Note 11 - Contingencies and Guarantees

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

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

The events that allegedly gave rise to the following claims, which occurred prior to the Company’s closing of the MPX Bioceutical Corporation (“MPX”) acquisition (the “MPX Acquisition”) in February 2019, are as follows:

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 Bioceutical ULC (“MPX ULC”). 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 ULC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the successor entity to MPX Corporation following the MPX Acquisition. MPX ULC withheld the redemption of approximately $1.3 million of the original subscription amount of the MPX Debentures as MPX ULC 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 $111.0 million and breach of a security subordination agreement in the amount of $3.5 million. 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 ULC, 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 ULC 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 $111.0 million; (iii) damages for breach of a security subordination agreement in the amount of $3.5 million; (iv) damages for breach of a consultancy agreement in the approximate amount of $0.4 million plus approximately $0.2 million plus certain warrants; and (v) damages for breach of the duty of good faith in the amount of $1.0 million. On October 31, 2019, the Company and MPX ULC 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 ULC’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 August 22, 2023, Walmer, Island, Broughton, Crawford and Puddles filed a Notice of Intention to Proceed with their claim. On June 4, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Notice of Civil Claim (the "Amended Claim"), which, among other things, revised the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Pursuant to the Amended Claim, the plaintiffs are seeking: (i) damages for failure to pay the Disputed Debentures in the amount of $1.8 million plus bonus and interest; (ii) damages for breach of a consultancy agreement in the amount of $0.4 million plus approximately $0.2 million; and (iii) damages for breach of the duty of good faith owed to the plaintiffs in the amount of $1.0 million. The Company and MPX ULC filed its response and counterclaim on July 4, 2025.

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

In October 2018, Craig Roberts and Beverly Roberts (the “Roberts”) and the Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement I, Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement II, and Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement III (the “Roberts Trust” and together with the Roberts, the “Roberts Plaintiffs”) filed two separate but similar declaratory judgment actions in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida against GrowHealthy Holdings, LLC (“GrowHealthy Holdings”) and the Company in connection with the acquisition of substantially all of GrowHealthy Holdings’ assets by the Company in early 2018. The Roberts Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Company must deliver certain share certificates to the Roberts without requiring them to deliver a signed Shareholder Representative Agreement to GrowHealthy Holdings, which delivery was a condition precedent to receiving the Company share certificates and required by the acquisition agreements between GrowHealthy Holdings and the Company. In January 2019, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County denied the Roberts Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, and the Roberts Plaintiffs signed and delivered the Shareholder Representative Agreement forms to GrowHealthy Holdings while reserving their rights to continue challenging the validity and enforceability of the Shareholder Representative Agreement. The Roberts Plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaints to seek monetary damages in the aggregate amount of $22.0 million plus treble damages. On May 21, 2019, the court issued an interlocutory order directing the Company to deliver the share certificates to the Roberts Plaintiffs, which the Company delivered on June 17, 2019, in accordance with the court’s order. On December 19, 2019, the Company appealed the court’s order directing delivery of the share certificates to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, which appeal was denied per curiam. On October 21, 2019, the Roberts Plaintiffs were granted leave by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County to amend their complaints in order to add purported claims for civil theft and punitive damages, and on November 22, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the Roberts Plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On May 1, 2020, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County heard arguments on the motions to dismiss, and on June 11, 2020, the court issued a written order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the order denied the Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue; however, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Roberts Plaintiffs’ claims for specific performance, conversion and civil theft without prejudice. With respect to the claim for conversion and civil theft, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County provided the Roberts Plaintiffs with leave to amend their respective complaints. On July 10, 2020, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed further amended complaints in each action against the Company including claims for conversion, breach of contract and civil theft including damages in the aggregate amount of $22.0 million plus treble damages, and on August 13, 2020, the Company filed a consolidated motion to dismiss such amended complaints. On October 26, 2020, Circuit Court of Palm Beach County heard argument on the consolidated motion to dismiss, denied the motion and entered an order to that effect on October 28, 2020. Answers on both actions were filed on November 20, 2020 and the parties commenced discovery. On September 9, 2021, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the two separate actions, which motion was granted on October 14, 2021. On August 6, 2020, the Roberts filed a lawsuit against Randy Maslow, the Company’s now former Interim Chief Executive Officer, President, and director, in his individual capacity (the “Maslow Complaint”), alleging a single count of purported conversion. The Maslow Complaint was not served on Randy Maslow until November 25, 2021, and the allegations in the Maslow Complaint are substantially similar to those allegations for purported conversion in the complaints filed against the Company. On March 28, 2022, the court consolidated the action filed against Randy Maslow with the Roberts Plaintiffs’ action for discovery and trial purposes. As a result, the court vacated the matter’s initial trial date of May 9, 2022 and the case has not been reset for trial yet. On April 22, 2022, the parties attended a court required mediation, which was unsuccessful. On May 6, 2022, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County granted Randy Maslow’s motion to dismiss the Maslow Complaint. On May 19, 2022, the Roberts filed a second amended complaint against Mr. Maslow (“Amended Maslow Complaint”). On June 3, 2022, Mr. Maslow filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Maslow Complaint, which was denied on September 9, 2022. On April 12, 2023, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County set this matter for a jury trial to occur sometime between June 5, 2023 and August 11, 2023. The court rescheduled the jury trial and no new trial date has been set yet. On April 14, 2023, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed a partial Motion for Summary Judgment on liability for the Roberts Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and the Company filed a competing Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against the Company. On April 21, 2023, Mr. Maslow also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 27, 2024, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed a Notice for Jury Trial with the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, notifying the court that the matter was ready to be set for trial. As of the date hereof, the court still has not set a new trial date. On April 19, 2024, the Roberts Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Speedy Trial due to the ages and health of the Roberts Plaintiffs. On May 14, 2024, the court issued a scheduling order that, among other things, set this matter for a jury trial to occur sometime between October 21, 2024 and December 27, 2024; however, due to competing schedules of the parties, the court elected to specially set the trial. On October 15, 2024, the court issued an order specially setting the trial to begin on January 14, 2025; however, the court has vacated this trial date. On December 13, 2024, the court denied each of the parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment. Further, the parties have been ordered by the court to attend mediation, which occurred on March 7, 2025 and was ultimately unsuccessful. On March 21, 2025, the court issued an order specially setting the trial to begin on April 8, 2025 and on the same day, the Company filed an objection to the order on the basis that that it was not timely issued. Also on March 21, 2025, the court scheduled a case management conference for March 28, 2025 and referred this matter to non-binding arbitration beginning on April 8, 2025. The parties attended non-binding arbitration on April 15, 2025, the results of which are confidential. On March 31, 2025, the court issued an order specially setting the trial to begin on June 17, 2025. On June 15, 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement (the "Roberts Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which, the Company agreed to pay the Roberts Plaintiffs a total sum of $5.5 million, payable as follows: (i) $1,250,000 within five (5) business days of executing the Roberts Settlement Agreement; (ii) $150,000 on January

