Note 14 - Contingencies and Guarantees

The Company is involved in lawsuits, claims, and proceedings, including those identified below, which arise in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with the FASB ASC Topic 450 Contingencies, the Company will make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes it has adequate provisions for any such matters. The Company reviews these provisions in conjunction with any related provisions on assets related to the claims at least quarterly and adjusts these provisions to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other pertinent information related to the case. Should developments in any of these matters outlined below cause a change in the Company’s determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material provision, or, should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows, and financial position in the period or periods in which such a change in determination, settlement or judgment occurs.

The Company expenses legal costs relating to its lawsuits, claims and proceedings as incurred. The Company has been named as a defendant in several legal actions and is subject to various risks and contingencies arising in the normal course of business. Based on consultation with counsel, management and legal counsel is of the opinion that the outcome of these uncertainties will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.

The events that allegedly gave rise to the following claims occurred prior to the Company’s closing of the MPX Acquisition in February 2019 are as follows:

In addition, the Company is currently reviewing the following matters with legal counsel and has not yet determined the range of potential losses:

In October 2018, Craig Roberts and Beverly Roberts (the “Roberts”) and the Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement I, Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement II, and Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement III (the “Roberts Trust” and together with the Roberts, the “Roberts Plaintiffs”) filed two separate but similar declaratory judgment actions in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida against GrowHealthy Holdings, LLC (“GrowHealthy Holdings”) and the Company in connection with the acquisition of substantially all of GrowHealthy Holdings’ assets by the Company in early 2018. The Roberts Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Company must deliver certain share certificates to the Roberts without requiring them to deliver a signed Shareholder Representative Agreement to GrowHealthy Holdings, which delivery was a condition precedent to receiving the Company share certificates and required by the acquisition agreements between GrowHealthy Holdings and the Company. In January 2019, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County denied the Roberts Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, and the Roberts Plaintiffs signed and delivered the Shareholder Representative Agreement forms to GrowHealthy Holdings while reserving their rights to continue challenging the validity and enforceability of the Shareholder Representative Agreement. The Roberts Plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaints to seek monetary damages in the aggregate amount of $22.0 million plus treble damages. On May 21, 2019, the court issued an interlocutory order directing the Company to deliver the share certificates to the Roberts Plaintiffs, which the Company delivered on June 17, 2019, in accordance with the court’s order. On December 19, 2019, the Company appealed the court’s order directing delivery of the share certificates to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, which appeal was denied per curiam. On October 21, 2019, the Roberts Plaintiffs were granted leave by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County to amend their complaints in order to add purported claims for civil theft and punitive damages, and on November 22, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the Roberts Plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On May 1, 2020, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County heard arguments on the motions to dismiss, and on June 11, 2020, the court issued a written order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the order denied the Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue; however, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Roberts Plaintiffs’ claims for specific performance, conversion and civil theft without prejudice. With respect to the claim for conversion and civil theft, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County provided the Roberts Plaintiffs with leave to amend their respective complaints. On July 10, 2020, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed further amended complaints in each action against the Company including claims for conversion, breach of contract and civil theft including damages in the aggregate amount of $22.0 million plus treble damages, and on August 13, 2020, the Company filed a consolidated motion to dismiss such amended complaints. On October 26, 2020, Circuit Court of Palm Beach County heard argument on the consolidated motion to dismiss, denied the motion and entered an order to that effect on October 28, 2020. Answers on both actions were filed on November 20, 2020 and the parties commenced discovery. On September 9, 2021, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the two separate actions, which motion was granted on October 14, 2021. On August 6, 2020, the Roberts filed a lawsuit against Randy Maslow, the Company’s now former Interim Chief Executive Officer, President, and director, in his individual capacity (the “Maslow Complaint”), alleging a single count of purported conversion. The Maslow Complaint was not served on Randy Maslow until November 25, 2021, and the allegations in the Maslow Complaint are substantially similar to those allegations for purported conversion in the complaints filed against the Company. On March 28, 2022, the court consolidated the action filed against Randy Maslow with the Roberts Plaintiffs’ action for discovery and trial purposes. As a result, the court vacated the matter’s initial trial date of May 9, 2022 and the case has not been reset for trial yet. On April 22, 2022, the parties attended a court required mediation, which was unsuccessful. On May 6, 2022, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County granted Randy Maslow’s motion to dismiss the Maslow Complaint. On May 19, 2022, the Roberts filed a second amended complaint against Mr. Maslow (“Amended Maslow Complaint”). On June 3, 2022, Mr. Maslow filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Maslow Complaint, which was denied on September 9, 2022. On April 12, 2023, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County set this matter for a jury trial to occur sometime between June 5, 2023 and August 11, 2023; however, the court rescheduled the jury trial and did not set a new trial date. On April 14, 2023, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed a partial Motion for Summary Judgment on liability for the Roberts Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and the Company filed a competing Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against the Company. On April 21, 2023, Mr. Maslow also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. All of the motions remain pending. On February 27, 2024, the

