What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-03-27 compared with 2025-04-15 · 25 added, 23 removed, 11 unchanged (81% of the section changed)

1 unchanged sentence

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

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.

We opposed and the Court denied

the request to amend the Complaint.

Contract Pharmacal filed a Motion to reargue which the Court denied on November 30, 2021.

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 Complaint.

28, 2024, Contract Pharmacal filed a motion to reargue the appeal previously denied by the Appellate Division.

Pending a decision by the

Appellate Division the Trial Court has adjourned the case.

Regardless of the decision by the Appellate Division, Contract Pharmacal

will be required to file an amended complaint.

We have consistently disputed the validity of the claims asserted by Contract Pharmacal

and continue to believe we have a meritorious defense to those claims based on, among other items, language in the Sublease.

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

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

respect to the property that was formerly occupied by the Company’s former subsidiary 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 the Company’s alleged violation of the

terms of the subject sublease, specifically the failure to make the entire premises available by what it claims was the Sublease commencement

The validity of the action is extremely suspect in that the subject sublease had no specific commencement date and Contract Pharmacal

ultimately received all the space.

Discovery was conducted and the Plaintiff moved for summary judgement and to amend its complaint to

add a new cause of action all of which the company opposed.

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

judgement and to add an additional cause of action.

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 both of which benefit the Company.

the Court’s decision, Contract Pharmacal filed a Motion to reargue its original motion which the Company opposed.

The Court denied

that motion on November 30, 2021 and then on March 10, 2022, Contract Pharmacal filed an appeal of the Court’s decision with the

Appellate Division of the State of New York.

The Company opposed that action.

The Company was again successful as the Appellate Division

upheld the lower court’s denial of Contract Pharmacal’s motion for summary judgement and its motion to amend its Complaint.

Contract Pharmacal has now submitted a motion to the Appellate Division requesting leave to reargue the court’s denial of its original

The Company will oppose that motion.

The Appellate Division has yet to act in respect to Contract Pharmacal’s most recent

motion to reargue the Court’s denial of the original appeal.

The Company continues to dispute the validity of the claims asserted

by Contract Pharmacal and intends to contest them vigorously.

From time to time we may be engaged in various

8 unchanged sentences

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