{"url_path":"/sec/atnm/10-q/2026/item-1","section_key":"item-1","section_title":"Item 1 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS**","topic":"sec","document":{"doc_type":"10-Q","doc_date":"2026-05-08","source_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388320/0001213900-26-053980-index.html","accession_number":"0001213900-26-053980","cik":"0001388320","ticker":"ATNM","issuer_name":"Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.","edgar_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388320/0001213900-26-053980-index.html","primary_entity_key":"0001388320","primary_entity_name":"Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc."},"word_count":479,"has_tables":true,"body_markdown":"** **\n\n**ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS**\n\n \n\nFrom\ntime to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Litigation\nis subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business.\n\n \n\nOn\nMarch 27, 2025, a putative class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) was filed by alleged stockholder Nitin Kohil\nagainst the Company and executives Sandesh Seth, Avinash Desai, Madhuri Vusirikala, and Sergio Giralt (the “Defendants”),\nstyled *Kohil v. Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al*., Case No. 1:25-cv-02553 in the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York, (the “Court”). The Securities Complaint alleges that the Defendants made material misrepresentations\nand omissions concerning the Iomab-B Phase 3 SIERRA Trial during a proposed class period of October 31, 2022 to August 2, 2024\nand asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages. On June 24, 2025, the court\nin the securities action appointed lead plaintiffs (the “Lead Plaintiffs”) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform\nAct of 1995 and re-captioned the case as *In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation*. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended\ncomplaint on August 25, 2025. On October 27, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint; on December 19, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs\nfiled their opposition; and on February 2, 2026, Defendants filed their reply in support. The parties are currently awaiting the Court’s\ndecision on Defendants’ motion.\n\n \n\nOn\nMay 5, 2025, a shareholder complaint captioned *Georges v. Seth et al.*, Case No. 1:25-cv-03738-JPO was filed against certain of\nthe Company’s directors and officers, alleging derivative liability based on the same factual allegations made in the securities\nclass action. On May 13, 2025, a second substantially identical derivative complaint captioned *Robinson v. Seth et al*., Case No.\n1:25-cv-04012-JPO was filed. On June 24, 2025, the Court consolidated the derivative cases and, on July 29, 2025, the parties to the derivative\ncases filed a stipulation with the Court to stay those matters pending resolution of the motion that defendants will file in the securities\nclass action. The Court so-ordered that stipulation on July 30, 2025, and re-captioned the case as *In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals,\nInc. Derivative Litigation.*\n\n \n\nOn June 17, 2025, a purported shareholder served Actinium with a demand\nfor books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In general, the demand seeks documents relating\nto the facts at issue in the above-described securities class action and derivative cases. The Company rejected the shareholder demand\nby letter dated July 8, 2025. The parties continue to discuss the demand. The shareholder has not followed up on his demand since October\n2025.\n\n \n\nThe\nCompany and other Defendants intend to defend vigorously against such claims, however, there can be no assurances as to the outcome."}