Roberts Plaintiffs filed a Notice for Jury Trial with the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, notifying the court that the matter was ready to be set for trial. As of the date hereof, the court still has not set a new trial date.

On May 19, 2020, Hi-Med LLC (“Hi-Med”), an equity holder and one of the Unsecured Lenders who held an Unsecured Debenture in the principal amount of $5.0 million prior to the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction, filed a complaint (the “Hi-Med Complaint”) with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and other defendants (the “Hi-Med Lawsuit”). Hi-Med is seeking damages of an unspecified amount and the full principal amount of the Unsecured Debenture against the Company, for among other things, alleged breaches of provisions of the Unsecured Debenture and the related Debenture Purchase Agreement as well as alleged violations of Federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and common law fraud relating to alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of a default thereof. On July 9, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the class action matter with the shareholder class action referenced below. On July 23, 2020, Hi-Med and the defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, Hi-Med filed an amended complaint (the “Hi-Med Amended Complaint”). On October 14, 2020, the SDNY issued a stipulation and scheduling and coordination order, which required that the defendants answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Hi-Med Amended Complaint no later than November 20, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the Company and certain of its current officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss the Hi-Med Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, Hi-Med filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Company and certain of its current officers and directors’ reply were filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company’s and certain of its officers and directors’ Motion to Dismiss the Hi-Med Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that Hi-Med may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On September 30, 2021, Hi-Med filed a motion for leave to amend the Hi-Med Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order Regarding Hi-Med’s Motion for Leave to File a second Amended Complaint (the “Stipulation”). On November 3, 2021, the SDNY so-ordered the Stipulation and Hi-Med’s second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its current named officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss Hi-Med’s second Amended Complaint. Hi-Med’s opposition to the Company’s and its current named officers and directors’ Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company and its current named officers and directors’ reply to Hi-Med’s opposition was filed on March 21, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the SDNY issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss Hi-Med’s second Amended Complaint (the “Opinion”). On October 12, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed scheduling order (the “Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order”), in which certain defendants (“Moving Defendants”) indicated that they may be filing a motion seeking clarification of certain aspects of the court’s Opinion. The parties proposed that the Company’s answer would be due on November 21, 2022 and that the parties would submit a proposed discovery plan by December 12, 2022. The Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order was ordered by the court on October 19, 2022. Defendants’ motions seeking clarification were filed on October 24, 2022 and are currently pending before the court. On December 12, 2023, the parties executed a settlement agreement (the "Hi-Med Settlement Agreement"), which fully settled all claims by and between the parties. The terms of the Hi-Med Settlement Agreement provides for, among other things, the issuance of 20,000 shares of the Company's common stock, no par value per share. In accordance with the terms of the Hi-Med Settlement Agreement, Hi-Med filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the SDNY, dismissing the Hi-Med Amended Complaint with prejudice. Separately, on June 29, 2020, Hi-Med filed a claim in the Court, which mirrors the Hi-Med Complaint, but the Company was never served. It is the Company's position that the release in the Hi-Med Settlement Agreement released the claims underlying the Hi-Med claim filed in the Court. Refer to Note 9 for further discussion on the Unsecured Debentures.

