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 | 2026-03-25 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On March 3, 2026,we received a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit from Dren Bio demanding payment of unpaid rent payments of approximately $0.7 million in connection with the sublease of our facilities situated in Redwood City or in the alternative quit and deliver up possession of the premises. Following receipt of such notice, we did not remit a payment and on March 9, 2026, Dren Bio filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against GPCR USA in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, seeking restitution of possession of the premises and forfeiture of the sublease and the unpaid rent payments of approximately $0.7 million, damages and attorney’s fees. We are currently reviewing the complaint and evaluating our available defenses and potential responses. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were defendants in Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:21-cv-06637) (the “Securities Class Action”). On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint generally alleging that the defendants made false statements about the resul… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not 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 principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level due to the material weakness described below. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-03-18 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06637. On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint. On March 20, 2023, the court entered an order appointing James Mathew as lead plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead counsel in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On May 26, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant Corbett. The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the Company’s clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021. The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, lead plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and othe… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not 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 principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level due to the material weakness described below. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-06-06 | described here | NOT effective | NOT effective | disclosed | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint. On March 20, 2023, the court entered an order appointing James Mathew as lead plaintiff and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead counsel in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On May 26, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant Corbett. The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the Company’s clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021. The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, lead plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and other… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not 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 principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level due to the material weakness described below. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-03-27 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. On February 4, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint. The amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann and Mr. Bock made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the Company’s clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021. The amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the Company’s stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. On March 20, 2023, the Court issued an Order appointing James Mathew as Lead Plaintiff, and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Lead Counsel for the purported class. The parties are required to submit, within two weeks of that Order,… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, 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 principal executive officer and principal financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-25 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · On December 13, 2021, Mark Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the Company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended putative securities class action complaint. The amended complaint alleges that Messrs. Giljohann and Bock made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the Company’s clinical programs purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021. The amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the Company’s stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. On February 11, 2022, four members of the putative class moved the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Two of those motions were withdrawn on Fe… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on the results of its evaluation, 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 principal executive officer and principal 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.