What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2024-04-15 compared with 2023-05-16 · 27 added, 25 removed, 2 unchanged (96% of the section changed)

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On October 2, 2018, Contract

Pharmacal Corp.

(“Contract Pharmacal”) commenced an action, relating to a Sublease entered into between us and Contract Pharmacal

in May 2018 with respect to the property formerly occupied by our subsidiary Welding Metallurgy, Inc.

(“WMI”), at 110 Plant

Avenue, Hauppauge, New York.

In the action, Contract Pharmacal sought damages for an amount in excess of $1,000,000 for our failure to

make the entire premises available by the Sublease commencement date.

On July 8, 2021, the Court denied Contract Phamacal’s motion

for summary judgement.

In the Order, the court granted Contract Pharmacal’s Motions to drop its claim for specific performance and

to amend its Complaint to reduce its claim for damages to $700,000.

Subsequently, Contract Phamacal moved to amend its Complaint.

On October 2, 2018, Contract Pharmacal Corp.

Pharmacal”) commenced an action, relating to a Sublease entered into between us and Contract Pharmacal in May 2018 with respect

to the property formerly occupied by our subsidiary Welding Metallurgy, Inc.

(“WMI”), at 110 Plant Avenue, Hauppauge, New

In the action, Contract Pharmacal sought damages for an amount in excess of $1,000,000 for our failure to make the entire premises

available by what it claims was the Sublease commencement date.

On July 8, 2021, the Court denied Contract Pharmacal’s motion for

summary judgement.

In the Order, the court granted Contract Pharmacal’s Motions to drop its claim for specific performance and to

amend its Complaint to reduce its claim for damages to $700,000.

Subsequently, Contract Pharmacal moved to amend its Complaint.

and the Court denied the request to amend the Complaint.

Contract Pharmacal filed a Motion to reargue which the Court denied on November

On March 10, 2022, Contract Pharmacal filed an appeal to the Court’s decision with the Appellate Division which we have

We dispute the validity of the claims asserted by Contract Pharmacal, continue to believe we have a meritorious defense to those

claims and intend to dispute the validity of the claim asserted by Contract Pharmacal.

time to time we may be engaged in various lawsuits and legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business.

We are currently not

aware of any legal proceedings the ultimate outcome of which, in our judgment based on information currently available, would have a

material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

There are no proceedings in which any of our directors,

officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholder of our common stock, is an adverse party or has a material interest

adverse to our interest.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

On March 10, 2022, Contract Pharmacal filed an appeal to the Court’s decision with the Appellate Division.

The Appellate

Division upheld the denial of Contract Pharmacal’s motion for summary judgement and upheld the denial of its motion to amend its

On March 29, 2023, Contract Pharmacal filed a motion to reargue the appeal previously denied by the Appellate Division.

dispute the validity of the claims asserted by Contract Pharmacal, continue to believe we have a meritorious defense to those claims and

intend to dispute the validity of the claim asserted by Contract Pharmacal.

From time to time

we may be engaged in various lawsuits and legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business.

We are currently not aware of any

legal proceedings the ultimate outcome of which, in our judgment based on information currently available, would have a material adverse

effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or

affiliates, or any registered or beneficial stockholder of our common stock, is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to

our interest.

SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

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