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 | 2026-02-26 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · We currently have no material pending legal proceedings. Item 9A · ICFR · Based on its assessment, our management has determined that, as of December 31, 2025, our internal controls over financial reporting are effective based on those criteria. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2025, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-27 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Stockholder Litigation On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Maryland Court”) against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al., No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (the “Sinnathurai Action”). The parties ultimately negotiated a settlement, which the Maryland Court approved on May 23, 2024. The Maryland Court closed the Sinnathurai Action on May 24, 2024. After the Sinnathurai Action was filed, eight derivative lawsuits were filed: (i) Robert E. Meyer v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:21-cv-02996-TDC (the “Meyer Action”), (ii) Shui Shing Yung v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:21-cv-03248-TDC (the “Yung Action”), (iii) William Kirst, et al. v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. C-15-CV-21-000618 (the “Kirst Action”), (iv) Amy Snyder v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 8:22-cv-01415-TDC (the “Snyder Action”), (v) Charles R. Blackburn, et al. v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 1:22-cv-01417-TDC (the “Blackburn Action”), (vi) Diego J. Mesa v. Stanley C. Erck, et al., No. 2022-0770-NAC (the “Mesa Action”), (vii) Sean Acosta v. Stanle… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on its assessment, our management has determined that, as of December 31, 2024, our internal controls over financial reporting were not effective because of the following identified material weakness: •IT general controls deficiencies. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were not effective because of the material weakness identified in the operation of certain IT general controls described below. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-28 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Maryland Court”) against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al., No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (the “Sinnathurai Action”). On January 26, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to manufacture prototype vaccine on a commercial scale and to secure the prototype vaccine’s regulatory approval. The amended complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who purchased the Company’s securities between February 24, 2021 and October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 12, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants’ mo… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on its assessment, our management has determined that, as of December 31, 2023, our internal controls over financial reporting are effective based on those criteria. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-28 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Maryland Court”) against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al., No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (the “Sinnathurai Action”). On January 26, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action. The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to manufacture NVX-CoV2373 on a commercial scale and to secure the NVX-CoV2373’s regulatory approval. The amended complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who purchased the Company’s securities between February 24, 2021 and October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 12, 2022, the Maryland Court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on its assessment, our management has determined that, as of December 31, 2022, our internal controls over financial reporting are effective based on those criteria. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-01 | described here | effective | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On February 26, 2021, a Novavax stockholder named Thomas Golubinski filed a derivative complaint against members of the Novavax board of directors and members of senior management in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Thomas Golubinski v. Richard H. Douglas, et al., No. 2021-0172-JRS. Novavax is deemed a nominal defendant. Golubinski challenged equity awards made in April 2020 and in June 2020 on the ground that they were “spring-loaded,” that is, made at a time when such board members or members of senior management allegedly possessed undisclosed positive material information concerning the Company. The complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought an award of damages to the Company, an order rescinding both awards or requiring disgorgement, and an award of attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the litigation. On May 10, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On June 17, 2021, the Company’s stockholders voted FOR ratification of the April 2020 awards and ratification of the June 2020 awards. Details of the ratification proposals are set forth in the Company’s Definitive Proxy S… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on its assessment, our management has determined that, as of December 31, 2021, our internal controls over financial reporting are effective based on those criteria. | ||||||
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.