COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 11. - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES License agreements and sponsored research – Future Commitments Commitment Counter Party Product Relationship Commitment Type 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 & After Total Research Agreement KeyGene Hemp / Cannabis Contract fee $ 1,955 $ 2,057 $ 1,589 $ 1,302 $ 328 $ 7,231 (1) License Agreement NCSU Tobacco Minimum annual royalty — 100 100 100 1,000 1,300 (2) Research Agreement NCSU Tobacco Contract fee 99 — — — — 99 (3) Sublicense Agreement Anandia Laboratories, Inc. Hemp / Cannabis Annual license fee 10 10 10 100 — 130 (4) Research Agreement Cannametrix Hemp / Cannabis Contract fee 667 666 — — — 1,333 (5) License Agreement Cannametrix Hemp / Cannabis Minimum annual royalty — — 75 100 1,900 2,075 (6) Growing Agreements Various Tobacco Contract fee 52 — — — — 52 (7) Consulting Agreements Various Various Contract fee 1,132 746 — — — 1,878 (8) $ 3,915 $ 3,579 $ 1,774 $ 1,602 $ 3,228 $ 14,098 (1) Exclusive agreement with the Company in the field of the Cannabis Sativa L. plant. The initial term of the agreement was five years with an option for an additional two years . On April 30, 2021, the Company and KeyGene entered into a First Amended and Restated Framework Collaborative Research Agreement which extended the agreement term, from first-quarter 2024 to first-quarter 2027, and preserves the Company’s option for an additional 2-year extension, now through first quarter of 2029. On March 30, 2022, the Company and KeyGene entered into a new Framework Collaborative Research Agreement for a term of three years at an aggregate cost of $1,830 in the field related to the hops plant. The Company will exclusively own all results and all intellectual property relating to the results of the collaboration with KeyGene (the "Results”). The Company will pay royalties in varying amounts to KeyGene relating to the Company's commercialization in the stated fields of each agreement. The Company has also granted KeyGene a license to commercialize the Results outside of each field and KeyGene will pay royalties in varying amounts to the Company relating to KeyGene's commercialization of the Results outside of each field. (2) The minimum annual royalty fee is credited against running royalties on sales of licensed products. The Company is also responsible for reimbursing NCSU for actual third-party patent costs incurred, including capitalized patent costs and patent maintenance costs. These costs vary from year to year and the Company has certain rights to direct the activities that result in these costs. (3) On August 19, 2022, the Company entered into a one-year Sponsored Project Agreement with NCSU for continued research of tobacco alkaloid formation. (4) The Company is also responsible for the payment of certain costs, including, capitalized patent costs and patent maintenance costs, a running royalty on future net sales of products made from the sublicensed intellectual property, and a sharing of future sublicensing consideration received from sublicensing to third parties in all countries except for Canada. Anandia retains all patent rights, and is responsible for all patent maintenance, in Canada. (5) On March 11, 2022, the Company expanded its research agreement with Cannametrix for hemp/cannabis product development, formulation, and validation for a three-year period at an aggregate cost of $2,000 . (6) The minimum annual royalty fee is credited against running royalties from the sales of goods or services based on Project IP and/or Background IP. (7) Various R&D growing agreements for hemp/cannabis and tobacco. (8) General corporate consulting agreements. Litigation Class Action On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver, Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19 cv 00409. On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19 cv 00553. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull case issued an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs. On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal district court in the Western District of New York, where it remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285. Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November 19, 2019 that alleges three counts: Count I sues the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the Company's quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other public statements and documents contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5(a) and (c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 14, 2021, the Court granted the motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 2021 to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 24, 2022, after briefing and oral argument, the Second Circuit issued an order affirming in part, and reversing in part, the District Court’s dismissal order. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims relating to the non-disclosure of stock promotion articles, but reversed the District Court’s dismissal order of the claims alleging the non-disclosure of an SEC investigation. The Second Circuit noted in its opinion, however, that the District Court had not addressed certain arguments raised by the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer in the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint as to these remaining claims, and remanded the case to the District Court to address these arguments for the dismissal of the remaining claims. On August 8, 2022, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a renewed motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint to address the arguments not previously addressed by the District Court. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a reply brief in further support of the motion. On January 6, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case will proceed forward on the remaining claims. No trial date has been set. The parties participated in a mediation on March 21, 2023 and reached an initial memorandum of understanding for settlement in principle to resolve the litigation and release all claims against the Company. On April 25, 2023, the parties filed with the Court the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, which includes the final terms of the proposed settlement. This motion remains pending, and if preliminarily approved, the Court will then schedule a later hearing to consider the final approval of the settlement to conclude the litigation. The settlement amount that the defendants are expected to pay is $3,000 and is fully covered by the Company’s insurance. Accordingly, the Company has recorded an accrual for litigation settlement and corresponding indemnification receivable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2023. