AIM ImmunoTech Inc

Our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, which have been designed to permit us to effectively identify and timely disclose important information. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that the controls and procedures were effective as of September 30, 2023, to ensure that material information was accumulated and communicated to our management, including our CEO and CFO, is appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2024, we made no change in our internal controls over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal controls over financial reporting.

Part II – OTHER INFORMATION

Since the filing of the June 30, 2024 Form 10-Q:

AIM ImmunoTech, Inc. v. Tudor, et al., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, Case No. 5:2022cv00323. On April 22, 2024, the District Court issued an order granting-in-part Lautz and Jorgl’s Rule 59(e) and Rule 11 motions, respectively. The court entered an order finding Jorgl and Lautz were entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs and entered judgment on behalf of Jorgl for $216,936, and on behalf of Lautz for $76,473. AIMhas appealed these judgments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and secured a stay of the enforcement of the judgments pending the 11th Circuit Appeal. AIM’s appeal does not seek damages. AIM filed its initial brief on September 4, 2024. The parties attended mediation on November 5, 2024. The parties did not reach an agreement, and mediation impassed. The Appellees’ brief is due on December 5, 2024.

On June 18, 2024, The Carlyle Appellate Law firm was engaged for the above referenced appeal. It is anticipated that a Notice of appearance by Carlyle has been filed in that matter. AIM is exposed in this matter for the amount of those Judgments (which have been bonded by AIM), interest on those judgements, as well as potentially paying attorney’s fees in the event the appeal is unsuccessful.

Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc. et al., in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Case No. 3, 2024. On January 16, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court granted-in-part Kellner’s motion to expedite and scheduled oral argument before the en banc Delaware Supreme Court for April 10, 2024. On April 10, 2024, the en banc Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument from AIM and Kellner in this matter and took the matter under consideration. On July 11, 2024, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision affirming in part and reversing in part the Court of Chancery’s December 28, 2023 opinion, and not remanding the matter to the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court held that certain of the bylaws adopted by the board were legally invalid and inequitable. The board has subsequently revised the bylaws to address and correct said deficiencies. The Delaware Supreme Court also held that no further action was required with respect to Kellner’s rejected nominations because Kellner and his nominees engaged in deceptive conduct during the nomination process, including by submitting false and misleading information in connection with their nominations. Prior to this appeal, the Vice Chancellor noted in her December 28, 2023 post-trial decision, that “‘[t]he context in which the Board received’ the Kellner Notice ‘cannot be ignored.’ The Kellner Notice followed a proxy contest where Jorgl became an AIM stockholder solely to front a nomination and shield undisclosed persons behind the scenes. Those persons included two white collar criminals—one of whom had become increasingly hostile to AIM and had misrepresented himself as an AIM representative to third parties. It would have been obvious to the Board that the new nomination behind Kellner carried over from the prior year. Chioini was a constant, Deutsch remained involved (now as a nominee), and Baker Hostetler continued to advise the effort. The threat to return ‘guns blazing’ in 2023 came to fruition.”

On July 26, 2024, Kellner filed a Motion for Reargument, requesting the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware to reconsider certain aspects of its ruling and requesting clarification that the trial court retains jurisdiction for any fee applications. By order dated July 29, 2024, the Supreme Court denied Kellner’s Motion for Reargument, directed that the case be closed, and specifically ruled that “The case is not remanded for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs” and deemed that the “this Case is Closed.”

On August 27, 2024, counsel to Kellner delivered to us a demand for certain books and records under Section 220 of the DGCL, and a letter requesting that we reimburse him for his fees and expenses incurred in the Kellner litigation. In the request for fee reimbursement letter, Kellner stated that he was prepared to file an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to require AIM to pay his fees and expenses if the matter could not be resolved without court intervention. By letter dated, November 8, 2024, AIM, through its counsel, denied the request, noting, among other things, that the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order on July 29, 2024, denying Kellner’s Motion for Reargument of the appeal in the Kellner litigation, directing that the case be closed, and specifically ruling that “[t]he case is not remanded for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.”

BioLife

On September 6, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation with the Court dismissing the counterclaims, without prejudice, in order to allow the Superior Court (appellate) to consider the Appeal issues without the need for duplicate trials. The Stipulation was accepted by the Court on October 17, 2024 dismissing the counterclaims. On October 7 we perfected our Appeal in the Superior Court. On November 7, 2024, we served our Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. The Superior Court has not yet issued a briefing or argument schedule on the matters to be considered on appeal. No estimate can be made at this time regarding the scheduling or ultimate determination of the matters set forth in the Petition and the underlying issues presented in the appeal. No judgement can be made at this time of the likelihood of the Company prevailing on its claims.