2 unchanged sentences
with the SEC on March 27, 2025.
−Removed: In addition, on July 28, 2025 the Superior Court of
−Removed: Pennsylvania affirmed the September 10, 2024 Order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissing our complaint against BioLife
−Removed: Plasma Services, L.P.
+Added: ImmunoTech, Inc.
+Added: Tudor, et al., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No.
+Added: 5:2022cv00323.
+Added: April 22, 2024, the District Court issued an order granting-in-part Lautz and Jorgl’s Rule 59(e) and Rule 11 motions, respectively.
+Added: The court entered an order finding Jorgl and Lautz were entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs and entered judgment on behalf
+Added: of Jorgl for $216,936, and on behalf of Lautz for $76,473.
+Added: AIM has appealed these judgments to the United States Court of Appeals for
+Added: the Eleventh Circuit and secured a stay of the enforcement of the judgment spending the 11th Circuit Appeal.
+Added: AIM’s appeal does
+Added: not seek damages.
+Added: On June 18, 2024, The Carlyle Appellate Law firm was engaged for the above referenced appeal.
+Added: The Carlyle Appellate
+Added: Law firm has since filed a notice of appearance in that matter.
+Added: AIM is exposed in this matter for the amount of those Judgments (which
+Added: have been bonded by AIM), interest on those judgements, as well as potentially paying attorney’s fees in the event the appeal is
+Added: unsuccessful AIM filed its initial brief on September 4, 2024.
+Added: The parties attended mediation on November 5, 2024.
+Added: The parties did not
+Added: reach an agreement, and mediation impassed.
+Added: After mediation, Appellees filed answer briefs and Jorgl and Lautz filed motions for sanctions
+Added: seeking reimbursement of appellants Attorney’s fees.
+Added: The appeal and Appellees ‘motions are fully briefed.
+Added: A bond in the amount
+Added: of $366,762.11 was posted by AIM for the sanctions to the court on behalf of AIM and counsel on June 21, 2024, pending the appeal .
+Added: April 4, 2025, the Appellate court upheld the decision of the lower court and the funds for the which were held in escrow were disbursed
+Added: in accordance with the ruling.
+Added: After the funds were disbursed in the amount of $292,180.73 the court returned $74,581.38 to AIM on June
+Added: The matter is now concluded
+Added: addition, on July 28, 2025, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the September 10, 2024, Order of the Philadelphia Court of
+Added: Common Pleas dismissing our complaint against BioLife Plasma Services, L.P.
Judgement was entered dismissing the case.
−Removed: The parties have 14 days to seek En Banc Review or further
−Removed: Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or to take other action in the Common Pleas Court, including reinstatement of BioLife’s
−Removed: counterclaim for $96,000.
+Added: have 14 days to seek En Banc Review or further Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or to take other action in the Common Pleas
+Added: Court, including reinstatement of BioLife’s counterclaim for $96,000.
+Added: Subsequent to September 30, 2025, no counterclaim has
+Added: been filed and the time to do so has expired.
+Added: The mandate was returned from the Superior Court to the Common Pleas Court on
+Added: September 11, 2025.
+Added: BioLife had 30 days from that date to re-assert its counterclaims and did not do so.
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.