1 unchanged sentence
Putative Class Action Lawsuit
−Removed: On August 14, 2015, the Company entered a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain related parties. 
−Removed: Under the Settlement, Gyrodyne agreed that any sales of its properties would be effected only in arm's-length transactions at prices at or above their appraised values as of 2014. 
+Added: On August 14, 2015, the Company entered a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain related parties.
+Added: Under the Settlement, Gyrodyne agreed that any sales of its properties would be effected only in arm's-length transactions at prices at or above their appraised values as of 2014.
The 2014 aggregate appraised value for our properties was approximately $100,000 higher than the 2013 aggregate appraised value for such properties.
As of December 31, 2023, the aggregate appraised value of our remaining unsold properties exceeded the respective 2014 aggregate appraised value for such properties.
−Removed: See, “Risk Factors –
−Removed: Stipulation of Settlement prohibits us from selling our remaining properties at prices below the December 2014 appraised values”.
+Added: See, “Risk Factors – Stipulation of Settlement prohibits us from selling our remaining properties at prices below the December 2014 appraised values”.
Article 78 Proceeding
−Removed: On April 26, 2022, the Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor and certain other parties commenced a special proceeding (the “Article 78 Proceeding”), against the Town of Smithtown and certain other parties, including the Company, seeking to annul the Town of Smithtown Planning Board’s (the “Planning Board”) determinations relating to the Flowerfield Subdivision Application.
−Removed: The Proceeding was commenced by the filing of a petition (the “Petition”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, pursuant to Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“Article 78”).
−Removed: Specifically, the Petition seeks to annul the Planning Board’s (i) approval of a findings statement, pursuant to the SEQRA, dated September 16, 2021, and adopted by the Planning Board on March 30, 2022, concerning the application for preliminary approval to divide the Flowerfield property into eight lots (the “Flowerfield Subdivision Application”), and (ii) preliminary approval on March 30, 2022, of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application.
+Added: On April 26, 2022, the Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor and certain other parties commenced a special proceeding (the “Article 78 Proceeding”), against the Town of Smithtown and certain other parties, including the Company, seeking to annul the Town of Smithtown Planning Board’s (the “Planning Board”) determinations relating to the Flowerfield Subdivision Application.
+Added: The Proceeding was commenced by the filing of a petition (the “Petition”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, pursuant to Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“Article 78”).
+Added: Specifically, the Petition seeks to annul the Planning Board’s (i) approval of a findings statement, pursuant to the SEQRA, dated September 16, 2021, and adopted by the Planning Board on March 30, 2022, concerning the application for preliminary approval to divide the Flowerfield property into eight lots (the “Flowerfield Subdivision Application”), and (ii) preliminary approval on March 30, 2022, of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application.
The arguments made in the Petition are substantially similar to those made by opponents of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application during the SEQRA and subdivision process.
−Removed: The Company and the Town of Smithtown are vigorously defending the Planning Board’s determinations against the Petition.
+Added: The Company and the Town of Smithtown are vigorously defending the Planning Board’s determinations against the Petition.
+Added: In June 2022, Gyrodyne and the Town of Smithtown filed motions to dismiss the Petition.
+Added: During the third quarter, the Article 78 Proceeding was re-assigned to a different judge for the second time.
+Added: On February 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order (the “Order”), denying the Motions in part and granting them in part.
+Added: Specifically, the Order (i) denied the Motions as to three individual Petitioners and the St.
+Added: James-Head of the Harbor Neighborhood Preservation Coalition, Inc., (ii) granted the Motions as to the remaining twenty (20) individual Petitioners and the Village of Head of the Harbor, (iii) denied the branch of Gyrodyne’s motion alleging that Petitioners failed to state a claim, and (iv) requires Gyrodyne to serve an answer within twenty (20) days of service of the Order.
+Added: The parties will submit their respective briefs on the merits of the remaining Petitioners’ contentions after which we believe the Court will render a decision.
In addition to the foregoing, in the normal course of business, Gyrodyne is a party to various legal proceedings.
−Removed: After reviewing all actions and proceedings pending against or involving Gyrodyne, management considers that any loss resulting from such proceedings individually or in the aggregate will not be material to Gyrodyne’s financial condition or results of operations.
+Added: After reviewing all actions and proceedings pending against or involving Gyrodyne, management considers that any loss resulting from such proceedings individually or in the aggregate will not be material to Gyrodyne’s financial condition or results of operations.
Mine Safety Disclosures.
1 unchanged sentence
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.