaintiffs allege that we failed to disclose to investors that certain research conducted by Dr. Kawas was allegedly tainted by scientific misconduct during her doctoral work at Washington State University, or WSU, including the manipulation of data, and that as a result, the defendants’ positive statements about our business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading. The Wa… Item 9A · ICFR · As a result of that assessment, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was 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.