On April 20, 2020, Donald Finch, a shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company (the “Class Action Lawsuit”) and is seeking damages for an unspecified amount against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others with the SDNY for alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt, that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of default on such long-term debt. On May 5, 2020, Peter Cedeno, another shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action against the same defendants alleging substantially similar causes of action. On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were filed by Jose Antonio Silva, Robert and Sherri Newblatt, Robert Dankner, and Melvin Fussell. On July 9, 2020, the SDNY issued an order consolidating the Class Action Lawsuit and the Hi-Med Complaint referenced above and appointed Jose Antonio Silva as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”). On July 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff and defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action lawsuit against the Company (the “Amended Complaint”). On November 20, 2020, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Company and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that the Lead Plaintiff may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a second Amended Complaint was included as part of the Stipulation identified above. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed the Stipulation regarding the Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a second Amended Complaint. On November 3, 2021, the SDNY so-ordered the Stipulation and the Lead Plaintiff’s second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff’s second Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s opposition to the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the Lead Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on March 21, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the SDNY issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff’s second Amended Complaint. On October 12, 2022, the parties filed the Joint Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order, which the SDNY so ordered on October 19, 2022, ordering that that the Defendants’ answers are due on November 21, 2022; that the parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan by December 12, 2022; and that discovery in the Finch and Cedeno actions shall be coordinated with discovery in the Hi-Med action referenced above, to the extent the two actions involved overlapping issues. The parties agreed to submit the matter, together with the Hi-Med action referenced above, to mediation, which took place on January 17, 2023. On January 31, 2023, the parties advised the SDNY that the Defendants and Lead Plaintiff reached a settlement in principle and anticipate filing a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by March 9, 2023. Accordingly, the parties requested that the SDNY suspend all further deadlines and proceedings in the Class Action Lawsuit pending submission of the motion for preliminary approval. On March 7, 2023, the parties advised the SDNY that the parties required a short extension of the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and such motion would be filed by March 21, 2023. On March 21, 2023, the parties executed a settlement agreement and filed the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the SDNY. On December 20, 2023, the SDNY preliminarily approved the settlement, and scheduled the final approval hearing on April 10, 2024.

On July 23, 2020, Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed a putative class action against the Company and the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) in Toronto, Ontario. On September 27, 2021, the OSCJ granted leave for the plaintiff to amend its claim (“Amended Claim”). In the Amended Claim, the plaintiff seeks to certify the proposed class action on behalf of two classes. “Class A” consists of all persons, other than any executive level employee of the Company and their immediate families (“Excluded Persons”), who acquired the Company’s common shares in the secondary market on or after April 12, 2019, and who held some or all of those securities until after the close of trading on April 5, 2020. “Class B” consists of all persons, other than Excluded Persons, who acquired the Company’s common shares prior to April 12, 2019, and who held some or all of those securities until after the close of trading on April 5, 2020. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges statutory and common law misrepresentation, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages together with interest and costs. The plaintiff also alleges common law oppression for releasing certain statements allegedly containing misrepresentations inducing Class B members to hold the Company’s securities beyond April 5, 2020. No certification motion has been scheduled. The Amended Claim also changed the named plaintiff from Blue Sky Realty Corporation to Timothy Kwong. The hearing date for the motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market claim under the Securities Act (Ontario) has been vacated. The parties have reached a settlement in principle, and November 16, 2023, the OSCJ certified the class for settlement purposes only. On February 20, 2024, the OSCJ held the settlement approval hearing and on March 8, 2024, issued its decision rejecting the proposed settlement.

On August 19, 2021, Arvin Saloum (“Saloum”), a former consultant of the Company, filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “Arbitration Action”) against The Healing Center Wellness Center, Inc. (“THCWC”) and iAnthus Arizona, LLC (“iA AZ”), claiming a breach of a Consulting and Joint Venture Agreement (the “JV Agreement”) for unpaid consulting fees allegedly owed to Saloum under the JV Agreement. Saloum is claiming damages between $1.0 million and $10.0 million. On September 7, 2021, THCWC and iA AZ filed Objections and Answering Statement to Saloum’s Demand for Arbitration. On November 18, 2021, THCWC and iA AZ filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Declaratory Judgment Complaint”) with the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County (“Arizona Superior Court”), seeking declarations that: (i) the JV Agreement is void, against public policy and terminable at will; (ii) the JV Agreement is unenforceable and not binding; and (iii) the JV Agreement only applies to sales under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. On January 21, 2022, Saloum filed an Answer with Counterclaims in response to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The Declaratory Judgment Complaint remains pending before the Arizona Superior Court. The Arbitration Action is stayed, pending resolution of the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. On April 25, 2023, the parties attended a mediation, which was unsuccessful. The parties are currently engaging in discovery.