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the remaining claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims. Shareholder Derivative Cases On February 6, 2019, Melvyn Klein, a resident of Nassau County New York, filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Melvyn Klein, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group v. Henry Sicignano, III, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, Nora B. Sullivan, James W. Cornell, John T. Brodfuehrer and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Case No. 1:19 cv 00748. Mr. Klein brings this action derivatively alleging that (i) the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties for allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements; (ii) the director defendants supposedly wasted corporate assets to defend this lawsuit and the other related lawsuits; (iii) the defendants allegedly violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly approving or allowing false statements regarding the Company to be made; and (iv) the director defendants allegedly violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a 9 promulgated thereunder for allegedly approving or allowing false statements regarding the Company to be made in the Company’s proxy statement. On February 11, 2019, Stephen Mathew filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, entitled: Stephen Mathew, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. Henry Sicignano, III, John T. Brodfuehrer, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, James W. Cornell, Nora B. Sullivan and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Index No. 801786/2019. Mr. Mathew brings this action derivatively generally alleging the same allegations as in the Klein case. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs. On August 15, 2019, the Court consolidated the Mathew and Klein actions pursuant to a stipulation by the parties (Western District of New York, Case No. 1-19-cv-0513). On May 3, 2019, the Court ordered the Mathew and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims. On June 10, 2019, Judy Rowley filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, entitled: Judy Rowley, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. Henry Sicignano, III, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, Nora B. Sullivan, James W. Cornell, John T. Brodfuehrer, and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Index No. 807214/2019. Ms. Rowley brought the action derivatively alleging that the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements. The Complaint sought declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims. On September 13, 2019, the Court ordered the litigation stayed pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties. On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice by filing a stipulation of discontinuance with the Court. This dismissal was not pursuant to a settlement. On January 15, 2020, Kevin Broccuto filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and certain members of the Company's prior Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Clark, entitled: Kevin Broccuto, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. James W. Cornell, Richard M. Sanders, Nora B. Sullivan, Henry Sicignano, III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. A-20-808599. Mr. Broccuto brings this action derivatively alleging three counts: Count I alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties; Count II alleges they committed corporate waste; and Count III that they were unjustly enriched, by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements. On February 11, 2020, Jerry Wayne filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and certain members of the Company's prior Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Clark, entitled: Jerry Wayne, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. James W. Cornell, Richard M. Sanders, Nora B. Sullivan, Henry Sicignano, III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. A-20-808599. Mr. Wayne brings this action derivatively alleging generally the same allegations as the Broccuto case. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, disgorgement of alleged profits and imposition of constructive trusts, and attorney's fees and costs. The Complaint also seeks to declare as unenforceable the Company's Bylaw requiring derivative lawsuits to be filed in Erie County, New York, where the Company is headquartered. On March 25, 2020, the Court ordered the Broccuto and Wayne cases consolidated and stayed pursuant to a joint stipulation from the parties. On June 27, 2022, the Court ordered that the stay continue until thirty (30) days after the District Court rules on the renewed Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Noto Class Action case. As a result of the Court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, the June 27, 2022 stay will be lifted. No trial date has been set. The parties participated in a mediation on March 21, 2023, which process is continuing. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims. Needle Rock Farms – Settlement Agreement During March 2023, the Company negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement related to water rights dispute with the adjacent property owner for Needle Rock Farms in which the Company agreed to pay $250 in cash upon execution of the settlement, transferred certain farm equipment with net book value of $272, and accrued an additional payment of $225 that is contingent on either the sale of the farm or will be paid within one year. The total charges of $747 recorded in connection with the settlement agreement is included within Other operating expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss. |