5, 2026; and (iii) starting January 5, 2026, $4.1 million in equal monthly installments over thirty-six (36) months, bearing simple interest rate of 6% per year. On June 16, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss this matter with prejudice, which was approved by the court on June 17, 2025.

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

On August 19, 2021, Arvin Saloum (“Saloum”), a former consultant of the Company, filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “Arbitration Action”) against The Healing Center Wellness Center, Inc. (“THCWC”) and iAnthus Arizona, LLC (“iA AZ”), claiming a breach of a Consulting and Joint Venture Agreement (the “JV Agreement”) for unpaid consulting fees allegedly owed to Saloum under the JV Agreement. Saloum is claiming damages between $1.0 million and $10.0 million. On September 7, 2021, THCWC and iA AZ filed Objections and Answering Statement to Saloum’s Demand for Arbitration. On November 18, 2021, THCWC and iA AZ filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Declaratory Judgment Complaint”) with the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County (“Arizona Superior Court”), seeking declarations that: (i) the JV Agreement is void, against public policy and terminable at will; (ii) the JV Agreement is unenforceable and not binding; and (iii) the JV Agreement only applies to sales under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. On January 21, 2022, Saloum filed an Answer with Counterclaims in response to the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. The Declaratory Judgment Complaint remains pending before the Arizona Superior Court. The Arbitration Action is stayed, pending resolution of the Declaratory Judgment Complaint. On April 25, 2023, the parties attended a mediation, which was unsuccessful. The parties are currently engaging in discovery. On March 23, 2026, Saloum filed a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking a declaration that the JV Agreement is binding upon THCWC, iA AZ and the Company (collectively, the "iAnthus Parties") because: (i) the iAnthus Parties ratified the JV Agreement by making payments to Saloum; (ii) the iAnthus Parties assumed the obligations under the JV Agreement in connection with the MPX Acquisition; (iii) the MPX Acquisition was a de-facto merger, meaning MPX Corporation's obligations became the iAnthus Parties'; and (iv) the iAnthus Parties are stopped from denying the enforceability of the JV Agreement because Saloum relied upon the iAnthus Parties' performance. The iAnthus Parties’ filed its response on April 22, 2026. The motion remains pending.

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

On April 5, 2023, Canaccord Genuity Corp. ("Canaccord") filed a Statement of Claim against the Company in the OSCJ pursuant to an engagement letter (as amended, the "Engagement Letter") entered into by and between Canaccord and the Company. Specifically, Canaccord alleges that it is owed a cash fee equal to approximately $2.2 million (the "Alleged Fee") pursuant to the Engagement Letter as a result of the closing of the Recapitalization Transaction. The Company filed its Statement of Defense on May 17, 2023 in which, the Company disputes that it owes the Alleged Fee on the basis that the Recapitalization Transaction closed outside of the tail period of the Engagement Letter, which expired on November 4, 2021. The Company also filed a counterclaim against Canaccord, seeking the repayment of $0.3 million payment mistakenly made by the Company towards the Alleged Fee in October 2022. On November 3, 2023, Canaccord filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, requesting that the court grant Canaccord's claim for the Alleged Fee. The hearing on Canaccord's Motion for Summary Judgment was held on June 26, 2025. On August 8, 2025, the parties executed a settlement agreement, pursuant to which, the Company agreed to pay Canaccord a total sum of $2.0 million, payable as follows: (i) $0.3 million by August 20, 2025; and (ii) $1.7 million in 24 equal monthly installments, beginning on September 19, 2025.