Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule of the Exchange Act.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule of the Exchange Act)    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

of $0.1885 on the OTC Pink Tier of the OTC Markets Group Inc. as of that date.

10-K

10-K

10-K.

10-K

10-K,

10-K

10-K,

10-K,

 

4

10-K.

10-K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) is a holding company with the subsidiaries set forth in the chart below.

 

 

 

7

We are a vertically-integrated, multi-state owner and operator of licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities and a developer, producer and distributor of innovative branded cannabis and cannabidiol (“CBD”) products in the United States. Although we are committed to creating a national retail brand and portfolio of branded cannabis and CBD products recognized in the United States, cannabis currently remains illegal under U.S. federal law.

Through our subsidiaries, we currently own and/or operate 31 dispensaries and 10 cultivation and/or processing facilities in eight U.S. states. In addition, we distribute cannabis and CBD products to over 200 dispensaries and CBD products to over 1,500 retail locations throughout the United States. Pursuant to our existing licenses, interests and contractual arrangements, we have the capacity to own and/or operate up to an additional 14 dispensary licenses and/or dispensary facilities in six states, plus an uncapped number of dispensaries in Florida and up to 25 cultivation, manufacturing and/or processing facilities, and we have the right to manufacture and distribute cannabis products in nine U.S. states, all subject to the necessary regulatory approvals.

adult-use

pre-rolls),

built-out,

adult-use

 

8

Black Label and Melting Point Extracts (MPX)), as well as brands that we manufacture and sell pursuant to our white label and/or licensing agreements.

adult-use

The table below provides a summary of our licensed operations:

 

 

9

 

 

 

10

 

11

 

built-out,

adult-use

 

12

our-wholly

spin-out

non-U.S.

MPX-branded

On February 1, 2018, we acquired Citiva which holds one vertically integrated medical cannabis license in the state of New York for fair market value consideration of $24.8 million (in cash and our common shares). As a result of the acquisition of Citiva, we expanded our cannabis operations to New York and are permitted to operate one medical manufacturing facility, including cultivation and processing capabilities and up to four medical dispensaries in New York.

On January 17, 2018, we acquired substantially all of the assets of GrowHealthy Holdings, LLC (including GrowHealthy Properties, LLC (“GHP”) and McCrory’s) for fair market value consideration of $58.3 million (in cash and our common shares). The transactions included the formation of iAnthus Holdings Florida, LLC and GHHIA, each a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICM, together with the purchase of GHP and an option to acquire 100% of McCrory’s for nominal consideration. On September 19, 2019, the option was exercised and 100% of the membership interest in McCrory’s was transferred to GHHIA. As a result of this asset acquisition, we expanded our cannabis operations to Florida and as a result of the acquisition of McCrory’s, we hold a medical marijuana treatment center license in the state of Florida that permits us to operate one or more cultivation and processing facilities and an unlimited number of dispensaries.

non-profit

for-profit

adult-use

adult-use

adult-use

adult-use

co-located

adult-use

adult-use

adult-use

co-located

adult-use

 

13

With respect to our CBD business, we compete with a growing number of emerging CBD companies including multi-state cannabis operators that also offer CBD products, as well as certain large national and multinational corporations that offer or plan to offer CBD products that are or may be deemed similar to those offered by us.

(“COVID-19”)

As a result of the default, all amounts, including principal and accrued interest, became immediately due and payable to the Lenders. Furthermore, as a result of the default, we also became obligated to pay an exit fee (the “Exit Fee”) of $10.0 million that initially accrued interest at a rate of 13% annually and has since increased to 16% annually in relation to the Secured Convertible Notes, which exit fee, as of December 31, 2021, is $15.4 million. Upon payment of the Exit Fee, the holders of the Secured Convertible Notes issued in May 2018 (“Tranche One Secured Convertible Notes”) are required to transfer the 3,891,051 common shares issued under the $10.0 million equity financing that closed concurrently with the Tranche One Secured Convertible Notes to us. As of December 31, 2021, we have not paid the Exit Fee and such shares have not been transferred to us.

On June 22, 2020, we received a notice demanding repayment under the Amended and Restated Debenture Purchase Agreement dated October 10, 2019 (the “Secured Notes Purchase Agreement”) of the entire principal amount of the Secured Convertible Notes, together with interest, fees, costs and other charges that have accrued or may accrue from Gotham Green Admin 1, LLC, the collateral agent (the “Collateral Agent”) holding security for the benefit of the Secured Convertible Notes. The Collateral Agent concurrently provided us with a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security (the “BIA Notice”) under section 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”). Pursuant to section 244 of the BIA, the Collateral Agent may not enforce the security over the collateral granted by us until ten days after sending the BIA Notice unless we consent to an earlier enforcement of the security.

On July 10, 2020, we entered into a restructuring support agreement (as amended, the “Restructuring Support Agreement”) with the Secured Lenders and a majority of the Unsecured Lenders (the “Consenting Unsecured Lenders”) to effectuate a proposed recapitalization transaction (the “Recapitalization Transaction”) to be implemented by way of a court-approved plan of arrangement (the “Plan of Arrangement”) under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “BCBCA”) following approval by the Secured Lenders, Unsecured Lenders and existing holders of our common shares, warrants and options, or only if necessary, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada). Pursuant to Section 288(1) of the BCBCA, a company may propose an arrangement to its security holders (including shareholders and noteholders). To be effective, the arrangement must first be approved by the security holders of the company and then by the Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to a final arrangement approval order. On September 14, 2020, our securityholders voted in support of the Recapitalization Transaction. Specifically, all of the Secured Lenders and Unsecured Lenders voted in favor of the Plan of Arrangement. In addition, the holders of our common shares, options and warrants, representing 79.0% of the votes cast, voted in favor of the Plan of Arrangement. On October 5, 2020, the Plan of Arrangement was approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, subject to the receipt of the Requisite Approvals (as defined below). On November 3, 2020, Walmer Capital Limited, Island Investments Holdings Limited and Alastair Crawford collectively served and filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court’s approval of the Plan of Arrangement, which appeal was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on January 29, 2021. Because the Company received the necessary approvals of the Plan of Arrangement from the Supreme Court of British Columbia Secured Lenders, Unsecured Lenders and the holders of our common shares, options and warrants, the Recapitalization Transaction will not be completed through Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) proceedings.

Upon the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction, the Secured Lenders, the Unsecured Lenders and our shareholders are to be allocated and issued, approximately, such amounts of Restructured Senior Debt (as defined below), Interim Financing (as set forth below), 8% Senior Unsecured Convertible Debentures and percentage of our pro forma common shares, which will result in the Secured Lenders owning 48.625% of our pro forma common equity, the Unsecured Lenders owning 48.625% of our pro forma common equity and the existing shareholders owning 2.75% of our pro forma common equity, as presented in the following table:

 

 

14

 

Upon consummation of the Recapitalization Transaction, a new board of directors (the “New Board”) will be composed of the following members: (i) three nominees will be designated by Gotham Green Partners, LLC and each of its affiliates and subsidiaries on behalf of the Secured Lenders; (ii) three nominees will be designated by each of the Consenting Unsecured Lenders as follows: one by Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd., one by Senvest Global (KY), LP and Senvest Master Fund, LP, and one by Hadron Healthcare and Consumer Special Opportunities Master Fund; and (iii) one nominee will be designated by the director nominees of the Secured Lenders and Consenting Unsecured Lenders to serve as a member of the New Board, who will also serve as our Chief Executive Officer.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed Recapitalization Transaction, the Collateral Agent, the Secured Lenders and the Consenting Unsecured Lenders agreed to forbear from further exercising any rights or remedies in connection with any events of default that now exist or may in the future arise under any of the purchase agreements with respect of the Secured Convertible Notes and all other agreements delivered in connection therewith, the purchase agreements with respect of the Unsecured Convertible Debentures and all other agreements delivered in connection therewith and any other agreement to which the Collateral Agent, Secured Lenders, or Consenting Unsecured Lenders are a party to (collectively, the “Defaults”) and shall take such steps as are necessary to stop any current or pending enforcement efforts in relation thereto. Upon consummation of the Recapitalization Transaction, the Collateral Agent, Secured Lenders and Consenting Unsecured Lenders are also expected to irrevocably waive all Defaults and take all steps required to withdraw, revoke and/or terminate any enforcement efforts in relation thereto.

Consummation of the Recapitalization Transaction through the Plan of Arrangement is subject to certain conditions, including: approval of our securityholders, which has been obtained; approval of the Plan of Arrangement by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which has been obtained; and the receipt of all necessary state regulatory approvals in which we operate that require approval and approval by the CSE (collectively, the “Requisite Approvals”). Specifically, certain of the transactions contemplated by the Recapitalization Transaction have triggered the requirement for an approval by state-level regulators in the following U.S. states with jurisdiction over the licensed cannabis operations of entities owned, in whole or in part, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by us in such states. Specifically, we need approvals from Florida, Nevada, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

On February 23, 2021, the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board approved the proposed change of ownership and control of our wholly-owned subsidiary, GMNV, contemplated by the Recapitalization Transaction.

On June 17, 2021, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (the “CCC”) approved the proposed change of ownership and control of the current licenses held by our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Mayflower and Cannatech, contemplated by the Recapitalization Transaction (the “June 17 Approval”). On August 12, 2021, Mayflower’s pending application for a Marijuana Establishment retail license for its Allston, Massachusetts retail location (the “Allston Retail License”) was approved by the CCC at its August 2021 public meeting. As a result of this August 12, 2021 approval, Mayflower was required to submit new change of ownership and control application to the CCC in connection with the Recapitalization Transaction with respect to the Allston Retail License (the “New COC Application”). The CCC must approve the COC Application before the June 17 Approval can be effectuated. The New COC Application was submitted by Mayflower on November 10, 2021 and is currently pending before the CCC.

 

15

On August 20, 2021, the Vermont Department of Public Safety (the “DPS”) confirmed that it does not require prior approval of the Recapitalization Transaction, except for background checks of the prospective new directors and our Interim Chief Executive Officer to be appointed upon the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction, which background checks have been completed.

On October 29, 2021, the Florida Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana Use (the “OMMU”) approved the proposed change of beneficial ownership and control of our wholly-owned subsidiary, McCrory’s, contemplated by the Recapitalization Transaction (the “Variance Request”). On November 19, 2021, a petition (the “Petition”) was filed by certain petitioners (the “Petitioners”) with the OMMU challenging the OMMU’s approval of the Variance Request and requesting a formal administrative hearing before an administrative law judge at the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result of the Petition, the OMMU informed us that the OMMU’s prior approval of the Variance Request is not an enforceable agency order until such time that there is a final resolution of the Petition and a final agency order is issued by the OMMU.

State-level regulatory approvals remain outstanding in Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Florida, as a result of the Petition until there is a final resolution of the Petition and a final agency order is issued by the OMMU. On January 7, 2022, the CRC approved our acquisition of 100% of the equity interest in MPX NJ. On February 1, 2022, we closed our acquisition of MPX NJ, which resulted in a requirement for prior regulatory approval for the change of beneficial ownership of MPX NJ that would result from the Recapitalization Transaction, to be required as a condition to closing under the Restructuring Support Agreement.

On August 20, 2021, Gotham Green Partners, LLC and Gotham Green Admin 1, LLC (the “Applicants”) filed a Notice of Application (the “Application”) with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which sought, among other things, a declaration that the outside date (the “Outside Date”) for closing the pending Recapitalization Transaction be extended from August 31, 2021 to the date on which any regulatory approval or consent condition to implementation of the Plan of Arrangement is satisfied or waived. On October 12, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the declaration sought by the Applicants and ordered that the Outside Date in the Restructuring Support Agreement be extended to the date on which any regulatory approval or consent condition to implementation of the Plan of Arrangement is satisfied or waived. On November 10, 2021, we appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is currently pending.

