Company: PTHS
Filing Date: 2025-08-13
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001753926-25-001326
Chunk: 200

Company: Pelthos Therapeutics Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-13
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 3
Chunk 200
---
 financial reporting, as defined in Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our
internal control over financial reporting. 

45 

PART
II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item
1. Legal Proceedings

From
time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party
to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, would have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless
of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources,
negative publicity and reputation harm, and other factors.

Parexel
Matter

On
July 31, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from an attorney representing Parexel International (IRL) Limited (“Parexel”).
 The letter, which was addressed to both the Company and Chromocell Holdings, purports to be a notice of default of
the Promissory Note between Chromocell Holdings and Parexel and seeks the payment of allegedly unpaid principal
in the amount of $682,551 plus interest exceeding $177,000.  The Company denies that it is liable for any of the amounts
sought by Parexel; the Company is not a party to the Promissory Note and does not believe it is liable for any
amounts allegedly due thereunder. 

Kopfli
Matter

On
February 14, 2024, the Company’s board of directors received a demand letter from an attorney representing Chromocell Holdings
and its former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Strategy Officer, Mr. Christian Kopfli, who was released for “cause.”
Mr. Kopfli alleged an improper termination for “cause” and claimed to seek monetary damages in the amount of $479,169.
Of the $479,169 asserted by Mr. Kopfli, as of September 30, 2024, the Company had accrued $363,091 in compensation expenses associated
with Mr. Kopfli’s prior employment with the Company. However, the Company believed the assertions made by Mr. Kopfli were
without merit and commenced a lawsuit against Mr. Kopfli and Chromocell Holdings in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
County of