What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-03-27 compared with 2025-03-27 · 36 added, 24 removed, 87 unchanged (41% of the section changed)

44 unchanged sentences

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

AIM 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

AIM’s appeal did

not seek damages.

5 unchanged sentences

sanctions seeking reimbursement of appellants Attorney’s fees.

The appeal and Appellees ‘motions are fully briefed.

The appellate

court has not yet issued a ruling.

The appeal and Appellees ‘motions were fully briefed.

June 18, 2024, The Carlyle Appellate Law firm was engaged for the above referenced appeal.

The Carlyle Appellate Law firm has since filed

The Carlyle Appellate Law firm 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 was exposed in this matter for the amount of those Judgments (which was bonded by AIM),

interest on those judgements, as well as potentially paying attorney’s fees in the event the appeal was unsuccessful.

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 were fully briefed.

A bond in the amount of $366,762 was

posted by AIM for the sanctions to the court on behalf of AIM and counsel on June 21, 2024, pending the appeal.

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 $292,181 the court returned $74,581 to AIM on June

The case is now concluded.

AIM ImmunoTech Inc.

23 unchanged sentences

request, noting, among other things, that the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order on July 29, 2024, denying Kellner’s Motion

for Reargument of the appeal in the Kellner litigation, directing that the case be closed, and specifically ruling that “[t]he

for Reargument of the appeal in the Kellner litigation, directing that the case be closed, and specifically ruling that “the

case is not remanded for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.”

1 unchanged sentence

the Superior Court (appellate) to consider the Appeal issues without the need for duplicate trials.

The Stipulation was accepted by the

Court on October 17, 2024 dismissing the counterclaims.

The Stipulation was accepted by

the Court on October 17, 2024 dismissing the counterclaims.

On October 7 we perfected our Appeal in the Superior Court.

On November 7, 2024,

7, 2024, we served our Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.

The Superior Court issued a briefing schedule that required that

our opening brief is due on January 21, 2025 and Appellee’s response is due 30 days thereafter.

We filed our Answer.

Appellee requested

and was granted a 30 day extension.

The Appellee sought and was granted an extension to file its Appellee’s Brief until March 24,

The Superior Court issued a briefing schedule that

required that our opening brief was due on January 21, 2025 and Appellee’s response was due 30 days thereafter.

Appellee requested and was granted a 30-day extension.

The Appellee sought and was granted an extension to file its

Appellee’s Brief until March 24, 2025.

On March 24, 2025, Appellee filed its brief.

Now our Reply Brief is due two weeks thereafter.

Although we requested oral argument,

the Superior Court has not yet indicated whether oral argument would be granted or issued an argument schedule on the matters to be considered

No estimate can be made at this time regarding the scheduling or ultimate determination of the matters

set forth in the Petition and the underlying issues presented in the appeal.

judgement can be made at this time of the likelihood of the Company prevailing on its claims.

Our Reply Brief was due two weeks

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 had 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.

No further action has been taken by either party.

The case is now concluded.

Safety Disclosures.

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-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings