Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies

On June 15, 2012, the Company entered into a license and sponsored research agreement with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (“FHCRC”) to build upon previous and ongoing clinical trials with apamistamab (licensed antibody). FHCRC has completed both a Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trial with apamistamab. The Company has been granted exclusive rights to the antibody and related master cell bank developed by FHCRC. A milestone payment of $1 million will be due to FHCRC upon FDA approval of the first drug utilizing the licensed antibody. Upon commercial sale of the drug, royalty payments of 2% of net sales will be due to FHCRC.

As of December 31, 2025, the Company had contractual commitments of approximately $1.5 million related to the construction of its modular removable manufacturing space in its newly leased manufacturing space, with $1.4 million expected to be incurred in 2026.

On March 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 v. 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’ motion

On May 5, 2025, a shareholder complaint captioned Georges v. Seth et al., Case No. 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 action. On May 13, 2025, a second substantially identical derivative complaint captioned Robinson v. Seth et al., Case No. 1:25-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 cases filed a stipulation with the Court to stay those matters pending resolution of the motion that defendants will file in the securities class action. The Court so-ordered that stipulation on July 30, 2025, and re-captioned the case as In re Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Derivative Litigation.

On June 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.

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