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, INJ, pursuant to a loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with MPX NJ dated October 24, 2019, exercised its right to convert the principal balance of the loans and accrued interest owed thereon into a 99% equity interest in MPX NJ, which conversion was subject to certain regulatory approvals. In addition, pursuant to an option agreement (the “Option Agreement”) dated as of the same date with MPX NJ and its current equityholders, INJ exercised its option to acquire the remaining 1% of MPX NJ for nominal consideration, again subject to certain regulatory approvals. INJ exercised its rights under the Loan Agreement and Option Agreement on February 3, 2021 and February 25, 2021, respectively. On January 7, 2022, the CRC approved INJ’s acquisition of 100% of the equity interests of MPX NJ, and on February 1, 2022, we closed on our acquisition of MPX NJ.

Our portfolio of subsidiaries currently includes a number of local brands; however, we intend to transition to a national model under fewer brands. As cannabis currently remains illegal under U.S. federal law, we cannot register our cannabis brands with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. However, we rely on the intellectual property protections afforded under applicable state laws and common law through the use of our marks in commerce in each of the respective regions in which we operate.

adult-use

adult-use

Under former President Barack Obama, in an effort to provide guidance to U.S. federal law enforcement regarding the inconsistent regulation of cannabis at the U.S. federal and state levels, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released a memorandum on August 29, 2013 titled “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement” from former Deputy Attorney General James Cole (the “Cole Memorandum”). The Cole Memorandum acknowledged that, although cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA,

 

16

the U.S. Attorneys in states that have legalized cannabis should prioritize the use of the U.S. federal government’s limited prosecutorial resources by focusing enforcement actions on the following eight areas of concern (the “Cole Priorities”):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In January 2018, under the administration of former President Donald Trump, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memorandum. While this did not create a change in U.S. federal law, as the Cole Memorandum was policy guidance and not law, the rescission added to the uncertainty of U.S. federal enforcement of the CSA in states where cannabis use is legal and regulated. Former Attorney General Sessions, concurrent with the rescission of the Cole Memorandum, issued a memorandum (“Sessions Memorandum”) which explained that the Cole Memorandum was “unnecessary” due to existing general enforcement guidance adopted in the 1980s, as set forth in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (“USAM”). The USAM enforcement priorities, like those of the Cole Memorandum, are also based on the U.S. federal government’s limited resources and include law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the alleged crimes, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.

While the Sessions Memorandum emphasizes that cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA and states that it is a “dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime,” it does not otherwise provide that the prosecution of cannabis-related offenses is now a DOJ priority. Furthermore, the Sessions Memorandum explicitly indicates that it is a guide for prosecutorial discretion and that discretion is firmly in the hands of U.S. Attorneys who determine whether to prosecute cannabis-related offenses. U.S. Attorneys could individually continue to exercise their discretion in a manner similar to that permitted under the Cole Memorandum. While certain U.S. Attorneys have publicly affirmed their commitment to proceeding in a manner contemplated under the Cole Memorandum, or otherwise affirmed that their views of U.S. federal enforcement priorities have not changed as a result of the rescission of the Cole Memorandum, others have publicly supported the rescission of the Cole Memorandum.

Under former Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice did not take a formal position on the federal enforcement of laws relating to cannabis. However, prior to his resignation on December 23, 2020, former Attorney General William Barr stated that his preference would be to have a uniform federal rule against cannabis, but, absent such a uniform rule, his preference would be to permit the existing federal approach leaving it up to the states to make their own decision. In addition, former Attorney General William Barr indicated that the DOJ was reviewing the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act (“STATES Act”), which would shield individuals and businesses complying with state cannabis laws from federal intervention.

tie-breaking

re-adopt

Other federal legislation provides or seeks to provide protection to individuals and businesses acting in violation of U.S. federal law but in compliance with state cannabis laws. For example, the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment has been included in annual spending bills passed by Congress since 2014. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment restricts the DOJ from using federal funds to interfere with states implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical cannabis.

 

17

U.S. courts have construed these appropriations bills to prevent the U.S. federal government from prosecuting individuals or businesses engaged in cannabis-related activities to the extent they are operating in compliance with state medical cannabis laws. However, because this conduct continues to violate U.S. federal law, U.S. courts have observed that should the U.S. Congress choose to appropriate funds to prosecute individuals or businesses acting in violation of the CSA, such individuals or businesses could be prosecuted for violations of U.S. federal law even to the extent/even if they are operating in compliance with applicable state medical cannabis laws.

If Congress declines to include the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment in future fiscal year appropriations bills or fails to pass necessary budget legislation causing a government shutdown, the U.S. federal government will have the authority to spend federal funds to prosecute individuals and businesses acting contrary to the CSA for violations of U.S. federal law.

adult-use

adult-use

Businesses in the regulated cannabis industry, including our business, are subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States that involve money laundering, financial recordkeeping and proceeds of crime, including the U.S. Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (“Bank Secrecy Act”) and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (the “US PATRIOT Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder and any related or similar rules, regulations, or guidelines, issued, administered, or enforced by governmental authorities in the United States. Further, under U.S. federal law, banks or other financial institutions that provide a cannabis business with a checking account, debit or credit card, small business loan, or any other service could be charged with money laundering, aiding and abetting, or conspiracy.

Despite these laws, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“U.S. Treasury”), issued a memorandum on February 14, 2014 (the “FinCEN Memorandum”), which provides instructions to banks and other financial institutions seeking to provide services to cannabis-related businesses. The FinCEN Memorandum explicitly references the Cole Priorities and indicates that in some circumstances it is permissible for banks and other financial institutions to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking prosecution for violation of U.S. federal money laundering laws. Under these guidelines, financial institutions are subject to a requirement to submit a suspicious activity report in certain circumstances as required by federal money laundering laws. These cannabis related suspicious activity reports are divided into three categories: marijuana limited, marijuana priority and marijuana terminated, based on the financial institution’s belief that the marijuana business follows state law, is operating out of compliance with state law, or where the banking relationship has been terminated, respectively. The FinCEN Memorandum refers to supplementary guidance in the Cole Memorandum relating to the prosecution of money laundering offenses predicated on cannabis-related violations of the CSA.

The rescission of the Cole Memorandum did not affect the status of the FinCEN Memorandum, and to date, the U.S. Treasury has not given any indication that it intends to rescind the FinCEN Memorandum. While the FinCEN Memorandum was originally intended to work in tandem with the Cole Memorandum, the FinCEN Memorandum appears to remain in effect as standalone guidance. Although the FinCEN Memorandum remains intact, indicating that the U.S. Treasury and FinCEN intend to continue abiding by its guidance, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will continue to follow the guidelines set forth under the FinCEN Memorandum.

In March 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act (the “SAFE Banking Act”)

 

18

which creates protections for financial institutions that provide banking services to businesses acting in compliance with applicable state cannabis laws. Most recently, on July 19, 2021, the America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength Act of 2022 (the “America COMPETES Act of 2022”) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The America COMPETES Act of 2022 includes provisions of the SAFE Banking Act and sets out financial regulations for cannabis-related businesses and revises other aspects of the financial system with regard to cannabis-related businesses. On February 4, 2022, a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives passed the America COMPETES Act of 2022; however, it is uncertain whether it will be passed by the U.S. Senate and ultimately signed into law. This marks the sixth time that the U.S. House of Representatives have advanced SAFE Banking to the U.S. Senate.

There can be no assurance that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed or overturned or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. In addition, local and city ordinances may strictly limit and/or restrict the distribution of cannabis in a manner that could make it difficult or impossible to operate cannabis businesses in certain jurisdictions.

delta-9

On October 31, 2019, the USDA issued an interim final rule governing the domestic production of hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill, establishing the U.S. Domestic Hemp Production Program (the “USDA IFR”). The USDA IFR outlines the requirements for the USDA to approve plans submitted by states and tribal governments for the domestic production of hemp. It also establishes a federal plan for hemp producers in states or territories of Native American tribes that do not have USDA-approved hemp production plans. Pursuant to the USDA IFR, the USDA reviews hemp production plans submitted by state and tribal governments that wish to obtain or retain primary regulatory authority over hemp production in their respective jurisdictions. Once the USDA formally receives a plan from a state or tribal government, the agency has 60 days to review and approve or reject the plan.

Although the USDA IFR provides the framework for the USDA, state departments of agriculture and tribal governments to begin the implementation of commercial hemp production programs pursuant to the 2018 Farm Bill, the 2014 Farm Bill was scheduled to remain in effect for one year after the effective date of the USDA IFR. On January 15, 2021, the USDA issued a final rule on hemp production which incorporates modifications established under the USDA IFR published in October 2019. The rule became effective on March 22, 2021 and outlines, among other things, the licensing requirements, recordkeeping requirements, procedures for testing THC concentrations and, procedures for disposing of non-compliant plants.

COVID-19.

Under the 2018 Farm Bill, states and tribal governments have authority to adopt regulatory regimes that are more restrictive than federal mandates or prohibit hemp production altogether. Accordingly, variance in hemp regulation across jurisdictions is likely to persist. Compliance with state hemp law, if any, is required under the 2018 Farm Bill.

As a result of the 2018 Farm Bill, federal law now provides that CBD derived from hemp is not a controlled substance under the CSA; however, CBD derived from hemp could still be considered a controlled substance under applicable state law. States take varying approaches to regulating the production and sale of hemp and hemp-derived CBD. While some states explicitly authorize and regulate

 

19

adult-use

The 2018 Farm Bill preserves the authority and jurisdiction of the FDA under the FFDCA to regulate the manufacture, marketing and sale of food, drugs, dietary supplements and cosmetics, including products that contain hemp extracts and derivatives such as CBD. As a producer and marketer of hemp-derived products, we are required to comply with FDA regulations applicable to the manufacturing and marketing of such products, including with respect to dietary supplements, food and cosmetics. To date, the FDA has not deemed CBD or other cannabinoids permissible for use in dietary supplements, as dietary ingredients, or as safe for use in food. The FDA has consistently taken the position that CBD is prohibited from being marketed as a dietary supplement or added to food because substantial clinical trials studying CBD as a new drug must be made public prior to the marketing of any food or dietary supplements containing CBD.

co-signed

The FDA has stated that it recognizes the potential opportunities and significant interest in drugs and consumer products containing CBD, is committed to evaluating the agency’s regulatory policies related to CBD and has established a high-level internal working group to explore potential pathways for various types of CBD products to be lawfully marketed. The FDA has authority to issue regulation that would allow these naturally-occurring hemp compounds to be added to food or dietary supplements. In May 2019, the FDA held a public hearing to obtain scientific data and information about the safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling and sale of products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, other than Epidiolex (cannabidiol), a cannabis-derived product, and three synthetic cannabis-related drug products (Marinol (dronabinol), Syndros (dronabinol) and Cesamet (nabilone)), the FDA has not approved a marketing application for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition and has not approved any cannabis, cannabis-derived or CBD products. See Risk Factors—Our products are not approved by the FDA or any other federal governmental authority; and There is uncertainty surrounding the regulatory pathway for CBD.

In connection with the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, the House Committee on Appropriations issued an explanatory statement agreeing to appropriate $2.0 million in funding to the FDA for research, policy evaluation, market surveillance and issuance of an enforcement discretion policy for products under the FDA’s jurisdiction that contain CBD. The legislation required the FDA to provide a report within 60 days regarding its progress in obtaining and analyzing data to help determine a policy of enforcement discretion and the process through which CBD will be evaluated for use in products. On March 5, 2020, the FDA issued a report on its progress and committed to expanding its educational efforts regarding CBD products, encouraging, facilitating and initiating more research on CBD, continuing to monitor the CBD marketplace and take appropriate action against unlawful CBD products that pose a risk of harm to the public and developing a risk-based enforcement policy aimed at protecting the public and providing more regulatory clarity regarding the FDA’s CBD enforcement priorities. The FDA was also required to conduct a sampling study of the current CBD marketplace to determine the extent to which products containing CBD are mislabeled or adulterated within 180 days of the enactment of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, the FDA issued its sampling study to the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations and the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations detailing the sampling conducted in recent years on CBD products. While the minority of CBD products previously tested by the FDA contained CBD concentrations consistent with their labeling, the report states that a majority of products tested for potentially harmful elements “did not raise significant public health concerns.” The report further provides that the FDA will undertake a more extensive sampling effort expected to cover a representative sample of currently marketed CBD products, including tinctures, oils, extracts, capsules, powders, gummies, water and other beverages, conventional foods, cosmetics, lubricants, tampons, suppositories, vape cartridges and products sold for consumption by pets. Products will be evaluated for cannabinoid content as well as potentially harmful elements.

delta-9

 

20

concentration of 0.3 percent during processing, which, pursuant to the DEA IFR, renders it a federal Schedule I substance under the CSA even if the hemp plant from which any such material is sourced does not exceed the 0.3 percent threshold.

