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 iAnthus 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 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 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 have commenced discovery. On September 9, 2021, the Roberts Plaintiff 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 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.

$

 

ril 19, 2020, LLC an equity holder and one of the Unsecured Debentureholders of the Company in the principal amount of $5.0 

million, filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and other defendants (the Complaint”). is seeking damages an unspecified amount and the full principal amount of the Unsecured Convertible Debenture against the Company, for among other things, alleged breaches of provisions of the Unsecured Debentures and the related Debenture Purchase Agreement as well as alleged violations of Federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and common law fraud relating to alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of a default thereof. On July 9, 2020, the court issued an order consolidating the class action matter with the shareholder class action referenced below. On July 23, 2020, and the defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, filed an amended

complaint (the Amended Complaint”). On October 14, 2020, the SDNY issued a stipulation and scheduling and coordination order, which required that the defendants answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint no later than November 20, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the Company and certain of its current officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Company and certain of its current officers and directors’ reply were filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company’s and certain of its officers and directors’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On September 30, 2021, filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order Regarding Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (the “Stipulation”). On November 3, 2021, the SDNY the Stipulation and Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its current named officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. opposition to the Company’s and its current named officers and directors’ Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company and its current named officers and directors’ reply to opposition is due March 21, 2022. On June 29, 2020, filed a claim in the Court, which mirrors the Complaint. Refer to Note 8 for further discussion on the Unsecured Debentures.

On April 20, 2020, Donald Finch, a shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit with the SDNY against the Company (the “Class Action Lawsuit”) and is seeking damages for an unspecified amount against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others for alleged false and misleading statements regarding certain proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt, that were held in escrow to make interest payments in the event of default on such long-term debt. On May 5, 2020, Peter Cedeno, another shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action against the same defendants alleging substantially similar causes of action. On June 16, 2020, four separate motions for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel were filed by Jose Antonio Silva, Robert and Sherri Newblatt, Robert Dankner, and Melvin Fussell. On July 9, 2020, the SDNY issued an order consolidating the Class Action Lawsuit and the Complaint referenced above and appointed Jose Antonio Silva as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”). On July 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff and defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action lawsuit against the Company (the “Amended Complaint”). On November 20, 2020, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Company and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that the Lead Plaintiff may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint was included as part of the Stipulation identified above. On November 3, 2021, the SDNY the Stipulation and the Lead Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s opposition to the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the Lead Plaintiff’s opposition is due March 21, 2022.

On July 13, 2020, the Company announced the proposed Recapitalization Transaction. On September 14, 2020, at the meetings of Secured Lenders, Unsecured Debentureholders and the holders of the Company’s common shares, options and warrants (collectively, the “Securityholders”), the Securityholders voted in support of the Recapitalization Transaction. On October 5, 2020, the Company received final approval from the Court for the Plan of Arrangement. Completion of the Recapitalization Transaction is subject to the Company obtaining the Requisite Approvals. As such, no amounts have been accrued with respect to the Recapitalization Transaction. On January 29, 2021, the notice of appeal with respect to the final approval for the Plan of Arrangement received by the Company on November 5, 2020 was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On June 15, 2021, the Company and the Lenders agreed to amend the date by which the Recapitalization Transaction pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement is required to be implemented by from June 30, 2021 to August 31, 2021. On August 20, , the Applicants filed the Application with the OSCJ, which sought, among other things, a declaration that the Outside Date be extended to the

24, 2021, the Company and Applicants appeared for a case conference before the OSCJ. At this conference, the OSCJ issued a 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 that extended 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 the Decision. Specifically, the OSCJ 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, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ontario Court of Appeal, which remains pending.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company filed a statement of claim against Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd. (“Oasis”), an Unsecured Debentureholder, in the OSCJ. 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.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company received demand letters (the “Employee Demand Letters”) from two former employees, claiming combined damages of $1.2 million. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company reached a full and final settlement of less than $0.1 million with one of the employees claiming a total of $0.5 million. On July 15, 2021, the Company reached a full and final settlement of less than $0.3 million with the other employee claiming a total of $0.7 

On January 13, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against iAnthus Empire Holdings (“IEH”) in the SDNY, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act relating to IEH’s alleged text message marketing. On February 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice, dismissing all claims of the named, individual plaintiff and the unnamed members of the alleged class.

On April 13, 2021, Sean Zaboroski (“Zaboroski”), a shareholder of the Company, filed a Statement of Claim in the OSCJ for a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Interim Chief Executive Officer, and its current Board of Directors (collectively, the “iAnthus Defendants”) alleging gross negligence on the part of the iAnthus Defendants. By court order dated September 27, 2021, the Statement of Claim filed by Zaboroski was discontinued.

$1.0 million and $10.0 million.