PART II — OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
From time to time, we may become involved in various lawsuits and legal proceedings. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm our business. Except as set forth herein, we are currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.
In October 2018, certain individuals and trusts 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 plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment actions sought to force the Company to release Company shares that were to be distributed to the plaintiffs as shareholders of GHH as consideration for the GHH acquisition. The plaintiffs originally sought a court order directing that the shares be distributed to them without requiring them to deliver a signed Shareholder Representative Agreement, which was a condition to receiving the shares and required by the acquisition agreements between GrowHealthy Holdings and the Company. In January 2019, the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County denied the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief, and the plaintiffs signed and delivered the Shareholder Representative Agreements to GrowHealthy Holdings while reserving their rights to continue challenging the need for and enforceability of the Shareholder Representative Agreement. The 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 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 plaintiffs were granted leave by the Circuit Court 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 plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On May 1, 2020, the court 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 plaintiffs’ claims for specific performance, conversion and civil theft without prejudice. With respect to the claim for conversion and civil theft, the court provided the plaintiffs with leave to amend their respective complaints. On July 10, 2020, the 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, the court heard argument on the consolidated motion to dismiss. The court 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 plaintiffs filed a Motion to Consolidate the two separate actions, which motion was granted on October 14, 2021.
On March 4, 2020, Universal Security Guards Association (“USGA”), a security services firm, filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida against McCrory’s Sunny Hill Nursery, LLC (“McCrory’s”), GHHIA Management, Inc (“GHHIA”), GrowHealthy Properties, LLC (“GHP”), and iAnthus Holdings Florida, LLC (“IHF”) and together with McCrory’s, GHHIA and GHP, the “iAnthus Defendants”), collectively, claiming approximately $1.0 million in damages, as a result of an alleged breach of a contractual relationship by the iAnthus Defendants. On April 20, 2020, the iAnthus Defendants filed an answer with counterclaims against USGA. On September 3, 2021, the court issued an order, directing the parties to set a trial date and discovery deadlines. Since the order was issued on September 3, 2021, the parties have not set a trial date or discovery deadlines.
Ninth Square Capital Corporation (“Ninth Square”) filed a statement of claim (the “Original SOC”) against the Company, MPX Bioceutical ULC (“MPX ULC”) and MPX International Corporation in the OSCJ for $3,000,000 in connection with alleged contractual obligations that MPX entered into. Such contractual obligations were assumed by MPXI under a plan of arrangement. The Original SOC was served on August 8, 2019. On September 30, 2019, iAnthus and MPX ULC served a Statement of Defense and Crossclaim against MPXI, and MPXI served a Statement of Defense and Counterclaim against Plaintiff. MPXI served a Statement of Defense to the crossclaim of iAnthus and MPX ULC on January 10, 2020.
On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a separate statement of claim in the OSCJ against three former officers and directors of MPX, essentially repeating the claims made in the Original SOC against these individual defendants (the “Claim Against Former Directors”). Counsel for MPXI was retained to act for these individuals and filed a Motion to Strike the Claim Against Former Directors, which was denied on May 28, 2021. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Consolidate the Claim Against Former Directors with the Original SOC, which was granted on May 28, 2021. The parties have completed paper discovery, which deadline expired on October 29, 2021. Depositions are tentatively scheduled to begin in May of 2022
On July 13, 2020, the Company entered into the Restructuring Support Agreement with the Secured Lenders and the Consenting Unsecured Debentureholders to effectuate the Recapitalization Transaction to be implemented by way of the Plan of Arrangement under the BCBCA. On October 5, 2020, the Plan of Arrangement was approved by the Court, subject to the receipt of the Required Approvals. On November 3, 2020, Walmer, Island and Crawford collectively served and filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the Court’s approval of the Plan of Arrangement. On January 29, 2021, a notice of appeal with respect to the final approval for the Plan of Arrangement received by the Company in November 2020 was dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On June 15, 2021, the Company and the Lenders agreed to amend the Outside 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 an endorsement (the “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 extending 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 his Decision granting the Applicant’s relief sought in the Application. 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. The Company is reviewing the Decision carefully and considering the merits of an appeal. The Company has the right to appeal the Decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal on or before 30 days from the release of the Decision.
U.S. Shareholder Class Action
On April 20, 2020, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and others (the “Class Action Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) seeking damages of an unspecified amount 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 a default thereof. On July 9, 2020, the SDNY issued an order consolidating the Class Action Lawsuit and the
Hi-Med
Complaint (as defined below) and appointed a lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”). 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. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Scheduling Order Regarding the Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Pursuant to this stipulation, the defendants take no position as to whether the SDNY should grant the Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, which motion remains pending before the SDNY. If the SNDY does grant this motion, the Company will have the right to file a Motion to Dismiss the Lead Plaintiff’s second amended complaint no later than 45 days after the filing of the Lead Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.