On September 4, 2020, the Hemp and Hemp-Derived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization Act of 2020 was initially introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 4, 2021. The Hemp and Hemp-Derived CBD Consumer Protection and Market Stabilization Act of 2020 permits the inclusion of hemp and CBD derived from hemp as ingredients in dietary supplements that otherwise comply with the applicable requirements for dietary supplements set forth in the FFDCA and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The bill does not address the inclusion of hemp or CBD derived from hemp as ingredients in food products, and it is unclear whether it will ultimately be passed and signed into law.

On January 8, 2021, the FDA issued a report stating that more real-world data on CBD use and safety, alongside data from other types of studies, is needed to fill in the current gaps in the FDA’s understanding of the safety profile of CBD and many other cannabis-derived compounds, including potential safety risks for people and animals. Until these gaps are filled and the FDA formally adopts regulations authorizing the production and sale of CBD products as food and/or dietary supplements, there is a risk that the FDA could take enforcement action against us. Failure to comply with FDA requirements may result in, among other things, warning letters, injunctions, product withdrawals, recalls, seizures, fines and criminal prosecutions. We continue to closely monitor FDA developments with respect to CBD and our compliance with applicable United States laws relating to hemp, including the FDA’s regulations of CBD and evaluate and implement appropriate compliance measures on an ongoing basis.

On February 8, 2022, the Hemp Advancement Act of 2022 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Hemp Advancement Act of 2022 would raise the permitted THC threshold for hemp and in-process hemp extract, remove the requirement that hemp testing occur at DEA-registered facilities, and allow people with drug-related felony convictions to receive a hemp license.

Violations of U.S. federal laws and regulations could result in significant fines, penalties, administrative sanctions, convictions, or settlements arising from either civil or criminal proceedings brought by either the U.S. federal government or private citizens, including, but not limited to, disgorgement of profits, seizure of property or products, cessation of business activities, or divestiture. Our cannabis business activities and the cannabis business activities of our subsidiaries, while believed to be compliant with applicable U.S. state and local laws, currently are illegal under U.S. federal law.

We do not, directly or indirectly, engage in the cultivation, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or any other cannabis-related activity in Canada. As such, to our knowledge, our Canadian corporate operations are not subject to any cannabis regulations in Canada.

As of March 11, 2022, we had 801 full-time and 195 part-time employees. We are a party to four collective bargaining agreements with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union in New York and Massachusetts. Of our employees, 48 are represented by the four collective bargaining agreements. We believe that we maintain good relations with our employees.

518-9411.

10-K,

10-K,

10-Q,

8-K

 

21

Certain of the transactions contemplated by the Recapitalization Transaction require review and/or approval by regulators in certain U.S. states with jurisdiction over the licensed cannabis operations of entities owned, in whole or in part, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by us. Currently, regulatory approvals remain outstanding in five of the six states where regulatory approval of the Recapitalization Transaction is required and we cannot predict or otherwise provide assurance as to if or when we will receive the outstanding state regulatory approvals needed to close the Recapitalization Transaction. If we fail to obtain any required state-level regulatory approval, our ability to implement the Recapitalization Transaction could be limited.

Our business plan depends in part on our ability to continue merging with or acquiring other businesses in the cannabis industry, including cultivators, processors, manufacturers and dispensaries; however, while the Restructuring Support Agreement remains in effect, we have significant restrictions on our ability to execute any mergers and acquisitions.

Any future mergers or acquisitions, or similar transactions, that we execute once the restrictions on our ability to execute mergers and acquisitions imposed by the Restructuring Support Agreement are lifted, will be subject to conditions, which may include, without limitation, our satisfactory completion of due diligence, negotiation and finalization of formal legal documents, financing and approval from our Board of Directors and requisite regulatory approvals. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will complete any such transactions. If we do not complete such transactions, we may be subject to a number of risks, including, but not limited to:

 

 

 

Furthermore, any future merger or acquisition may result in the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns. In addition, such transactions may be dilutive to our financial results and/or result in impairment charges and write-offs. Such transactions could involve other risks, including the assumption of unidentified or unknown liabilities, disputes or contingencies, for which we, as a successor owner, may be responsible, and/or changes in the industry, location, or regulatory or political environment in which these investments are located, that our due diligence review may not adequately uncover and that may arise after entering into such transactions.

The success of any future acquisition will depend upon, among other things, our ability to integrate acquired personnel, operations, products and technologies into our organization effectively, to retain and motivate key personnel of acquired businesses, to retain their customers and maintain product quality.

We face and expect to continue to face, competition from other companies some of which may have longer operating histories, more financial resources, more experience and greater brand recognition than us. Increased competition by larger and well-financed competitors and/or competitors that have longer operating histories, greater brand recognition and more manufacturing and marketing experience than us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. As we operate in an early stage industry, we expect to face additional competition from new entrants. Specifically, we expect to face additional competition from new market entrants that are granted licenses within a particular state in which we operate or existing license holders which are not yet active in the industry. If a significant number of new licenses are granted, we may experience increased competition for market share and downward price pressure on our products as new entrants increase production, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, if the number of users of cannabis increases, the demand for products will increase and we expect that competition will become more intense, as current and future competitors begin to offer an increasing number of diversified products. To remain

 

22

competitive, we will require a continued high level of investment in research and development together with marketing, sales and other support. We may not have sufficient resources to maintain research and development and sales efforts on a competitive basis, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although we are, and will continue to be a Canadian corporation, we are classified as a U.S. domestic corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under section 7874(b) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “U.S. Tax Code”) and are subject to U.S. federal income tax on our worldwide income. However, for Canadian tax purposes, regardless of any application of section 7874 of the U.S. Tax Code, we are treated as a Canadian resident corporation. As a result, we are subject to taxation in both Canada and the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. It is unlikely that we will pay any dividends on our common shares in the foreseeable future. However, dividends received by shareholders who are residents of Canada for purposes of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the “Canadian Tax Act”) will generally be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax. Any such dividends may not qualify for a reduced rate of withholding tax under the U.S.-Canada income tax treaty (“U.S.-Canada Treaty”). In addition, a foreign tax credit or a deduction in respect of foreign taxes may not be available in respect of such taxes. Dividends received by shareholders resident in the United States will not be subject to U.S. withholding tax but will be subject to Canadian withholding tax under the Canadian Tax Act. In the event we pay any dividends, they will be characterized as U.S. source income for purposes of the foreign tax credit rules under the U.S. Tax Code. Accordingly, shareholders resident in the United States generally will not be able to claim a credit for any Canadian tax withheld unless, depending on the circumstances, such shareholders have an excess foreign tax credit limitation due to other foreign source income that is subject to a low or zero rate of foreign tax. Dividends received by shareholders that are residents of neither Canada nor the United States generally will be subject to U.S. withholding tax and Canadian withholding tax. These dividends may not qualify for a reduced rate of U.S. withholding tax under any income tax treaty otherwise applicable to our shareholders, subject to examination of the relevant treaty. Since we are classified as a U.S. domestic corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under section 7874(b) of the U.S. Tax Code, our common shares will be treated as shares of a U.S. domestic corporation and shareholders will be subject to the relevant provisions of the U.S. Tax Code and/or the U.S. Treaty.

Each shareholder should seek tax advice, based on such shareholder’s particular facts and circumstances, from an independent tax advisor, including, without limitation, in connection with our classification as a U.S. domestic corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under section 7874(b) of the U.S. Tax Code, the application of the U.S. Tax Code, the application of the U.S.-Canada Treaty, the application of U.S. federal estate and gift taxes, the application of U.S. federal tax withholding requirements, the application of U.S. estimated tax payment requirements and the application of U.S. tax return filing requirements.

Section 280E of the U.S. Tax Code prohibits businesses from deducting certain expenses associated with trafficking controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA). The Internal Revenue Service of the United States (“IRS”) has invoked section 280E of the U.S. Tax Code in tax audits against various cannabis businesses in the United States that are permitted under applicable state laws. Although the IRS issued a clarification allowing the deduction of certain expenses, the scope of such items is interpreted very narrowly and the bulk of operating costs and general administrative costs are not permissible deductions. As a result, we will have an effective tax rate in the U.S. significantly higher than the rate typically applicable to U.S. corporations.

Some of our subsidiaries have been unable to pay their United States federal and state income taxes for the 2020 tax year and no estimated United States federal or state income tax payments have been made with respect to the 2021 tax year. Those subsidiaries currently owe approximately $13,994,431 for 2020 and $23,966,256 for 2021 in United States federal income taxes and $593,083 for 2020 and $5,215,651 for 2021 in state income taxes. In addition, the IRS has assessed against those subsidiaries approximately $569,793 in interest and penalties, and state taxing authorities have assessed $899,692 in interest and penalties against those subsidiaries. Interest and penalties will continue to accrue for as long as such taxes, interest and penalties remain unpaid.

When we acquire a business, a substantial portion of the purchase price of the acquisition can be allocated to goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets. The amount of the purchase price that is allocated to goodwill and other identifiable intangible assets is determined by the excess of the purchase price over the net identifiable assets acquired. As of December 31, 2021, we held intangible assets, including cannabis operations licenses, trade names and brand intangibles, net of amortization of $139.1 million.

Under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), the carrying amount of our goodwill is tested at least annually for impairment on December 31 of each fiscal year. On each quarter end date, we assess whether recent events or changes in circumstances constitute a triggering event requiring us to assess whether goodwill, other intangibles or fixed assets may be impaired before the annual testing date. Occurrences that may constitute a change in circumstances include, but are not limited to, a decline in our share price and market capitalization, decreases in expected future cash flows and slower growth rates in our industry. We review our fixed assets and other finite life intangibles for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable. As a result of our annual test, we recognized an impairment loss on goodwill and intangible assets of $7.4 million and $203.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Under GAAP, if we determine that goodwill, other intangibles or fixed assets are impaired, we will be required to write down these assets. Any write-down would have a negative effect on our consolidated financial statements. As a result of the continued decrease in our share price during 2020, our share price declined below net book value per share. As a result, we were required to record a significant

 

23

We rely on operators of our subsidiaries to execute on their business plans, produce cannabis products and otherwise conduct day to day operations. As a result, our cash flows are dependent upon the ability of our subsidiaries to operate successfully. The operators of our subsidiaries have significant influence over the results of operations. Further, our interests and the interests of such operators may not always be aligned. As a result, our cash flows are dependent upon the activities of the operators of our subsidiaries, which creates the risk that at any time those third parties may:

 

 

 

 

In addition, payments may flow through our subsidiaries and there is a risk of delay and additional expense in receiving such payments. Our failure to receive payments in a timely fashion, or at all, may have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we must rely, in part, on the accuracy and timeliness of the information we receive from our subsidiaries and use such information in our analyses, forecasts and assessments relating to our business. If the information provided to us by our subsidiary contains material inaccuracies or omissions, our ability to accurately forecast or achieve such subsidiary’s stated objectives or satisfy our reporting obligations may be materially impaired.

We have invested and may continue to invest in securities of private companies and may hold a minority interest in such companies. In some cases, we may be restricted for a period by contract or applicable securities laws from selling or otherwise transferring those securities. In addition, any securities of private companies in which we invest may not have a liquid market and the inability to sell those securities on a timely basis or at acceptable prices may impair our ability to exit the investments when we consider appropriate. Further, to the extent we hold a minority interest in certain companies, we may be limited in our ability to direct management decisions of such companies.