On May 23, 2022, CGX Life Sciences, Inc. (“CGX”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed a demand for arbitration (the “CGX Arbitration”) with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) against LMS Wellness, Benefit LLC (“LMS”) and its 100% owner, William Huber (“Huber” and together with LMS, the “Defendants”) for various breaches under the option agreements entered into between CGX and LMS, on the one hand, and CGX and Huber on the other (collectively, the “Option Agreements”). Specifically, CGX is seeking: (i) an order finding the Defendants in breach of the Option Agreements and directing specific performance by the Defendants of their obligations under the Option Agreements to complete the sale and transfer of LMS to CGX; (ii) an order either tolling or extending the closing date under the Option Agreements; (ii) an order requiring Huber to restore LMS’ bank account of all sums withdrawn for the payment of contracts entered into in breach of the Option Agreements; and (iii) an order prohibiting Huber from withdrawing any further funds from LMS’ bank account. On June 8, 2022, the Defendants filed an Answering Statement, denying the allegations raised by CGX and sent a notice to CGX, purporting to terminate the Option Agreements. In addition, on June 8, 2022, LMS filed a demand for arbitration (the “S8 Arbitration”) with the AAA against S8 Management, LLC (“S8”), alleging that S8 breached the Amended and Restated Management Services Agreement (the “MSA”) entered into between LMS and S8 on March 12, 2018. On June 24, 2022, the Defendants filed Motion to Consolidate the CGX Arbitration and S8 Arbitration. On July 5, 2022, CGX filed an opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and a cross-Motion to Stay the S8 Arbitration to allow the CGX Arbitration to proceed first. On July 26, 2022, the parties attended a preliminary conference with the arbitrator, at which conference the arbitrator preliminarily granted the Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and denied CGX’s cross-Motion to Stay the S8 Arbitration. On October 7, 2022, CGX filed a dispositive motion for specific performance of Defendants’ obligations to complete the sale of LMS to CGX (claims (i) and (ii), above), which Defendants opposed. On October 31, 2022, the arbitrator granted CGX’s dispositive motion and ordered Defendants to complete the sale of LMS to CGX. The remaining claims asserted in the CGX Arbitration (claims (iii) and (iv), above) and the S8 Arbitration remain pending. On November 30, 2022, Defendants filed a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. CGX’s filed its response on January 30, 2023, and subsequently the Defendants filed a Request for Hearing on February 3, 2023. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County had a hearing on the Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on February 21, 2024, and on March 4, 2024, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied Defendants' Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. The S8 Arbitration is currently stayed.

On June 20, 2023, LMS filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and three wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company (the "iAnthus Defendants"), alleging conversion, RICO violations and unjust enrichment and seeking damages in excess of $4.5 million, plus treble damages (the "Federal Complaint"). The allegations in the Federal Complaint appear substantially similar to, and appear to arise from substantially the same operative facts as, those alleged by LMS in the CGX Arbitration, the S8 Arbitration, and in support of the Defendants' Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. The iAnthus Defendants deny LMS’s allegations alleging unlawful conduct. The iAnthus Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (Or Stay the Proceedings) the Federal Complaint on September 11, 2023. On March 12, 2024, the Court granted the iAnthus Defendants' motion and administratively stayed the Federal Complaint pending the outcome of the CGX Arbitration and the S8 Arbitration.

