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 | 2026-03-09 | none stated | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon this assessment, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-13 | none stated | effective | effective | remediated (prior year) | EDGAR |
Item 3 · None. Item 9A · ICFR · Based upon this assessment, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · material weakness · Remediation of Previously Identified Material Weakness We previously reported a material weakness, identified in 2023, in our internal controls specifically related to the documentation of the assumptions supporting the valuation of the in-process research and development intangible assets acquired in connection with the Old Cartesian material business combination and the initial and on-going contingent value right obligation issued at that time to legacy Selecta stockholders. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-07 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On February 7, 2024, Justin Sloan, a purported stockholder of our Company, filed a putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of our Company against us and members of our Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, titled Sloan v. Barabe, et al., No. 2024-0105. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to our stockholders in our Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on January 31, 2024 in connection with the solicitation of stockholder approval of the Conversion Proposal. The complaint seeks a temporary injunction against the stockholder vote on the Conversion Proposal, compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. At a telephonic hearing on February 28, 2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the proceedings, rejecting Plaintiff's argument that the lawsuit raised colorable disclosure claims warranting expedited treatment. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this plaintiff’s claims. On… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2023, our internal control over financial reporting was not effective. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2023 because of the material weakness in internal control over financial reporting discussed below. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-02 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 3, 2020, a stockholder of Selecta filed a stockholder derivative action, purportedly on behalf of Selecta and against certain current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, as well as one affiliated company owned by a current board member, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, namely Franchi v. Barabe, et al. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed corporate waste when they authorized a private placement transaction, announced on December 19, 2019, at a price allegedly below fair value. The complaint further alleges that the four defendant directors who participated in the private placement were unjustly enriched in connection with the transaction. On September 25, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021. On December 31, 2020, we received a litigation demand letter from two other putative stockholders relating to the same private placement transaction. On April 12, 2021, the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware granted a motion… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2022, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. 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 at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-10 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On August 3, 2020, a stockholder of Selecta filed a stockholder derivative action, purportedly on behalf of Selecta and against certain current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors, as well as one affiliated company owned by a current board member, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, namely Franchi v. Barabe, et al. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed corporate waste when they authorized a private placement transaction, announced on December 19, 2019, at a price allegedly below fair value. The complaint further alleges that the four defendant directors who participated in the private placement were unjustly enriched in connection with the transaction. On September 25, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021. On December 31, 2020, we received a litigation demand letter from two other putative stockholders relating to the same private placement transaction. On April 12, 2021, the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware granted a motion… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of December 31, 2021, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. 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 at the reasonable assurance level 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.