We have previously experienced negative cash flow from operating activities. Although we believe we will continue to have positive cash flow from operating activities in future periods, we cannot provide assurance that we will achieve sufficient revenues from sales of cannabis, CBD and/or other related products to maintain profitability or positive cash flow from operating activities. Our inability to maintain profitability or positive cash flow from operating activities could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We do not believe that our current cash on hand will be sufficient to fund our projected operating requirements. This raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. In addition, the report of our independent registered public accounting firm on our audited financial statements for each of the two years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 contains an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our audited financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of the uncertainty regarding our ability to continue as a going concern. This going concern opinion could materially limit our ability to raise additional funds through the issuance of equity or debt securities or otherwise. If we cannot continue as a going concern, our investors may lose their entire investment in our securities. Until we can generate significant cash flows, we expect to satisfy our future cash needs through debt or equity financing; however, there can be no assurance that such capital will be available, or if available, that it will be on terms acceptable to us.

 

24

We are a holding company and the majority of our assets are the capital stock of our subsidiaries. As a result, investors are subject to the risks attributable to our subsidiaries. As a holding company, we conduct substantially all of our business through our subsidiaries, which generate substantially all of our revenues. Consequently, our cash flows and ability to complete current or desirable future enhancement opportunities are dependent on the earnings of our subsidiaries and the distribution of those earnings to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions will depend on their operating results and will be subject to, among other things, applicable laws and regulations which require that solvency and capital standards be maintained and contractual restrictions contained in the instruments governing their debt. In the event of a bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization of any of our subsidiaries, holders of indebtedness and trade creditors may be entitled to payment of their claims from the assets of those subsidiaries before we can receive any distributions from our subsidiaries.

In certain states, the cannabis laws and regulations limit not only the number of cannabis licenses issued, but also the number of cannabis licenses that one person or entity may own. Such limitations on the ownership of additional licenses within certain states may limit our ability to expand in such states.

We believe that we have, and will seek to maintain, adequate coverage in respect of risks customarily insured by other companies in our industry, including insurance to protect our assets, operations and employees. While we do not maintain crop insurance and our ability to obtain insurance coverage may be limited because of our industry, we believe our insurance coverage addresses all material risks to which we are exposed and is adequate and customary in our current state of operations. However, such insurance is subject to coverage limits and exclusions and may not be available for the risks and hazards to which we may be exposed. In addition, no assurance can be given that such insurance will be adequate to cover our liabilities or will be generally available in the future or, if available, that premiums will be on terms acceptable to us. If we were to incur substantial liability and such damages were not covered by insurance or were in excess of policy limits, or if we were to incur such liability at a time when we are not able to obtain liability insurance, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our cannabis cultivation operations consume considerable amounts of energy making us vulnerable to rising energy costs. Rising or volatile energy costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our business is dependent on a number of key inputs and their related costs, including raw materials and supplies related to our growing operations, as well as electricity, water and other utilities. Some of these inputs may, in the future, be available only from a single supplier or a limited group of suppliers. In such event, if a sole source supplier were to go out of business, we may be unable to find a replacement for such source in a timely manner, or at all. If such sole source supplier were to be acquired by a competitor, that competitor may elect not to sell to us or our subsidiaries in the future. Any significant interruption or negative change in the availability or economics of the supply chain for key inputs or our inability to secure required supplies and services or to do so on appropriate terms could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend on fast and efficient third-party transportation services to distribute our hemp-based products. Any prolonged disruption of third-party transportation services could have a material adverse effect on our sales volumes or our end users’ satisfaction with our services. Rising costs associated with third-party transportation services used by us to ship our hemp-based products may also adversely impact our profitability and more generally our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The security of products during transportation will be of the utmost concern. A breach of security during transport or delivery could result in the loss of high-value product. A failure to take steps necessary to ensure the safekeeping of cannabis and hemp could also have an impact on our ability to operate under our licenses, to renew or receive amendments to such licenses, or to receive required new licenses.

Notwithstanding the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, local law enforcement officials in Oklahoma and Idaho previously seized shipments of hemp traveling through those states on the grounds that (i) the products qualified as marijuana and were illegal under these states’ controlled substances laws and (ii) the interstate transportation provision of the 2018 Farm Bill had not yet taken effect. Criminal charges were also filed. Despite the intent of the 2018 Farm Bill to allow interstate transportation of hemp products—even through states lacking hemp programs—the novelty of the 2018 Farm Bill hemp provision and conflicts among state laws, has created confusion and caused differing interpretations among local authorities. Accordingly, there remains risk of enforcement even when activity is lawful under

 

25

federal and state law. Notably, on May 28, 2019, the USDA Office of General Counsel issued a legal opinion concluding that, among other things, states may not prohibit the interstate transportation or shipment of hemp, regardless of whether the hemp is produced under the 2014 Farm Bill or the 2018 Farm Bill. This opinion is not binding and certain states have already indicated that they do not intend to follow it.

The growing of cannabis and hemp is an agricultural process. As such, a business with operations in the cannabis and hemp industry is subject to the risks inherent in the agricultural business, including risks of crop failure presented by weather, insects, plant diseases and similar agricultural risks. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that artificial or natural elements, such as insects and plant diseases, will not entirely interrupt production activities or have an adverse effect on the production of cannabis and hemp and, accordingly, acquisition prices which could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

CBD-containing

CBD-containing

CBD-containing

We believe that the sale of our hemp-derived topical cosmetic products are in compliance with applicable regulations because our hemp products contain less than 0.3% THC and are sold only in states in the United States that have not prohibited the sale of hemp products. The rapidly changing regulatory landscape regarding hemp-derived products presents a substantial risk to the success and ongoing viability of the hemp industry in general and our ability to offer and market hemp-derived products. New legislation or regulations may be introduced at either the federal or state level which, if passed, could impose substantial new regulatory requirements on the manufacture, packaging, labeling, advertising and distribution and sale of hemp-derived products. New legislation or regulations may also require the reformulation, elimination or relabeling of certain products to meet new standards and revisions to certain sales and marketing materials, and it is possible that the costs of complying with these new regulatory requirements could be material.

delta-9

delta-9

 

26

or settlements arising from civil proceedings conducted by the United States federal government including, but not limited to, disgorgement of profits, cessation of business activities or divestiture. Any such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The FDA, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and their state-level equivalents, also possess broad authority to enforce the provisions of federal and state law, respectively, applicable to consumer products and safeguards as such relate to foods, dietary supplements and cosmetics, including powers to issue a public warning or notice of violation letter to a Company, publicize information about illegal products, detain products intended for import or export (in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection) or otherwise deemed illegal, request a recall of illegal products from the market, and request the Department of Justice, or the state-level equivalent, to initiate a seizure action, an injunction action, or a criminal prosecution in the U.S. or respective state courts. The initiation of any regulatory action towards industrial hemp or hemp derivatives by the FDA, FTC or any other related federal or state agency, would result in greater legal cost to the Company, may result in substantial financial penalties and enjoinment from certain business-related activities, and if such actions were publicly reported, they may have a materially adverse effect on our business and its results of operations.

web-based

adult-use

Some of our products that are intended to primarily contain U.S. hemp-derived CBD may contain trace amounts of THC. THC is an illegal or controlled substance in many jurisdictions, including under the federal laws of the U.S. Whether or not ingestion of THC (at low levels or otherwise) is permitted in a particular jurisdiction, there may be adverse consequences to consumers of our U.S. hemp products who test positive for any amounts of THC, even trace amounts, because of the presence of unintentional amounts of THC in our hemp products. In addition, certain metabolic processes in the body may negatively affect the results of drug tests. As a result, we may have to recall our products from the market. Positive tests for THC may adversely affect our reputation and our ability to obtain or retain customers. A claim or regulatory action against us based on such positive test results could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results, liquidity, cash flow and operational performance.

We have limited capital resources and operations. Our net losses for the year ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 were $76.2 million and $313.4 million, respectively, and our accumulated deficit as of December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $800.4 million and $724.1 million,

 

27

on-going

Moreover, due to the fact that cannabis is illegal under U.S. federal law, we may have difficulty attracting investors or raising capital on favorable terms, or at all.

We have outstanding debt instruments that are secured by a security interest in all of our assets. If we fail to comply with the covenants set forth in the debt instruments or if we fail to make certain payments under the debt instruments when due, the holders of such debt could declare the debt instruments in default. If we default on any such debt instruments, the holders have the right to seize our assets that secure the debt instruments, which may force us to suspend all operations.

We and certain of our subsidiaries have limited operating histories, which may make evaluating our business and future prospects difficult and may increase the risk of an investment in our business. We may face certain risks and difficulties as an early-stage company with limited operating history, including under-capitalization, cash shortages, limitations with respect to personnel, financial and other resources and lack of revenue. Our ability to manage growth effectively will require us to manage our subsidiaries effectively and continue to implement and improve our operational and financial systems and to expand, train and manage our employees. There is no assurance that we will be able to manage growth effectively. If we do not successfully address these risks, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We believe our success has depended and will continue to depend on the efforts and talents of our executives and employees. Our future success depends on our continuing ability to attract, develop, motivate and retain highly qualified and skilled employees, including employees with sufficient experience in the cannabis industry. Qualified individuals, including individuals with sufficient experience in the cannabis industry, are in high demand, and we may incur significant costs to attract and retain such individuals. In addition, the loss of any of our key employees or senior management could have a material adverse effect on our ability to execute our business plan and strategy, and we may not be able to find adequate replacements on a timely basis, or at all. Our executive officers and other employees are at will employees, which means they may terminate their employment relationship with us at any time, and their knowledge of our business and industry would be extremely difficult to replace. We may not be able to retain the services of any members of our senior management or other key employees. If we do not succeed in attracting well-qualified employees or retaining and motivating existing employees, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain of our employees in New York and Massachusetts have elected to unionize with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. In general, labor unions are working to organize workforces in the cannabis industry in general. It is possible that certain retail and/or manufacturing locations will be organized in the future, which could lead to work stoppages or increased labor costs and adversely affect our business. We cannot predict how stable our relationships with U.S. labor organizations would be or whether we would be able to meet any unions’ requirements without impacting our financial condition. Labor unions may also limit our flexibility in dealing with our workforce. Work stoppages and instability in our union relationships could delay the production and sale of our products, which could strain relationships with customers and cause a loss of revenues which would adversely affect our operations.

 

28

Since cannabis and certain cannabis-related activities are illegal under U.S. federal law and certain state laws, many banks and other financial institutions will not accept the deposit of funds from cannabis-related businesses and will close deposit accounts upon discovery that the account contains such funds. Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related activities can form the basis for prosecution under the U.S. federal anti-money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statute and the Bank Secrecy Act. The Bank Secrecy Act, enforced by FinCEN, requires our banks and financial institutions with which we do business to file currency transaction reports for currency transactions in excess of $10,000, including identification of the customer by name and social security number, to the IRS. This regulation also requires those banks and financial institutions to file suspicious activity reports with respect to certain suspicious activity, including any transaction that exceeds $5,000 that they know, suspect, or have reason to believe involves funds from illegal activity (including funds from cannabis-related businesses) or is designed to evade U.S. federal regulations or reporting requirements and to verify sources of funds. Substantial penalties can be imposed against those banks and financial institutions if they fail to comply with these laws and regulations. In recent years, anti-money laundering enforcement has included the assessment of money penalties that, in some cases, have been very substantial amounts, the acceptance of responsibility and admission regarding the facts by the company involved, actions focused on individual officers, including compliance officers, of the company involved and seizure and forfeiture of company property and its proceeds. If those banks and financial institutions fail to comply with this regulation and other laws and regulations, FinCEN and other regulatory agencies may impose substantial penalties on those banks and financial institutions.

