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 | 2026-02-13 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company who resided in California were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” in California, as well as performing activities related to the interview process. The class period runs from March 13, 2010, to present. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation and civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “… Item 9A · ICFR · Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025, using criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-13 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2010, were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation to former employees and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defi… Item 9A · ICFR · Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024, using criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-20 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2010, were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation to former employees and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defi… Item 9A · ICFR · Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023, using criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-10 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2010, were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation to former employees and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defi… Item 9A · ICFR · Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2022, using criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-02-14 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff Jessica Gentry, on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, which was subsequently amended on October 23, 2015. The complaint alleges that a putative class of current and former employees of the Company working in California since March 13, 2010 were denied compensation for the time they spent interviewing “for temporary and permanent employment opportunities” as well as performing activities related to the interview process. Gentry seeks recovery on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid compensation. Gentry also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount for the alleged failure of the Company to provide her and the putative class with accurate wage statements. Gentry also seeks an unspecified amount of other damages, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties, including penalties for allegedly not paying all wages due upon separation to former employees and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees” as defin… Item 9A · ICFR · Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, using criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and concluded that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. | ||||||
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.