What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-03-30 compared with 2025-03-31 · 37 added, 20 removed, 2 unchanged (97% of the section changed)

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal

proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in

these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm business.

On March 27, 2025, a

putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed by alleged stockholder Nihil Kohil against the Company and

executives Sandesh Seth, Avinash Desai, Madhuri Vusirikala, and Sergio Giralt, styled Kohil v.

Actinium Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., et al ., Case No.

1:25-cv-02553 in the Southern District of New York, wherein, the Complaint alleges that the defendants

made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Iomab-B Phase 3 Sierra Trial and the plaintiff asserts claims against

all defendants pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

thereunder, as well as additional claims against the individual defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Actinium

securities between October 31, 2022 and August 2, 2024.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.

The defendants have not yet

responded to the complaint, and they intend to vigorously defend themselves against the plaintiff’s allegations.

The Company and other defendants

intend to defend vigorously against such claims, however, there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business.

is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm business.

27, 2025, a putative class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) was filed by alleged stockholder Nitin Kohil against

the Company and executives Sandesh Seth, Avinash Desai, Madhuri Vusirikala, and Sergio Giralt (the “Defendants”), styled Kohil

Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al ., Case No.

1:25-cv-02553 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York, (“the Court”).

The Securities Complaint alleges that the Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions

concerning the Iomab-B Phase 3 Sierra Trial during a proposed class period of October 31, 2022 to August 2, 2024 and asserts claims under

Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff sought unspecified damages.

On June 24, 2025, the court in

the securities action appointed lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and re-captioned the

case as In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Securities Litigation .

Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2025.

On October 27, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint;

on December 19, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition;

and on February 2, 2026, Defendants filed their reply in support.

The parties are currently awaiting the Court’s decision on Defendants’

5, 2025, a shareholder complaint captioned Georges v.

1:25-cv-03738-JPO was filed against certain of the

Company’s directors and officers, alleging derivative liability based on the same factual allegations made in the securities class

On May 13, 2025, a second substantially identical derivative complaint captioned Robinson v.

Seth et al ., Case No.

1:25-cv-04012-JPO

On June 24, 2025, the Court consolidated the derivative cases and, on July 29, 2025, the parties to the derivative cases filed

a stipulation with the Court to stay those matters pending resolution of the motion that defendants will file in the securities class

The Court so-ordered that stipulation on July 30, 2025, and re-captioned the case as In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

17, 2025, a purported shareholder served Actinium with a demand for books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General

Corporation Law.

In general, the demand seeks documents relating to the facts at issue in the above-described securities class action

and derivative cases.

The Company rejected the shareholder demand by letter dated July 8, 2025.

The parties continue to discuss the demand,

though the shareholder has not followed up on his demand since October 2025.

Company and other Defendants intend to defend vigorously against such claims, however, there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

MINE 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