For the reasons noted above, despite the guidance set forth to banks under the FinCEN memorandum, banks remain hesitant to offer banking services to cannabis-related businesses. Consequently, those businesses involved in the cannabis industry continue to encounter difficulty establishing and maintaining banking relationships. Our inability to maintain our current bank accounts would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs and impose additional operational, logistical and security challenges and could result in our inability to implement our business plan, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We face and expect to continue to face competition from illicit cannabis businesses, which are unlicensed and unregulated and other persons engaging in illicit cannabis-related activities. These illicit cannabis businesses and other persons are cultivating and/or selling cannabis while likely not adhering to the same laws, regulations, rules and other restrictions that are applicable to us. Further, these illicit cannabis businesses and other persons may be able to offer products with higher concentrations of active ingredients than we are authorized to produce and sell, and using delivery methods, including edibles, concentrates and extract vaporizers, that we may be prohibited from offering in certain of the states in which we operate. The competition presented by these illicit cannabis businesses and other persons and the inability or unwillingness of law enforcement authorities to enforce existing laws prohibiting the unlicensed or otherwise illegal cultivation and sale of cannabis could result in the perpetuation of the illegal market for cannabis and/or have a material adverse effect on the perception of cannabis use.

In addition, we must follow certain state regulations to set the retail prices of our cannabis, which regulations are not applicable to illicit cannabis businesses and other persons engaging in illicit cannabis related-activities. In determining the retail prices of our cannabis, we must consider a number of factors, including the price of cannabis in the existing illicit market in the event our prices are too high and the risk of our customers reselling our cannabis in the event our prices are too low. If we do not appropriately set retail prices on our cannabis products, we may have difficulty competing with illicit cannabis businesses and other persons, which may have a material adverse effect on our business.

There may be restrictions on sales and marketing activities imposed by government regulatory bodies that can hinder the development of our business and operating results. Restrictions may include regulations that specify what, where and to whom product information and descriptions may appear and/or be advertised. Marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling regulations also vary from state to state, potentially limiting the consistency and scale of consumer branding communication and product education efforts. The regulatory environment in the U.S. limits our ability to compete for market share in a manner similar to other industries. If we are unable to effectively market our products and compete for market share, or if the costs of compliance with government legislation and regulation cannot be absorbed through increased selling prices for our products, our sales and operating results could be adversely affected.

 

29

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance our current and future indebtedness depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. We are in default of our obligations pursuant to the Debentures which, as of December 31, 2021, consists of $97.5 million and $60.0 million in principal amount plus accrued interest thereon of $30.9 million and $9.6 million with respect to the Secured Convertible Notes and Unsecured Convertible Debentures, respectively, as well as a $15.4 million Exit Fee related to the Secured Convertible Notes. Our operations do not generate sufficient cash flow to service our debt, which resulted in the current default of our debt obligations. Although we are unable to generate such cash flow, we are limited in our ability to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital as we are significantly restricted from implementing any alternatives pursuant to the terms of the Restructuring Support Agreement, and the timing of those restrictions being lifted is unknown.

COVID-19

COVID-19,

COVID-19

COVID-19

COVID-19

COVID-19,

COVID-19

COVID-19

COVID-19.

Cannabis is illegal under U.S. federal law and there is limited scientific evidence to verify the medical or therapeutic benefits associated with cannabis; any such evidence remains mostly anecdotal. In addition, there is no clear scientific evidence to suggest whether cannabis consumption can result in long-term health effects or any adverse public health consequences. Further, the cannabis industry has commonly been associated with certain criminal activities, including organized crime. The actual or perceived occurrence of any number of events, including publication of any negative scientific research or the actions and/or wrongdoing of other businesses and individuals in the cannabis industry, may negatively affect the reputation of the industry as a whole, and may cause potential investors to no longer invest in our securities or the cannabis industry in general.

We ultimately do not have control over how the cannabis industry, or our business is perceived by others. Any reputational issues may result in decreased investor confidence, increased challenges in developing and maintaining community relations and present an impediment to our overall ability to advance our business strategy and realize our growth prospects.

Certain states require cannabis dispensaries to submit cannabis pricing for licensing approval in order to ensure that the cost of cannabis in the regulated market is neither too high, which among other things may encourage the purchase of cannabis from illicit cannabis business, or too low, which among other things may increase the risk of legally purchased cannabis being resold illicitly. Additionally, certain states regulate the operations of cultivators to address oversupply of local markets. Our ability to adjust sale prices at our dispensaries or production volumes at our cultivation facilities may be affected by such pricing and supply regulations, which could have a material adverse impact on our ability to adapt to local market conditions.

 

30

Certain states impose significant excise taxes on products sold at licensed cannabis dispensaries, which taxes in some states exceed 15%. Local jurisdictions typically impose additional taxes on cannabis products. Furthermore, we incur significant costs complying with state and local laws and regulations. Collectively, federal, state and local taxes may place a substantial burden on our revenue which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We (directly or through our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in several legal actions and are subject to various risks and contingencies arising in the normal course of business. Furthermore, our participation in the cannabis industry may lead to further litigation, formal or informal complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries. Litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries could consume considerable amounts of our financial and other resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our sales, revenue, profitability and growth prospects. Our subsidiaries are presently engaged in the lawful cultivation, processing and sale of cannabis under state law in the jurisdictions in which they operate, and we, and our subsidiaries, have not been, and are not currently subject to, any material litigation, complaint, or enforcement action regarding cannabis (or otherwise) brought by any governmental authority.

Litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries could result from cannabis-related activities in violation of federal law, including, but not limited to, the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Among other things, RICO authorizes private parties whose properties or businesses are harmed by such patterns of racketeering activity to initiate a civil action against the individuals involved. A number of RICO lawsuits have been brought by neighbors of state licensed cannabis farms who allege they are bothered by noise and odor associated with cannabis production, which has also led to decreased property values. By alleging that the smell of cannabis interferes with the enjoyment of their property and drives down their property value, plaintiffs in these cases have effectively elevated common law nuisance claims into federal RICO lawsuits. These lawsuits have named not only the cannabis operator, but also supply chain partners and vendors that do not directly handle or otherwise “touch” cannabis.

Further, from time to time in the normal course of our business operations, we or any of our subsidiaries may become subject to litigation, complaints, enforcement actions and governmental inquiries that may result in liability material to our financial statements as a whole or may negatively affect our operating results if changes to our business operations are required. The cost to defend such litigation, complaints, actions, or inquiries may be significant and may require a diversion of our resources, including the attention of our management. There also may be adverse publicity associated with such litigation, complaints, actions, or inquiries that could negatively affect customer perception our business, regardless of whether the allegations are valid or whether we are ultimately found liable. Insurance may not be sufficient or available to cover any liabilities with respect to these or other matters. A judgment or other liability in excess of our insurance coverage for any claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We currently have insurance coverage protecting many but not all of our assets and operations. Our insurance coverage is subject to coverage limits and exclusions and may not be available for the risks and hazards to which we are exposed. In addition, no assurance can be given that such insurance will be adequate to cover our liabilities or will be generally available in the future or, if available, that premiums will be commercially justifiable. If we were to incur substantial liability and such damages were not covered by insurance or were in excess of policy limits, we may be exposed to material uninsured liabilities that could impede our liquidity, profitability, or solvency.

non-arm’s

non-arm’s

 

31

non-bankruptcy

Because our contracts involve cannabis and other activities that are not legal under federal law and in some state jurisdictions, we may face difficulties in enforcing our contracts in federal courts and certain state courts. We cannot provide assurance that we will have a remedy for breach of contract, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

As a manufacturer and distributor of products designed to be ingested by humans, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims, regulatory action and litigation if our products are alleged to have caused significant loss or injury. In addition, the manufacture and sale of cannabis and CBD products involves the risk of injury to consumers due to tampering by unauthorized third parties or product contamination, which may affect consumer confidence in our cannabis and/or CBD products. Previously unknown adverse reactions resulting from human consumption of cannabis and CBD products alone or in combination with other medications or substances could occur. We may be subject to various product liability claims, including inadequate warnings concerning possible side effects or interactions with other substances. A product liability claim or regulatory action against us could result in increased costs, adversely affect our reputation with our clients and consumers generally and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

While we maintain product liability insurance, there can be no assurances that we will be able to maintain this or other product liability insurance on acceptable terms or with adequate coverage against potential liabilities. Such insurance is expensive and may not be available in the future on acceptable terms, or at all. The inability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage on reasonable terms or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of our products.

In addition, manufacturers and distributors of products are sometimes subject to the recall or return of their products for a variety of reasons, including product defects, such as contamination, unintended harmful side effects or interactions with other substances, packaging safety and inadequate or inaccurate labeling disclosure. If one or more of our products are recalled due to an alleged product defect or for any other reason, we could be required to incur the unexpected expense of the recall and any legal proceedings that might arise in connection with the recall. We may lose a significant amount of sales and may not be able to replace those sales at an acceptable margin, or at all. In addition, a product recall may require significant attention from our management. Although we have detailed procedures in place for testing finished products, there can be no assurance that any quality, potency, or contamination problems will be detected in time to avoid unforeseen product recalls, regulatory action, or lawsuits.

Additionally, if one or more of our products were subject to recall, the reputation of that product and our reputation could be harmed. A recall for any of the foregoing reasons could lead to decreased demand for our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, product recalls may lead to increased scrutiny of our operations by regulatory agencies in the jurisdictions in which we operate, requiring further attention from our management and potential legal fees and other expenses. Furthermore, any product recall affecting the cannabis or CBD industry more broadly could lead consumers to lose confidence in the safety of the products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The third parties with whom we do business may perceive that they are exposed to reputational risk because of our cannabis-related business activities. Any third-party service provider could suspend or withdraw its services if it perceives that the potential risks exceed the potential benefits of providing such services to us. Specifically, while we have banking relationships and believe that the services can be procured from other institutions, we may, in the future, have difficulty maintaining existing or securing new bank accounts or clearing services. Our failure to establish or maintain business relationships could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

32

We rely on third-party suppliers, manufacturers and contractors to provide certain products and services. Due to the uncertain regulatory landscape for regulating cannabis in the United States, our third-party suppliers, manufacturers and contractors may elect, at any time, to decline or withdraw services necessary for our operations and the operations of our subsidiaries. Loss of these suppliers, manufacturers and contractors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors and consultants may engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities that violates manufacturing standards and government regulations and laws including regulations with respect to healthcare fraud, abuse laws and regulations or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. It is not always possible for us to identify and deter misconduct by our employees and other third parties. The precautions we take to detect and prevent such misconduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending such actions, such actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Some of our lines of business and services rely on services hosted and controlled directly by third-party service providers. We do not have redundancy for all of our systems, many of our critical applications reside in only one of our data centers, and our disaster recovery planning may not account for all eventualities. If our business relationship with a third-party provider of hosting or software services is negatively affected, if one of our service providers were to terminate its agreement with us, or if there was a security or privacy breach related to one of our third-party service providers, we may not be able to access to our data or our data may be compromised which could subject us to reputational harm and cause us to lose customers and future business, thereby reducing our revenue.

Given the nature of our cannabis products and the limited legal channels for distribution as well as the concentration of inventory in our facilities, we are subject to the risk of theft of our products and other security breaches. A security breach at one of our facilities could result in a significant loss of available products, expose us to liability under applicable regulations and to potentially costly litigation, or increase expenses relating to the resolution and future prevention of similar thefts, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

break-ins,

We collect and manage a large amount of data using our hosted solutions. As a result, it is possible that hardware or software failures or errors in our systems (or those of our third-party service providers) could result in data loss or corruption, cause the information that we collect to be incomplete or contain inaccuracies that our customers regard as significant, or cause us to fail to meet committed service levels. Furthermore, our ability to collect and report data may be delayed or interrupted by a number of factors, including access to the Internet, the failure of our network or software systems, or security breaches. In addition, computer viruses or other malware (including ransomware) may harm our systems, causing us to lose data or incur additional costs to retrieve corrupted or encrypted data, and the transmission of computer viruses or other malware could expose us to litigation. We may also find, on occasion, that we cannot deliver data and reports in near real time because of a number of factors, including failures of our network or software. If we supply inaccurate

 

33

information or experience interruptions in our ability to capture, store and supply information in near real time, or at all, our reputation could be harmed, we could lose customers and/or we could be found liable for damages or incur other losses.

