RCD — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of RCD'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 · 2026-08-07 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-05-08
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~3 | 58 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~2 | 121 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~3 | 12 |
| Legal proceedings | Text added/removed | +8 | −19 | ~20 | 99 |
| Risk factors | No material changes reported (points to the 10-K) | — | — | — | — |
| Other information | Text added/removed | 0 | −14 | ~1 | 1 |
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.
Legal proceedings
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-07
Broadmark State Court Litigation and the lead plaintiff in the Broadmark Federal Court Litigation (defined below)
jointly moved for class certification and to be appointed co-class representatives in the Broadmark State Court Litigation.
On July 1, 2026, the defendants filed their opposition to the class certification motion. Briefing on the plaintiffs’ class
certification motion is expected to be completed by September 2026.
completed on February 5, 2026. On May 1, 2026, the lead plaintiff in the Broadmark Federal Court Litigation and the
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-08
On June 6, 2024, a purported former stockholder of Broadmark filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Eibling v. Pyatt, et al., No. C-24-CV-24-000818 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City), (the
“Broadmark Merger Action”). The Broadmark Merger Action named as defendants Broadmark’s former board of
directors and alleged they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Broadmark Merger by failing to
properly consider acquisition proposals that were purportedly superior to the Broadmark Merger, by relying on
Other information
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-08
On May 6, 2026, Adam Zausmer and the Company entered into a Separation and Consulting Agreement (the “Zausmer
Agreement”) in connection with the previously announced mutual separation of Mr. Zausmer and the Company on
February 26, 2026 (the “Separation Date”). Under the Zausmer Agreement and in connection with Mr. Zausmer’s past
service to the Company, Mr. Zausmer is entitled to receive a one-time cash payment of $1,250,000, full reimbursement
of COBRA premiums for himself and his eligible dependents for up to 18 months, starting from the Separation Date,
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