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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-31 | 2026-08-18 | in the notes | not extracted | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Refer to Note 17, “Legal Proceedings,” to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the Company’s legal proceedings, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 3. | ||||||
| 2025-05-31 | 2025-08-15 | in the notes | not extracted | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Refer to Note 17, “Legal Proceedings,” to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the Company’s legal proceedings, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 3. | ||||||
| 2024-05-31 | 2024-08-15 | in the notes | not extracted | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Refer to Note 17, “Legal Proceedings,” to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the Company’s legal proceedings, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 3. | ||||||
| 2023-05-31 | 2023-08-15 | described here | not extracted | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · Taylor Devices Inc. (the “Company”) has been named as a Third-Party Defendant in an action captioned Board of Managers of the 432 Park Condominium, et al. v. 56th and Park (NY) Owner LLC, et al. Index No. 655617/2021 (S.Ct. N.Y. Co.) (the “Action”). The Action was filed on or about September 23, 2021. In an amended Complaint dated April 29, 2022, the Board of Managers of 432 Park Condominium (the “Owner”), a condominium association for a high-rise condominium building (the “Building”) located at 432 Park Avenue in New York, N.Y., has asserted a claim against the condominium sponsor, 56th and Park (NY) Owner LLC (the “Sponsor”). The Owner alleges “over 1500 identified construction and design defects to the common elements of” residential and commercial units at the Building, based upon a report generated by a consultant (SBI Consultants Inc.) retained by the Owner. The alleged defects include, but are not limited to, allegedly-excessive noise and vibration, water leaks and elevator failures. The SBI report allegedly identified defects in the Building’s: (a) structural/envelope system; (b) mechanical/electrical & plumbing systems; (c) architectural/interiors; and (d) elevators/vertic… | ||||||
| 2022-05-31 | 2022-08-19 | as filed | not extracted | not extracted | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · There are no legal proceedings at present. | ||||||
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.