111-5)

know-how

It is possible that we may fail to identify Intellectual Property, fail to protect or enforce our Intellectual Property, inadvertently disclose such Intellectual Property or fail to register rights in relation to such Intellectual Property.

In relation to our agreements with parties that have access to our Intellectual Property, any of these parties may breach those agreements, and we may not have adequate remedies for any specific breach. In relation to our security measures, such security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, certain of our Intellectual Property, which has not yet been applied for or registered, may otherwise become known to or be independently developed by competitors or may already be the subject of applications for intellectual property registrations filed by our competitors, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We cannot provide any assurance that our Intellectual Property will not be disclosed in violation of agreements or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our Intellectual Property or independently develop and file applications for intellectual property rights that adversely affect our Intellectual Property rights. Unauthorized parties may attempt to copy, reverse engineer, or otherwise obtain and use our Intellectual Property. Identifying and policing the unauthorized use of our current or future Intellectual Property rights could be difficult, expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable, as may be enforcing these rights against unauthorized use by others. We may be unable to effectively monitor and evaluate the products being distributed by our competitors, including unlicensed dispensaries, and the processes used to produce such products. Additionally, if the steps taken to identify and protect our Intellectual Property rights are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for enforcement of our Intellectual Property rights.

1-19,

 

34

in certain countries. Moreover, in any infringement proceeding, some or all of our Intellectual Property rights or arrangements or agreements seeking to protect the same for our benefit may be found invalid, unenforceable, or anti-competitive. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our Intellectual Property rights at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put existing intellectual property applications at risk of not being issued. Any or all of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, other parties may claim that our products or services infringe on their proprietary rights or other intellectual property rights. Third parties may claim that our use of our trademarks infringes upon their trademark rights. Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which may have an adverse impact on our business. Such claims, whether or not meritorious, may result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources, legal fees, result in injunctions, temporary restraining orders and/or require the payment of damages. In addition, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties who allege that we have infringed on their lawful rights. However, such licenses may not be available on terms acceptable to us, if at all. In addition, we may not be able to obtain licenses on terms that are favorable to us, or at all, or other rights with respect to intellectual property that we do not own.

We will not be able to register any federal trademarks for our cannabis products. Because producing, manufacturing, processing, possessing, distributing, selling and using cannabis is a crime under the CSA, the USPTO will not permit the registration of any trademark that identifies cannabis products. As a result, we likely will be unable to protect our cannabis product trademarks beyond the geographic areas in which we conduct business. The use of our trademarks outside the states in which we operate by one or more other persons could have a material adverse effect on the value of such trademarks.

We may be subject to various potential conflicts of interest because of the fact that some of our directors and officers may be engaged in a range of business activities. In addition, our executive officers and directors may devote time to their outside business interests so long as such activities do not materially or adversely interfere with their duties to us. In some cases, our directors and executive officers may have fiduciary obligations associated with those business interests that interfere with their ability to devote time to our business and affairs and that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These business interests could require significant time and attention of our directors and executive officers.

In addition, we may also become involved in other transactions, which conflict with the interests of our directors and officers who may from time to time deal with persons, firms, institutions, or corporations with which we may be dealing or may be seeking investments similar to those desired by us. The interests of these persons could conflict with our interests, and these persons may be competing with us for available investment opportunities.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of applicable securities rules and regulations of Canadian securities regulators and other requirements in Canada. Complying with these rules and regulations increases our legal and financial compliance costs, makes some activities more difficult, time-consuming and costly, and increases demand on our systems and resources.

In addition, the obligations of being a public company in the United States require significant expenditures and will place significant demands on our management and other personnel, including costs resulting from public company reporting obligations under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations regarding corporate governance practices, including those under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (“Sarbanes-Oxley”), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. These rules require the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting among many other complex rules that are often difficult to implement, monitor and maintain compliance with. Moreover, despite recent reforms made possible by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (“JOBS Act”), the reporting requirements, rules and regulations will make some activities more time-consuming and costly, particularly after we are no longer deemed an “emerging growth company” or “smaller reporting company.” In addition, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to ensure that we comply with all of these requirements and to keep pace with new regulations, otherwise we may fall out of compliance and risk becoming subject to litigation, among other potential problems. Compliance with these rules and regulations could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our Board of Directors.

 

35

We are required pursuant to Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to assess and report on the effectiveness of those controls. This assessment includes disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. Although we prepare our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, our internal accounting controls may not meet all standards applicable to companies with publicly traded securities. If we fail to implement any required improvements to our disclosure controls and procedures, we may be obligated to report control deficiencies, in which case we could become subject to regulatory sanction or investigation. Further, such an outcome could damage investor confidence in the accuracy and reliability of our financial statements.

Our management has concluded that our internal controls over financial reporting were, and continue to be, ineffective, and as of the year ended December 31, 2021 as a result of a material weakness in our internal controls, which could adversely affect our ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data. Such weaknesses include valuation of inventory, sales and expense cutoff for certain subsidiaries, and our provisioning of user access rights, password lengths, certain backup/recovery controls and change management controls. While management is working to remediate the material weakness, there is no assurance that such changes, when economically feasible and sustainable, will remediate the identified material weaknesses or that the controls will prevent or detect future material weaknesses. If we are not able to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, our financial statements, including related disclosures, may be inaccurate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

pre-change

non-capital

Our cannabis-related business and activities and those of our subsidiaries are heavily regulated in all jurisdictions where we operate. Our operations are subject to various laws, regulations and guidelines by governmental authorities, both in the United States and Canada, relating to, among other things, the manufacture, marketing and sale of cannabis, as well as laws and regulations relating to health and safety, insurance coverage, the conduct of operations and the protection of the environment. Laws and regulations, applied generally, grant government agencies and self-regulatory bodies broad administrative discretion over business activities, including the power to limit or restrict business activities as well as impose additional disclosure requirements on such businesses’ products.

Achievement of our business objectives is contingent, in part, upon our compliance with regulatory requirements enacted by these governmental authorities and obtaining all necessary licenses, permits, authorizations, or accreditations for our cultivation, production and dispensary operations. We may not be able to obtain such approvals or may be able to do so only at a significant expense. The commercial cannabis industry is an emerging industry in the United States. The effect of relevant governmental authorities’ administration, application and enforcement of their respective regulatory regimes and delays in or our failure to obtain the necessary licenses, permits, authorizations, or accreditations to conduct our business may significantly delay or impact the development of markets, products and sales initiatives and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

While we endeavor to comply with all relevant laws, regulations and guidelines with respect to our cannabis-related business and, to our knowledge, we are in compliance or are in the process of being assessed for compliance with all such laws, regulations and guidelines, any failure to comply with the regulatory requirements applicable to our operations may lead to possible sanctions including, but are not limited to, the revocation or imposition of additional conditions on licenses to operate our business, the suspension or expulsion from a particular market or jurisdiction or of our key personnel, the imposition of additional or more stringent inspection, testing and reporting requirements and the imposition of fines and censures.

 

36

In addition, changes in regulations, more vigorous enforcement thereof or other unanticipated events could require extensive changes to our operations, increase compliance costs or give rise to material liabilities or a revocation of our licenses and other permits, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, new legislation or regulations may be introduced at either the federal and/or state level which, if passed, could impose substantial new regulatory requirements on the manufacture, packaging, labeling, advertising and distribution and sale of hemp-derived products. New legislation or regulations may also require the reformulation, elimination or relabeling of certain products to meet new standards and revisions to certain sales and marketing materials, and it is possible that the costs of complying with these new regulatory requirements could be material. Furthermore, governmental authorities may change their administration, application, or enforcement procedures at any time, which may adversely affect our costs relating to regulatory compliance.

Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us to regulatory or agency proceedings, investigations, or audits and could lead to damage awards, fines and penalties. We may become involved in a number of government or agency proceedings, investigations and audits. The outcome of any regulatory or agency proceedings, investigations, audits and other contingencies could harm our reputation, require us to take or refrain from taking actions that could harm our operations, or require us to pay substantial amounts of money, harming our financial condition. There can be no assurance that any pending or future regulatory or agency proceedings, investigations and audits will not result in substantial costs or a diversion of management’s attention and resources or have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, if the costs of compliance with government legislation and regulation cannot be absorbed through increased selling prices for our products, our sales and operating results could be adversely affected.

adult-use

 

 

 

 

 

clean-up

non-compliance

 

37

capital expenditures and operating expenses will increase in the future as a result of the implementation of new and increasingly stringent safety, security, health and environmental laws and regulations. Further changes in such laws and regulations, new information on existing safety, security, health and environmental conditions or other events, including legal proceedings based upon such conditions or an inability to obtain necessary permits in relation thereto may require increased compliance expenditures by us.

All of our subsidiaries are located in the United States. Therefore, we are subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States and Canada that involve money laundering, financial recordkeeping and proceeds of crime. Such laws and regulations may include the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by Title III of the US PATRIOT Act in the United States, and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, as amended, in Canada. If any of our investments, or any proceeds thereof, any dividends or distributions therefrom, or any profits or revenues accruing from such investments in the United States are found to be in violation of anti-money laundering laws or otherwise, such transactions may be viewed as proceeds of crime, including under one or more of the statutes discussed above. Any property, real or personal and its proceeds, involved in or traceable to such a crime is subject to seizure by and forfeiture to governmental authorities. Any such seizure, forfeiture or other action by law enforcement with respect our assets could restrict or otherwise jeopardize our ability to declare or pay dividends, effect other distributions or subsequently repatriate such funds back to Canada and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our existing investments in the United States and any future investments in the United States may become the subject of heightened scrutiny by regulators, stock exchanges and other authorities in Canada and the United States. As a result, we may be subject to significant direct and indirect interaction with public officials. There can be no assurance that this heightened scrutiny will not in turn lead to the imposition of certain restrictions on our ability to invest in the United States or any other jurisdiction, in addition to those described herein.

Government policy changes or public opinion may also result in a significant influence over the regulation of the cannabis industry in Canada, the United States, or elsewhere. A negative shift in the public’s perception of the medical or adult use of cannabis could affect future legislation or regulation in Canada, the United States, or elsewhere. Among other things, such a shift could cause such jurisdictions to abandon initiatives or proposals to legalize cannabis or reverse existing legislation that legalized cannabis in some respect. A shift by any such jurisdiction could limit the number of new jurisdictions into which we could expand or reduce the jurisdictions in which we operate, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our expansion strategy, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Currently, the Company is traded on the CSE and on over-the-counter markets in the United States. The business, operations and investments of the Company in the United States, and any future business, operations or investments, may become the subject of heightened scrutiny by regulators, stock exchanges and other authorities in Canada and the United States. As a result, the Company may be subject to significant direct and indirect interaction with public officials. There can be no assurance that this heightened scrutiny will not in turn lead to the imposition of certain restrictions on the Company’s ability to operate or invest in the United States or any other jurisdiction, in addition to those described herein.

In 2017, there were concerns that the Canadian Depository for Securities Limited, through its subsidiary CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (“CDS”), Canada’s central securities depository (clearing and settling trades in the Canadian equity, fixed income and money markets), would refuse to settle trades for cannabis issuers that have investments in the United States. However, CDS has not implemented this policy.

On February 8, 2018, the Canadian Securities Administrators published Staff Notice 51-352 describing the Canadian Securities Administrators’ disclosure expectations for specific risks facing issuers with cannabis-related activities in the U.S. Staff Notice 51-352 confirms that a disclosure-based approach remains appropriate for issuers with U.S. cannabis-related activities. Staff Notice 51-352 includes additional disclosure expectations that apply to all issuers with U.S. cannabis-related activities, including those with direct and indirect involvement in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis, as well as issuers that provide goods and services to third parties involved in the U.S. cannabis industry.

On February 8, 2018, following discussions with the Canadian Securities Administrators and recognized Canadian securities exchanges, the TMX Group, which is the owner and operator of CDS, announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (the “TMX MOU”), with Aequitas NEO Exchange Inc., the CSE, the Toronto Stock Exchange and the TSX Venture Exchange. The TMX MOU outlines the parties’ understanding of Canada’s regulatory framework applicable to the rules, procedures and regulatory oversight of the exchanges and CDS as it relates to issuers with cannabis-related activities in the United States. The TMX MOU confirms, with respect to the clearing of listed securities, that CDS relies on the Canadian securities exchanges to review the conduct of listed issuers. The TMX MOU notes that securities regulation requires that the rules of each of the exchanges must not be contrary to public interest and that the rules of each of the exchanges have been approved by the securities regulators. Pursuant to the TMX MOU, CDS will not ban accepting deposits of or transactions for clearing and settlement of securities of issuers with cannabis-related activities in the United States. Even though the TMX MOU indicated that there are no plans to ban the settlement of securities through CDS, there can be no guarantee that this approach to regulation will continue in the future. If such ban were implemented at a time when our common shares are listed on a Canadian stock exchange, it would have a material adverse effect on the ability of holders of our common shares to make and settle trades. In particular, our common shares would become highly illiquid until an alternative (if available) was implemented, and investors would have no ability to affect a trade of our common shares through the facilities of the applicable Canadian stock exchange.

We have obtained eligibility with the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) for our common shares quotation on the OTC Markets and such eligibility provides another possible avenue to clear our common shares in the event of a CDS ban. Revocation of DTC eligibility or implementation by DTC of a ban on the clearing of securities of issuers with cannabis-related activities in the United States would similarly have a material adverse effect on the ability of holders of our common shares to make and settle trades.

non-U.S.

 

38

impending legalization of cannabis in Canada, the USCBP released a statement outlining its current position with respect to enforcement of U.S. federal laws. The statement specified that Canada’s legalization of cannabis would not change the USCBP’s enforcement of U.S. federal laws regarding controlled substances, and because cannabis continues to be a controlled substance under the CSA, working in or facilitating the proliferation of the cannabis industry in states or Canada where cannabis is legal may affect admissibility to the United States. Although, the USCBP has affirmed that Canadian citizens “working in or facilitating the proliferation of the legal cannabis industry in Canada, coming to the U.S. for reasons unrelated to the cannabis industry will generally be admissible to the U.S.,” if Canadian citizens, or any other travelers, are “found to be coming to the U.S. for reason related to the cannabis industry, they may be deemed inadmissible” and risk being barred from entry into the United States.

Certain of our directors, officers and employees are Canadian citizens and may be subject to denials or bans from entry into the United States by USCBP officers due to their service or employment by us. In the event that any such directors, officers, or employees are hindered or otherwise prevented from entering the U.S., either in one instance or permanently, their ability to provide services to us could be materially hindered, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, our ability to attract qualified candidates may be diminished by the prospect of a denial or ban from entry into the United States, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

There is a risk that a greater number of state regulatory agencies will begin requiring entities engaged in certain aspects of the business or industry of legal marijuana to post a bond or significant fees when applying, for example, for a dispensary license or renewal as a guarantee of payment of sales and franchise taxes. We are not able to quantify at this time the potential scope of such bonds or fees in the states in which it currently operates or may in the future operate. Any bonds or fees of material amounts could have a negative impact on the ultimate success of our business.

There is no assurance that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. If the U.S. federal government begins to enforce U.S. federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing state laws are repealed or curtailed, our business or operations in those states or under those laws would be materially and adversely affected. Federal actions against any individual or entity engaged in the cannabis industry or a substantial repeal of cannabis related legislation could adversely affect our business.

The rulemaking process at the state level that applies to cannabis operators in any state will be ongoing and result in frequent changes. Regulatory compliance and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals can be costly and time-consuming. No assurance can be given that we will receive the requisite licenses, permits or cards to continue operating our businesses. In addition, local laws and ordinances could restrict our business activity. Land use, zoning, local ordinances and similar laws could be adopted or changed and have a material adverse effect on our business.

adult-use

The recent change in Presidential administration will result in a change of leadership including the appointment of a new Attorney General of the United States of America. At this time it is uncertain what policies the new President or Attorney General will take regarding the enforcement of federal cannabis laws. Under the prior administration, federal prosecutors were free to utilize their prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to prosecute cannabis activities despite the existence of state-level laws that may be inconsistent with federal prohibitions, but there were no such prosecutions. Due to the fact the leadership of the Department of Justice is changing and has not therefore introduced policies regarding the enforcement of the federal cannabis laws, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not seek to prosecute cases involving cannabis businesses that are otherwise compliant with state law.

pre-empts

 

39

our cash and other assets used to support or derived from our cannabis subsidiaries; and (ii) the arrest of our employees, directors, officers, managers and investors, who could face charges of ancillary criminal violations of the CSA for aiding and abetting and conspiring to violate the CSA.

If the new Administration and Attorney General do not adopt a policy incorporating some or all of the policies articulated in the Cole Memorandum, then the Department of Justice or an aggressive federal prosecutor could allege that we “aided and abetted” violations of federal law by providing finances and services to our operating subsidiaries. Under these circumstances, it is possible that a federal prosecutor could seek to seize our assets and to recover the “illicit profit.” In these circumstances, our operations may cease, and our shareholders may lose their entire investment and our directors, officers and/or shareholders may be left to defend any criminal charges against them at their own expense and, if convicted, be sent to federal prison.

adult-use

Overall, an investor’s contribution to and involvement in our activities may result in federal civil and/or criminal prosecution, including forfeiture of his, her or its entire investment.

Securities markets have a high level of price and volume volatility, and the market price of securities of many companies has experienced substantial volatility in the past. This volatility may affect the ability of holders of our common shares to sell their securities at an advantageous price. Market price fluctuations in our common shares may be due to our operating results, failing to meet expectations of securities analysts or investors in any period, downward revision in securities analysts’ estimates, adverse changes in general market conditions or economic trends, acquisitions, dispositions, or other material public announcements by us or our competitors, along with a variety of additional factors. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common shares. Financial markets have historically, at times, experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have particularly affected the market prices of equity securities of companies and that have often been unrelated to the operating performance, underlying asset values, or prospects of such companies.

Accordingly, the market price of our common shares may decline even if our operating results, underlying asset values, or prospects have not changed. Additionally, these factors as well as other related factors may cause decreases in asset values that are deemed to be other than temporary, which may result in impairment losses. There can be no assurance that continuing fluctuations in the price and volume of our common shares will not occur. If such increased levels of volatility and market turmoil continue, our operations could be adversely impacted and the trading price of our common shares may be materially adversely affected.

There is no assurance that an investment in our common shares will earn any positive return. An investment in our common shares involves a high degree of risk and should be undertaken only by investors whose financial resources are sufficient to enable them to assume such risks and who have no need for immediate liquidity in their investment. An investment in our common shares is appropriate only for investors who have the capacity to absorb a loss of some or all of their investment.

We have never paid dividends in the past and do not expect to declare or pay dividends on our common shares in the foreseeable future, as we anticipate that we will invest future earnings in the development and growth of our business. Should we declare and pay dividends on our common shares in the future, there may be significant tax implications to holders of our common shares who are recipients of such dividends. For example, as discussed above, we are a Canadian corporation and are classified as a U.S. domestic corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under the Section 7874(b) “inversion” rules of the U.S. Tax Code. As such, dividends received by shareholders who are residents of Canada for purposes of the Canadian Tax Act will generally be subject to a 30% U.S. withholding tax. In addition, any such dividends may not qualify for a reduced rate of withholding tax under the U.S.-Canada Treaty, and Canadian foreign tax credits may not be available under the Canadian Tax Act in respect of such taxes. Further, any dividends received by shareholders resident in the United States will not be subject to U.S. withholding tax but will be subject to Canadian withholding tax under the Canadian Tax Act. In the event that we pay any dividends, such dividends will be characterized as U.S. source income for purposes of the foreign tax credit rules under the U.S. Tax Code. Accordingly, shareholders resident in the United States generally will

 

40

not be able to claim a credit for any Canadian tax withheld unless, depending on the circumstances, such shareholders have an excess foreign tax credit limitation.

Dividends received by shareholders that are neither Canadian nor U.S. shareholders will be subject to U.S. withholding tax and will also be subject to Canadian withholding tax. These dividends may not qualify for a reduced rate of U.S. withholding tax under any income tax treaty otherwise applicable to our shareholders, subject to examination of the relevant treaty. Because our common shares are treated as shares of a U.S. domestic corporation, the U.S. gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax rules generally apply to a non-U.S. shareholder of common shares. Each shareholder should seek tax advice, based on such shareholder’s particular circumstances, from an independent tax advisor.

Our common shares are listed for trading on the CSE and are quoted over-the-counter in the United States on the OTC Pink Tier of the OTC Markets Group, Inc. The over-the-counter markets provide less liquidity than U.S. national securities exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. Accordingly, a market for our common shares may become highly illiquid and holders of our common shares may be unable to sell or otherwise dispose of their common shares at desirable prices or at all.

Outstanding and future issuances of debt securities, which would rank senior to our common shares upon bankruptcy or liquidation, may adversely affect the level of return holders of common shares may be able to receive.

We currently have Secured Convertible Notes and Unsecured Convertible Debentures outstanding. In the future, we may increase our capital resources by offering additional debt securities. Upon bankruptcy or liquidation, holders of our debt securities and lenders would receive distributions of our available assets prior to any distributions being made to holders our common shares. As our decision to issue debt securities or borrow money from lenders will depend in part on market conditions, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of any such future offerings or borrowings. Holders of our common shares must bear the risk that current and future securities including the issuance of debt securities may adversely affect the level of return, if any, that the holders of our common shares may receive.

15g-9

In order to approve a person’s account for transactions in penny stocks, the broker or dealer must: (a) obtain financial information and investment experience objectives of the person and (b) make a reasonable determination that the transactions in penny stocks are suitable for that person and the person has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial matters to be capable of evaluating the risks of transactions in penny stocks.

The broker or dealer must also deliver, prior to any transaction in a penny stock, a disclosure schedule prescribed by the SEC relating to the penny stock market, which, in highlight form: (a) sets forth the basis on which the broker or dealer made the suitability determination; and (b) confirms that the broker or dealer received a signed, written agreement from the investor prior to the transaction. Generally, brokers may be less willing to execute transactions in securities subject to the “penny stock” rules. This may make it more difficult for investors to dispose of our common shares and cause a decline in the market value of our common shares.

Disclosure also has to be made about the risks of investing in penny stocks in both public offerings and in secondary trading and about the commissions payable to both the broker or dealer and the registered representative, current quotations for the securities and the rights and remedies available to an investor in cases of fraud in penny stock transactions. Finally, monthly statements have to be sent disclosing recent price information for the penny stock held in the account and information on the limited market in penny stocks.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In addition, pursuant to Section 107 of the JOBS Act, as an “emerging growth company” we intend to take advantage of the extended transition period provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act for complying with new or revised accounting standards. In other words, an “emerging growth company” can delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

 

41

None.

Our principal executive and administrative offices are located at 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 414, New York, NY 10170. As of December 31, 2021, we lease: 5 facilities in the State of Arizona; 1 facility in the State of California; 1 facility in Canada; 25 facilities in the State of Florida; 4 facilities in the State of Maryland; 5 facilities in the State of Massachusetts; 2 facilities in the State of Nevada; 4 facilities in the State of New Jersey; 5 facilities in the State of New York; and 1 facility in the State of Vermont. In addition, we own: 4 facilities in the State of Arizona; 2 facilities in the State of Colorado; 1 facility in the State of Florida; 2 facilities in the State of Massachusetts; and 1 facility in the State of New York. The following table sets forth information about our properties. We believe that these facilities are generally suitable to meet our needs.

 

From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as set forth herein, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.

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’ actions sought a declaration that iAnthus must deliver certain share certificates to the Roberts Plaintiffs without requiring them to deliver a signed Shareholder Representative Agreement to GrowHealthy Holdings, which delivery was a condition precedent to receiving the iAnthus 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 Agreements. The Roberts Plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaints to seek monetary damages in the aggregate amount of $22 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

 

42

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 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 a claim for damages in the aggregate amount of $22 million plus a claim for 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 in 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. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin May 9, 2022. On August 6, 2020, Craig and Beverly Roberts filed a lawsuit against Randy Maslow in his individual capacity (the “Maslow Complaint”), alleging a single count of purported conversion. The Maslow Complaint was not served on until November 25, 2021, and the allegations in the Maslow Complaint are substantially similar to allegations for purported conversion in the complaints filed against the Company.

On May 29, 2019, Walmer Capital Limited (“Walmer”) and Island Investments Holdings Limited (“Island”) filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against MPX. The claim arose from the debentures (the “MPX Debentures”) issued by MPX Bioceutical Corporation (“MPX Corporation”) in May 2018, the majority of which debentures were redeemed on April 24, 2019 by MPX, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the successor entity to MPX Corporation following the MPX Acquisition. MPX withheld the redemption of approximately $1,250,000 of the original subscription amount of the MPX Debentures as MPX was unable to confirm valid payment of such debentures (the “Disputed Debentures”). The plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleged that the plaintiffs were entitled to the Disputed Debentures and sought immediate conversion of such debentures into the Company’s common shares. In addition, the plaintiffs sought damages including, but not limited to, for breach of the Disputed Debentures and related indenture in the amount of $111,000,000 and breach of a security subordination agreement in the amount of $3,500,000. On July 2, 2019, Walmer, Island, Walmer’s principal, Alastair Crawford (“Crawford”), Broughton Limited (“Broughton”) and Puddles 8 Limited (“Puddles”) filed a petition in British Columbia against the Company and its then directors based on the same facts as alleged in the statement of claim filed by Walmer and Island in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and seeking a declaration that the respondents engaged in oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct and resulting damages. In September 2019, the parties to the Ontario action and the British Columbia petition agreed to consolidate the two proceedings into one action that addresses all issues in the British Columbia petition and agreed to discontinue the separate proceedings. On August 23, 2019, Walmer, Island, Crawford, Broughton and Puddles filed a notice of civil claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against MPX, the Company and its then directors consolidating the allegations made in the previously commenced Ontario action and British Columbia petition and seeking, among other things: (i) a mandatory order compelling MPX and the Company to convert the Disputed Debentures into common shares of the Company; (ii) damages for breach of the Disputed Debentures (and indentures) and breach of fiduciary obligations in the amount of $111,000,000; (iii) damages for breach of a security subordination agreement in the amount of $3,500,000; (iv) damages for breach of a consultancy agreement in the amount of $440,000 plus $150,000 plus certain warrants; and (v) damages for breach of the duty of good faith in the amount of $1,000,000. On October 31, 2019, the Company and MPX served the plaintiffs with a response and counterclaim. On December 3, 2019, the plaintiffs served (i) a notice of application seeking an order to strike the Company’s and MPX’s counterclaim against Timothy Childs, Island’s principal, in his personal capacity, on the basis that it alleges no cause of action against him and (ii) a notice of application for summary judgment. On February 11, 2020, the Company’s directors filed a defense to the plaintiffs’ claim with the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

On February 27, 2020, the Company filed a statement of claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) against Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd. (“Oasis”), an Unsecured Lender. On July 15, 2020, in connection with the proposed Recapitalization Transaction, the Company agreed to discontinue with prejudice its litigation claim which it made on February 27, 2020 against Oasis (regardless of whether the Recapitalization Transaction is consummated). In response to the Company’s statement of claim, Oasis filed a statement of defense and counterclaim against the Company on March 13, 2020, alleging that the Company breached certain debt covenants and an order directing the Company to immediately repay Oasis its $25,000,000 investment plus applicable interest, expenses and fees, among other damages. In connection with the Recapitalization Transaction, Oasis has agreed, while the Restructuring Support Agreement is in effect, not to take any steps in connection with its counterclaim against the Company. In addition, the Company and Oasis have agreed that the counterclaim by Oasis against the Company will be dismissed as a condition of closing of the Recapitalization Transaction.

 

43

Hi-Med

so-ordered

U.S. Matter

Hi-Med

(“Hi-Med”),

Hi-Med

10b-5

Hi-Med

Hi-Med

“Hi-Med

Hi-Med

Hi-Med’s

Hi-Med

Hi-Med

Hi-Med

Hi-Med’s

so-ordered

Hi-Med’s

Hi-Med’s

Hi-Med’s

Hi-Med’s

Canadian Matter

Hi-Med

Hi-Med’s

 

44

On July 23, 2020, Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed a putative class action against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer in the OSCJ. On September 27, 2021, the Court 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, pending resolution of the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of certain documents.

On July 13, 2018, Joe Shane, a former consultant, filed a complaint, as amended on July 8, 2019 and November 20, 2019, in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada against the Company and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, CGX and MPX (collectively, the “iAnthus Defendants”), with respect to alleged consulting fees owed to such consultant pursuant to a Consultancy Services Agreement dated July 8, 2015 (“Consultancy Services Agreement”). The iAnthus Defendants responded to the former consultant’s first and second amended complaints on July 22, 2019 and December 11, 2019, respectively. On February 4, 2021, the former consultant served supplemental disclosure on the iAnthus Defendants which included a computation of damages totaling $167,000,000 for the alleged finder’s fee owed to such consultant by MPX and $5,416,200 for damages pursuant to the Consultancy Services Agreement. On August 23, 2021, the former consultant filed a notice to abandon certain claims initially filed in his complaint. Specifically, the former consultant abandoned his claims for: (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of oral contract; (iii) constructive trust; (iv) intentional interference with a prospective business advantage and contractual relations; (v) conversion; and (vi) specific performance. The former consultant was only pursuing claims for quasi contract/unjust enrichment and quantum merit. On August 26, 2021, the iAnthus Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was denied on October 14, 2021. On December 13, 2021, the former consultant and iAnthus Defendants reached a mutual settlement and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On August 20, 2021, the Applicants filed the Application with the OSCJ, which sought, among other things, a declaration that the Outside Date for closing the pending Recapitalization Transaction be extended from August 31, 2021 to the date on which any regulatory approval or consent condition to implementation of the Plan of Arrangement is satisfied or waived. On August 24, 2021, the Company and Applicants appeared for a case conference before the OSCJ at which the OSCJ issued an endorsement (the “Stay Order”) that required the parties to the Restructuring Support Agreement to maintain the status quo until the hearing on September 23, 2021. Specifically, the Stay Order provided that the parties shall remain bound by the Restructuring Support Agreement and not take any steps to advance or impede the regulatory approval process for the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction or otherwise have any communication with the applicable state-level regulators concerning the Recapitalization Transaction or the other counterparties to the Restructuring Support Agreement. On September 23, 2021, the parties appeared before the OSCJ for a hearing on the Application. Following this hearing, the OSCJ issued an endorsement extending the Stay Order from September 23, 2021 until 48 hours after the release of the OSCJ’s decision on the merits of the Application. On October 12, 2021, the OSCJ issued its decision granting the declaration sought by the Applicants and ordered that the Outside Date in the Restructuring Support Agreement be extended to the date on which any regulatory approval or consent condition to implementation of the Plan of Arrangement is satisfied or waived. On November 10, 2021, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ontario Court of Appeal, which is currently pending.

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 THCWC and 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 $1,000,000 and $10,000,000. 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 (“SC”), 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 SC. The Arbitration Action is stayed, pending resolution of the Declaratory Judgment Complaint.

 

45

Not applicable.

mark-up,

We had 204 shareholders of record as of February 28, 2022. This does not include shares held in the name of a broker, bank or other nominees (typically referred to as being held in “street name”).

We have not declared or paid any cash or stock dividends on our common shares since our inception and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash or stock dividends in the foreseeable future. We are restricted from making distributions or dividend payments to us pursuant to loan agreements.

None.

We are a vertically-integrated, multi-state owner and operator of licensed cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensary facilities, and a developer, producer and distributor of innovative branded cannabis and CBD products in the United States. Although we are committed to creating a national retail brand and portfolio of branded cannabis and CBD products recognized in the United States, cannabis currently remains illegal under U.S. federal law.

Through our subsidiaries, we currently own and/or operate 31 dispensaries and 10 cultivation and/or processing facilities in eight U.S. states. In addition, we distribute cannabis and CBD products to over 200 dispensaries and CBD products to over 1,500 retail locations throughout the United States. Pursuant to our existing licenses, interests and contractual arrangements, and subject to regulatory approval, we have the capacity to own and/or operate up to an additional 14 dispensary licenses and/or dispensary facilities in six states, plus an uncapped number of dispensary licenses in Florida, and up to 25 cultivation, manufacturing and/or processing facilities, and we have the right to manufacture and distribute cannabis products in nine U.S. states, all subject to the necessary regulatory approvals.

adult-use

 

46

pre-rolls),

COVID-19

As a result of the default, all amounts, including principal and accrued interest, became immediately due and payable to the Lenders. Furthermore, as a result of the default, we also became obligated to pay an Exit Fee of $10.0 million that initially accrued interest at a rate of 13% annually and has since increased to 16% annually in relation to the Secured Convertible Notes, which Exit Fee as of December 31, 2021, is $15.4 million. Upon payment of the Exit Fee, the holders of our Tranche One Secured Convertible Notes are required to transfer the 3,891,051 common shares issued under the $10.0 million equity financing that closed concurrently with the Tranche One Secured Convertible Notes to us. As of December 31, 2021, we have not paid the Exit Fee and such shares have not been transferred to us.

On June 22, 2020, we received a notice demanding repayment under Secured Notes Purchase Agreement of the entire principal amount of the Secured Convertible Notes, together with interest, fees, costs and other charges that have accrued or may accrue from the Collateral Agent holding security for the benefit of the Secured Convertible Notes. The Collateral Agent concurrently provided us with the BIA Notice under section 244 of the BIA.

On July 10, 2020, we entered into the Restructuring Support Agreement with the Secured Lenders and the Consenting Unsecured Lenders to effectuate the proposed Recapitalization Transaction to be implemented by way of the Plan of Arrangement under the BCBCA following approval by the Secured Lenders, Unsecured Lenders and existing holders of our common shares, warrants and options (collectively, the “Existing Securityholders”), or only if necessary, the CCAA. Pursuant to Section 288(1) of the BCBCA, a company may propose an arrangement to its security holders (including shareholders and noteholders). To be effective, the arrangement must first be approved by security holders of the company and then by the Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to a final arrangement approval order. On September 14, 2020, our securityholders voted in support of the Recapitalization Transaction. Specifically, all of the Secured Lenders and Unsecured Lenders voted in favor of the Plan of Arrangement. In addition, the holders of our common shares, options and warrants, representing 79.0% of the votes cast, voted in favor of the Plan of Arrangement. On October 5, 2020, the Plan of Arrangement was approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, subject to the receipt of the Requisite Approvals. On November 3, 2020, Walmer Capital Limited, Island Investments Holdings Limited and Alastair Crawford collectively served and filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court’s approval of the Plan of Arrangement, which appeal was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on January 29, 2021. Because we received the necessary approvals of the Plan of Arrangement from the Supreme Court of British Columbia Secured Lenders, Unsecured Lenders and the holders of our common shares, options and warrants, the Recapitalization Transaction will be implemented under the BCBCA and not through Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) proceedings.

Pursuant to the Recapitalization Transaction, the Secured Lenders, the Unsecured Lenders and the Existing Shareholders are to be allocated and issued, approximately, such amounts of Restructured Senior Debt, Interim Financing, 8% Senior Unsecured Debentures and percentage of our pro forma common shares, as presented in the following table: