Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) during the quarter ended June 30, 2022, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
From time to time, the Company may be involved in various claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of business.
On February 24, 2021, Sheila Baker and Merle W. Bundick purported shareholders of Anworth, filed lawsuits in the California Superior Court, styled Baker v. McAdams, et al., No. 21STCV07569 (the “Baker Action”) and Bundick v. McAdams, et al., No. 21STCV07571 (the “Bundick Action”). On March 2, 2021, Benjamin Gigli, a purported shareholder of Anworth, also filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court, styled Gigli v. McAdams, et al., No. 21STCV08413 (the “Gigli Action,” and together with the Baker Action and the Bundick Action, the “Anworth Merger Actions”). The California State Court Actions were filed against the former members of Anworth’s Board of Directors (the “Anworth Board”). The complaints in the Anworth Merger Actions assert that the Anworth Board breached their fiduciary duties by failing to properly consider acquisition proposals that were purportedly superior to the Merger, agreeing to purportedly unreasonable deal protections in connection with the Merger, and authorizing the issuance of the Form 424B3 filed on February 9, 2021, which allegedly contained materially misleading information. The California State Court Actions seek, among other things, rescissory damages and an award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On May 26, 2021, the California State Court Actions were consolidated and restyled In re Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 21STCV07569. A consolidated amended complaint was filed by Sheila Baker, Merle W. Bundick, and Benjamin Gigli (together, the “Plaintiffs”) on June 14, 2021, and the California Superior Court denied Anworth’s Demurrer seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 2, 2021. The Anworth Board filed their answer on January 3, 2022, and the case is currently in discovery.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Anworth Merger Actions.
Litigation Related to the Mosaic Mergers. A group of investors of Mosaic Real Estate Credit, LLC (“MREC”) filed a Demand for Arbitration and Request for Emergency Relief (the “Demand for Arbitration”) on February 23, 2022. The Demand for Arbitration was filed against Ethan Penner, the founder and managing partner of MREC; the Mosaic Manager, the external manager of MREC; and MREC. The investors filed the Demand for Arbitration pursuant to the MREC operating agreement and assert that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed on February 7, 2022 insufficiently disclosed information underlying alleged conflicts of interest of Penner and the Mosaic Manager. The Demand for Arbitration sought to enjoin the “negative consent” vote of the investors of MREC until MREC issues corrective disclosures regarding any and all fees, compensation or other consideration to be received by Penner or the Mosaic Manager, including the timing and negotiation of those fees, as well as information regarding Julius W. Erving’s selection and compensation associated with his future role on our board of directors. The Demand for Arbitration further sought to recover damages based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Penner and the Mosaic Manager. In June 2022, the Demand for Arbitration was dismissed with prejudice.
On March 10, 2022, CAIS Capital, LLC (“CAIS”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, styled CAIS Capital LLC v. MREC Management, LLC, et al., No. 22STCV08807 (the “CAIS Action”) against the Mosaic Manager, Mosaic Real Estate Credit Offshore, LP, the Mosaic Funds, Mosaic Special Member, LLC, the Company and the Manager. The lawsuit concerns the Mosaic Manager’s relationship with CAIS, an alternative investment platform for financial advisors. CAIS asserts claims under California law and seeks, among other things, attachment of the Mosaic Manager’s obligations to the Company, damages in the amount of the fee payments allegedly owed to CAIS, compensatory damages for intentional tortious interference with contract, specific performance requiring the Company to continue making fee payments, and attorney’s fees. On April 13, 2022, the Mosaic Manager, Mosaic Real Estate Credit Offshore, LP, Mosaic Special Member, LLC and the Mosaic Funds (together, the “Mosaic Defendants”) filed a Demurrer seeking to dismiss the complaint. On May 6, 2022, the Company, RC Mosaic Sub, LLC, and the Manager filed a Demurrer seeking to dismiss the complaint. On May 12, 2022, the California Superior Court denied-in-part and granted-in-part the Mosaic Defendants’ Demurrer, and on June 2, 2022, the California Superior Court denied the Demurrer filed by the Company, RC Mosaic Sub,