What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2023-08-14 compared with 2023-05-15 · 34 added, 36 removed, 1 unchanged (99% of the section changed)

Legal Proceedings

Please see Part I, Item 3.

Legal Proceedings in

our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022.

Additionally, we

commenced an action against BioLife in December of 2017 for Breach of Contract in the Court of Common Pleas.

The amount of damages sought

include the lost profits from the alleged breach or the amount we paid and expended in reliance on BioLife’s fulfillment of the

None of the claimed damages are covered by insurance.

Defendant BioLife has filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and a Counterclaim

in the amount of $96,676 representing the Invoices unpaid after BioLife notified the Company that they were not intending to fulfill

the balance of the contract.

The Company denies the allegations of the counterclaim, which we believe will now lead to a trial date in

the later part of 2023.

The Court recently issued an Order and Decision on pending cross Motions for Summary Judgment.

As per the Opinion,

the Court Denied AIM’s Motion for Summary Judgment, essentially ruling that the Defendant’s asserted breach of the Contract

is an issue of fact to be disputed at trial because BioLife might prove that its termination of the contract was unavoidable as a result

of the loss of blood suppliers.

The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that AIM cannot show

that its loss of profits for sale of Alfernon was caused by Biolife’s alleged breach.

The Court further ruled that AIM properly

pled the alternative damage theory of reliance damages.

The Court’s Order is inconsistent with the Opinion, in that it appears

to grant the Defendant’s Motion as to all claims, while the Opinion preserves the reliance damage theory.

The Company intends to

seek reconsideration of the Opinion prior to an as-yet-unscheduled trial, and, if unsuccessful, the matters will be reviewed on appeal.

The matter will proceed to trial at some future date which has not been scheduled.

The outstanding amounts do not fall within the materiality

threshold of the Company.

On April 20, 2023, in the action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, entitled

Jonathan Thomas Jorgl vs.

AIM Immuno Tech Inc, Thomas K.

Equels, William Mitchell and Stewart Appelrouth, Jonathan Jorgl filed a Motion

to Dismiss his Complaint as moot.

While we and the director defendants do not oppose dismissal of Jorgl’s claims, we have

requested that the Court retain jurisdiction so that we can file a motion seeking reimbursement of our legal fees and expenses from Jorgl.

see Part I, Item 3.

Legal Proceedings in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 as updated below.

our lawsuit against BioLife Plasma Services, LP, the trial court issued a ruling in March 2023 on cross Motions for Summary Judgment

in which it denied all of our motions and granted defendant’s Motion to exclude evidence of future loss of profit damages.

ruling specified that we had properly pled and the Court was allowing our damages theory to proceed on reliance damages.

We have sought

reconsideration of the ruling based on its internal inconsistency with the contemporaneous Order which allowed only the counterclaims

In July we sought appellate review of the inconsistent lower Court pretrial rulings.

The lower Court could, but as of yet

has not, ruled on the pending motion before it.

While at this time we cannot estimate the potential likelihood of recovery against the

defendants, we believe we have a valid claim.

July 20, 2023, we filed an application in the Jorgl v.

AIM Immunotech, Inc.

action in in the Delaware Court of Chancery for fee

shifting against Jorgl based on the bad faith litigation doctrine.

In connection therewith we also filed two motions seeking leave to

take additional targeted discovery and to compel the production of documents inappropriately withheld as privileged.

On that date, Jorgl

also filed a motion for fee shifting against us in connection with two subpoenas served on his counsel and others who were supporting

his nomination and litigation efforts and a related motion to compel.

On July 25, 2023, Jorgl filed a motion to strike our two discovery

motions, which motion the Court denied on August 8, 2023.

The parties will complete briefing on the discovery motions and the Court will

likely schedule oral argument on those motions.

We do not anticipate briefing and argument on the fee shifting motions to be completed

until the discovery disputes are resolved.

On July 10, 2023,

the Court, in AIM ImmunoTech, Inc.

Tudor, et al., Case 5:22-cv-00323 (M.D.

Florida), dismissed our complaint as moot.

2023, we moved to have the Court reconsider its order and require the Defendants to answer our complaint on the grounds that the recent

actions of at least two of the Defendants seeking to have themselves and another elected to our Board at the next annual meeting of stockholders

demonstrates that our complaint is not moot.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings