EVMN — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of EVMN's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-05-07 vs the prior 10-Q · 2025-12-11
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +12 | −19 | ~15 | 38 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~2 | 1 |
| Legal proceedings | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Risk factors | No material changes reported (points to the 10-K) | — | — | — | — |
| Other information | Text added/removed | +5 | −1 | 0 | 0 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-07
For EVO756, we initiated a Phase 2b dose-ranging trial in CSU in April 2025 and expect to report initial results in June 2026. We also initiated a Phase 2b dose-ranging trial of EVO756 in moderate-to-severe AD patients in August 2025 and expect to report initial results in the third quarter of 2026.…
Under the terms of the Dermira License Agreement, we are obligated to pay up to $45.0 million in development milestones for the development of EVO756 (or up to $135.0 million for the development of all licensed products), and up to $240.0 million in sales milestones for the development of EVO756 (or…
As of March 31, 2026, we have paid a total of $11.0 million in upfront payments and development milestones under the Dermira License Agreement. No development milestones were achieved under the Dermira License Agreement during the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025. Milestones and royalties …
For the three months ended March 31, 2026, we did not recognize any revenue. For the three months ended March 31, 2025, we recognized $3.0 million in revenue through our license agreements. The decrease was due to non-recurring license revenue recognized under the Maruho Japan Agreement in 2025 of $…
General and administrative expenses were $6.6 million and $3.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively. The increase was primarily due to an increase in stock-based compensation expense related to RSU and SAR expense, and other general and administrative expenses inc…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2025-12-11
In consideration for the licenses granted to us under the Dermira License Agreement, we paid to Dermira a $7.5 million upfront license fee. Additionally, in connection with our entry into the Dermira License Agreement, we issued to Dermira 3,227,805 shares of Series A Preferred Stock which was equal…
We are also obligated to pay to Dermira up to $45.0 million in development milestones for the development of EVO756 (or up to $135.0 million for the development of all licensed products), and up to $240.0 million in sales milestones for the development of EVO756 (or up to $720.0 million for the deve…
As of September 30, 2025, we have paid a total of $11.0 million in upfront payments and development milestones under the Dermira License Agreement, which was recognized as research and development expense for the year in which they occurred. No milestones were achieved under the Dermira License Agre…
For the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, we recognized $13.0 million and $7.0 million, respectively, in revenue through our license agreements. The increase was due to higher license revenue recognized under the Maruho Japan Agreement in 2025. License revenue of $3.0 million was recogn…
For the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, we recognized $10.0 million and $0.0 million, respectively, in revenue through our license agreements. The increase was due to higher license revenue recognized under the Maruho Japan Agreement in 2025. License revenue of $10.0 million was reco…
Other information
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-07
During the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2026, our directors and officers (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) under the Exchange Act) adopted or terminated the contracts, instructions or written plans for the purchase or sale of our securities set forth in the table below.
*Contract, instruction or written plan intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c) under the Exchange Act.
**"Non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement" as defined in Item 408(c) of Regulation S-K under the Exchange Act.
Each trading plan is intended to permit transactions in the Company’s securities at times when the individual may otherwise be in possession of material nonpublic information.
Other than as described above, during the three months ended March 31, 2026, no director or officer of the Company adopted or terminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” as each term is defined in item 408(a) of Regulation S-K.
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2025-12-11
During the three months ended September 30, 2025, no director or officer of the Company adopted or terminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” as each term is defined in item 408(a) of Regulation S-K.
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice