AIM ImmunoTech Inc. 10-Q

ITEM 1: Legal Proceedings Please see Part 1; Item 3 “Legal Proceeding” in our annual report in Form 10K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on March 27, 2025. AIM ImmunoTech, Inc. v. Tudor, et al., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5:2022cv00323. On April 22, 2024, the District Court issued an order granting-in-part Lautz and Jorgl’s Rule 59(e) and Rule 11 motions, respectively. The court entered an order finding Jorgl and Lautz were entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs and entered judgment on behalf of Jorgl for $216,936, and on behalf of Lautz for $76,473. AIM has appealed these judgments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and secured a stay of the enforcement of the judgment spending the 11th Circuit Appeal. AIM’s appeal does not seek damages. On June 18, 2024, The Carlyle Appellate Law firm was engaged for the above referenced appeal. The Carlyle Appellate Law firm has since filed a notice of appearance in that matter. AIM is exposed in this matter for the amount of those Judgments (which have been bonded by AIM), interest on those judgements, as well as potentially paying attorney’s fees in the event the appeal is unsuccessful AIM filed its initial brief on September 4, 2024. The parties attended mediation on November 5, 2024. The parties did not reach an agreement, and mediation impassed. After mediation, Appellees filed answer briefs and Jorgl and Lautz filed motions for sanctions seeking reimbursement of appellants Attorney’s fees. The appeal and Appellees ‘motions are fully briefed. A bond in the amount 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 . On 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 in accordance with the ruling. After the funds were disbursed in the amount of $292,180.73 the court returned $74,581.38 to AIM on June 5, 2025. The matter is now concluded 45 In addition, on July 28, 2025, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the September 10, 2024, Order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissing our complaint against BioLife Plasma Services, L.P. Judgement was entered dismissing the case. The parties 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 Court, including reinstatement of BioLife’s counterclaim for $96,000. Subsequent to September 30, 2025, no counterclaim has been filed and the time to do so has expired. The mandate was returned from the Superior Court to the Common Pleas Court on September 11, 2025. BioLife had 30 days from that date to re-assert its counterclaims and did not do so.