On June 20, 2022, Michael Weisser (“Weisser”) commenced a petition (the “Petition”) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “Court”) against the Company and the Company’s former board of directors. In the Petition, Weisser sought: (i) a declaration that the affairs of Company and its then-board of directors were being conducted or have been conducted in a manner that is oppressive and/or prejudicial to Weisser; (ii) an order that Weisser is entitled to call and hold the Company’s annual general meeting for 2020 ( “2020 AGM”) on or before June 30, 2022 or a date set by the Court as soon as reasonably possible; (iii) alternatively, an order that the Company hold the 2020 AGM on or before June 30, 2022 or a date set by the Court as soon as reasonably possible; (iv) an order that the Company set the record date for the 2020 AGM; (v) an order that Weisser is entitled to appoint a chair for the 2020 AGM, or that the Court appoint an independent chair for the 2020 AGM; and (vi) an order that the Company be required to provide Weisser with an opportunity to review all votes and proxies submitted in respect of the 2020 AGM, no later than 24 hours in advance of the 2020 AGM. On June 22, 2022, Weisser was granted a short leave by the Court which permitted a return date for the Petition of June 28, 2022. On June 24 2022, the Company closed the Recapitalization Transaction and the Company noticed the 2020 AGM, the annual general meeting for 2021 (“2021 AGM”) and the annual general meeting for 2022 (the “2022 AGM” and together with the 2020 AGM and 2021 AGM, the “AGMs”). As a result, Weisser’s Petition was rendered moot. On November 14, 2022, Weisser filed an application (the “Application”) in the Petition proceeding, seeking to add the Secured Lenders and Consenting Unsecured Lenders as respondents to the Petition and to amend the Petition. Specifically, Weisser is seeking to amend the Petition to request: (i) a declaration that the affairs of the Secured Lenders, Consenting Unsecured Lenders, the Company and the powers of its then-directors have been and are continuing to be conducted in a manner that is oppressive and/or prejudicial to Weisser; (ii) an order setting aside and/or unwinding the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction; (iii) an order setting aside the results of the Company’s annual general meeting held August 11, 2022; (iv) an order that the 2020 AGM be held by December 31, 2022; (v) an order that the Company set the record date for the 2020 AGM to hold the meeting by December 31, 2022; (vi) an order that for purposes of voting at the 2020 AGM, the shareholdings of the Company be those shareholdings that existed prior to the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction; (vii) an order that Weisser is entitled to appoint a chair for the 2020 AGM, or that the Court appoint an independent chair for the 2020 AGM; (viii) an order that the Company be required to provide Weisser with an opportunity to review all votes and proxies submitted in respect of the 2020 AGM, no later than 24 hours in advance of the 2020 AGM; and (ix) an order that pending the 2020 AGM, the Company’s current board of directors be replaced by an interim slate of directors to be nominated by Weisser. On May 2, 2023, ICH and its former directors filed their response to the Petition, opposing all orders sought by Weisser, in part, as the Petition is barred by the releases in the Plan of Arrangement and constitutes a collateral attack on Justice Gomery's order approving the Plan. Weisser has not requested a hearing date on the Petition yet.

On October 29, 2021, the Florida Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana Use (the “OMMU”) approved the requested (the “Variance Request”) change of ownership and control of McCrory’s resulting from the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction. On November 19, 2021, Weisser filed a petition (as amended, the “Florida Petition”) with the OMMU, challenging the OMMU’s approval of the Variance Request. On February 3, 2022, the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) issued a Recommended Order of Dismissal, recommending that the OMMU enter a final order dismissing the Florida Petition for lack of standing. On May 4, 2022, the OMMU issued a final agency order (the “Final Order”), which accepted the recommendation of the DOAH and dismissed the Florida Petition for lack of standing. Weisser appealed the Final Order with the District Court of Appeal in the First District of Florida (the "Court of Appeal") and filed his initial brief on November 9, 2022, which seeks a reversal of the Final Order. On February 3, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal, which the Court of Appeal denied on June 16, 2023. On July 6, 2023, McCrory's filed its answer brief in response to Weisser's appeal brief.

On April 5, 2023, Canaccord Genuity Corp. ("Canaccord") filed a Statement of Claim against the Company in the OSCJ pursuant to an engagement letter (as amended, the "Engagement Letter") entered into by and between Canaccord and the Company. Specifically, Canaccord alleges that it is owed a cash fee equal to approximately $2.2 million(the "Alleged Fee") pursuant to the Engagement Letter as a result of the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction. The Company filed its Statement of Defense on May 17, 2023 in which, the Company disputes that it owes the Alleged Fee on the basis that the Recapitalization Transaction closed outside of the tail period of the Engagement Letter, which expired on November 4, 2021. The Company also filed a counterclaim against Canaccord, seeking the repayment of $0.3 million payment mistakenly made by the Company towards the Alleged Fee in October 2022. On November 3, 2023, Canaccord filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, requesting that the court grant Canaccord's claim for the Alleged Fee. The hearing on Canaccord's Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled for June 26, 2025.