{"url_path":"/sec/icucw/10-q/2026/item-1","section_key":"item-1","section_title":"Item 1 Legal Proceedings.**","topic":"sec","document":{"doc_type":"10-Q","doc_date":"2026-05-13","source_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1831868/0001437749-26-016764-index.html","accession_number":"0001437749-26-016764","cik":"0001831868","ticker":"ICU","issuer_name":"SeaStar Medical Holding Corp","edgar_url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1831868/0001437749-26-016764-index.html","primary_entity_key":"0001831868","primary_entity_name":"SeaStar Medical Holding Corp"},"word_count":541,"has_tables":true,"body_markdown":"**Item 1. Legal Proceedings.**\n\n \n\n***Litigation***\n\n \n\nOn July 5, 2024, Forrest A K Wells, a purported stockholder of ours, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Wells v. SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-0187 (the “Class Action”). The Class Action alleges that the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer made or caused to be made material misstatements or omissions regarding: (a) the projected timing for obtaining FDA approval of our SCD; and (b) our recognition of certain financial instruments, allegedly culminating in our restatement of our consolidated financial statements, disclosed in a Form 8-K and filed on March 27, 2024. The Class Action asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a). The Class Action seeks to recover, among other remedies, compensatory damages. On March 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was referred to United States District Court Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara. On February 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge O’Hara issued a written report and recommendation to United States District Judge Regina M. Rodriguez that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend (“R&R”). On March 30, 2026, Judge Rodriguez adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On April 21, 2026 the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. On April 27, 2026 the Court ordered that the case is dismissed with prejudice.\n\n \n\nOn December 13, 2024, Jose Lazo, a purported stockholder of ours, filed a putative stockholder derivative action complaint captioned Lazo v. Schlorff et. al., C.A. No. 1:24-cv-3444 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Derivative Action”). The factual allegations of the Derivative Action are substantially similar to the Class Action. On January 30, 2025, upon joint motion of the parties, the Court stayed the Derivative Action pending the Court’s resolution of the then-anticipated motion to dismiss to be filed in the Class Action.\n\n \n\nThe Derivative Action alleges, among other things, that the Company's Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, and certain of the Company's current and former directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breached fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by making or allowing to be made purportedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's prospects for success in obtaining FDA approval for its SCD. The Derivative Action further alleges that there were purported deficiencies in the Company's internal financial controls and procedures and improper accounting for classification of certain financial instruments leading to the restatement of its previously issued financial statements. The Derivative Action also asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer. Among other remedies, the Derivative Action seeks to recover damages and restitution on behalf of the Company and certain injunctive relief concerning the Company's corporate governance and internal controls. Additional stockholders may file substantially similar complaints in the future. The Company will not make separate disclosure of such complaints unless they are materially different than the Derivative Action."}