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 | 2026-03-02 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business. Legal proceedings, including litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions could result in material costs, occupy significant management resources and entail civil and criminal penalties. In May 2024, the Company received notice and accepted service of a civil complaint that had been filed in the Eastern District of Texas and styled Cellspin Soft, Inc. vs. Senseonics Holdings, Inc., and Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings AG Case No. 2:24-cv 263. The case was filed by a non-practicing entity alleging patent infringement of three patents. The validity of all three of these patents currently is being challenged in Inter Partes Review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by another party, TikTok Inc., (the “TikTok IPR”) and on September 30, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a review with respect to each of the asserted claim… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under this framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. 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 | 2025-03-03 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business. Legal proceedings, including litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions could result in material costs, occupy significant management resources and entail civil and criminal penalties. In February 2021, the Company received notice and accepted service of a civil complaint that had been filed in the Western District of Texas and styled Carew ex rel. United States v. Senseonics, Inc., No. SA20CA0657DAE. The complaint was filed by a relator under seal in May 2020 pursuant to the qui tam provisions in the federal False Claims Act. Prior to the unsealing of the complaint, the government declined to intervene in the case. The case, therefore, is being pursued only by the relator and his counsel. The complaint alleges the Company’s marketing practices with physicians for its product, Eversense CGM system, violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under this framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2024, 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. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-03-01 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. In February 2021, the Company received notice and accepted service of a civil complaint that had been filed in the Western District of Texas and styled Carew ex rel. United States v. Senseonics, Inc., No. SA20CA0657DAE. The complaint was filed by a relator under seal in May 2020 pursuant to the qui tam provisions in the federal False Claims Act. Prior to the unsealing of the complaint, the government declined to intervene in the case. The case, therefore, is being pursued only by the relator and his counsel. The complaint alleges the Company’s marketing practices with physicians for its product, Eversense CGM system, violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Law, Tex. Hum Res. Code § 36.002. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint on March 31, 2022 but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The court dismissed the amended complaint and entered judgment in favor of Senseonics Holdings, Inc. on March 30, 2023. The relator filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under this framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2023, 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. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-16 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. In February 2021, we received notice and accepted service of a civil complaint that had been filed in the Western District of Texas and styled Carew ex rel. United States v. Senseonics, Inc., No. SA20CA0657DAE. The complaint was filed by a relator under seal in May 2020 pursuant to the qui tam provisions in the federal False Claims Act. Prior to the unsealing of the complaint, the government declined to intervene in the case. The case, therefore, is being pursued only by the relator and his counsel. The complaint alleges the Company’s marketing practices with physicians for its product, Eversense CGM system, violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Law, Tex. Hum Res. Code § 36.002. Outside counsel, on behalf of the Company, has filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the motion to dismiss the action without prejudice which allows the plaintiff 60 days to refile the complaint. On May 27, 2022, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and on July 11, 2022, the Company fil… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under this framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2022, 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. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-01 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. In February 2021, we received notice and accepted service of a civil complaint that had been filed in the Western District of Texas and styled Carew ex rel. United States v. Senseonics, Inc., No. SA20CA0657DAE. The complaint was filed by a relator under seal in May 2020 pursuant to the qui tam provisions in the federal False Claims Act. Prior to the unsealing of the complaint, the government declined to intervene in the case. The case, therefore, is being pursued only by the relator. The complaint alleges the Company’s marketing practices with physicians for its product, Eversense CGM system, violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Law, Tex. Hum Res. Code § 36.002. Outside counsel, on behalf of the Company, has filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The motion is currently pending before the court. In February 2021, in compliance with the data breach notification obligations laid out in the GDPR, the Company notified the Italian Data Protection Authority, or the Garante, of an unintended disclosure o… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on our evaluation under this framework, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2021, 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. | ||||||
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.