Contingencies And Guarantees |
3 Months Ended | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar. 31, 2022 | |||||||||||||
| Contingencies And Guarantees [Abstract] | |||||||||||||
| Contingencies And Guarantees |
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 occurred prior to the Company’s closing of the MPX Acquisition in February 2019 are as follows:
In addition, the Company is currently reviewing the following matters with legal counsel and has not yet determined the range of potential losses: In October 2018, Craig Roberts and Beverly Roberts (the “Roberts”) and the Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement I, Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement II, and Gary W. Roberts Irrevocable Trust Agreement III (the “Roberts Trust” and together with the Roberts, the “Roberts Plaintiffs”) filed two separate but similar declaratory judgment actions in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida against GrowHealthy Holdings, LLC (“GrowHealthy Holdings”) and the Company in connection with the acquisition of substantially all of GrowHealthy Holdings’ assets by the Company in early 2018. The Roberts Plaintiffs’ sought a declaration that 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 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 have 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 current trial date of May 9, 2022. 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. The Roberts have 30 days from the date of the court’s order, or until June 6, 2022, to file a second amended complaint. On April 19, 2020, Hi-Med LLC (“Hi-Med”), an equity holder and one of the Lenders holding an Unsecured Debenture of the Company in the principal amount “Hi-Med Complaint”). Hi-Med is seeking damages of an unspecified amount and the full principal amount of the Unsecured Debenture against the Company, for among other things, alleged breaches of provisions of the Unsecured Debentures and the related Debenture Purchase Agreement as well as alleged violations of Federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the 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, Hi-Med and the defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, Hi-Med filed an amended complaint (the “Hi-Med Amended Complaint”). On October 14, 2020, the SDNY issued a stipulation and scheduling and coordination order, which required that the defendants answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Hi-Med Amended Complaint no later than November 20, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the Company and certain of its current officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss the Hi-Med Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, Hi-Med filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Company and certain of its current officers and directors’ reply were filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company’s and certain of its officers and directors’ Motion to Dismiss the Hi-Med Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that Hi-Med may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On September 30, 2021, Hi-Med filed a motion for leave to amend the Hi-Med Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order Regarding Hi-Med’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (the “Stipulation”). On November 3, 2021, the SDNY so-ordered the Stipulation and Hi-Med’s Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its current named officers and directors filed a Motion to Dismiss Hi-Med’s Second Amended Complaint. Hi-Med’s opposition to the Company’s and its current named officers and directors’ Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company and its current named officers and directors’ reply to Hi-Med’s opposition was filed on March 21 , 2022. The Motion to Dismiss Hi-Med’s Second Amended Complaint remains pending before the SDNY. On June 29, 2020, Hi-Med filed a claim in the Court, which mirrors the Hi-Med Complaint. Refer to Note 5 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 Hi-Med Complaint referenced above and appointed Jose Antonio Silva as lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”). On July 23, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff and defendants filed a stipulation and proposed scheduling and coordination order to coordinate the pleadings for the consolidated actions. On September 4, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action lawsuit against the Company (the “Amended Complaint”). On November 20, 2020, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 8, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Company and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the opposition was filed on February 22, 2021. In a memorandum of opinion dated August 30, 2021, the SDNY granted the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The SDNY indicated that the Lead Plaintiff may move for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint by September 30, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint was included as part of the Stipulation identified above. On November 3, 2021, the SDNY so-ordered the Stipulation and the Lead Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of this date. On December 20, 2021, the Company and its Chief Financial Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff’s opposition to the Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s Motion to Dismiss was filed on February 3, 2022. The Company’s and its Chief Financial Officer’s reply to the Lead Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on March 21 , 2022. The Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint remains pending before the SDNY. On July 13, 2020, the Company announced the proposed Recapitalization Transaction. On September 14, 2020, at the meetings of Secured Lenders, Unsecured Lenders 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, 2021, the Applicants filed the Application with the OSCJ, which sought, among other things, a declaration that the Outside Date 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 August 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 and a hearing on the appeal is currently scheduled for June 9, 2022. On July 23, 2020, Blue Sky Realty Corporation filed a putative class action against the Company, the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer, and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer in the OSCJ in Toronto. 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. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company filed a statement of claim against Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd. (“Oasis”), an Unsecured Lender, On August 19, 2021, Arvin Saloum (“Saloum”), a former consultant of the Company, filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against The Healing Center Wellness Center, Inc. (“THCWC”) and iAnthus Arizona, LLC (“iA AZ”), 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. |