be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, at this time, we cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
Derivative Action Lawsuits
On July 26, 2022, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named John Rice, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Andy Bui, Alan Gold, Gary Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 24-C-22-003312, and was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief, direction to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 6, 2022, the defendants in this action filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Proceedings, which was granted on October 11, 2022. On September 28, 2022, a second derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Karen Draper, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Andy Bui, Alan Gold, Gary Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, David Stecher, Defendants, and Innovative Industrial Properties Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case Number 24-C-22-004243, and filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks actions to reform and improve the Company, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 19, 2022, the parties to both cases filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and to Appoint Lead and Liaison Counsel for plaintiffs, which was granted on December 19, 2022, along with a stay in the lawsuit pending a ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal class action lawsuit described above. On April 17, 2023, a third derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Ross Weintraub, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Ben Regin, Andy Bui, Tracie Hager, Gary Kreitzer, David Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:23-cv-00737-GLR, and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an undetermined amount of damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants in this action filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Proceeding, which was granted on April 17, 2023. On June 5, 2023, a fourth derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Franco DeBlasio, on behalf of Gerich Melenth Nin (GMN) LP, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Alan D. Gold, Tracie J. Hager, Benjamin C. Regin, Andy Bui, Gary A. Kreitzer, David Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:23-cv-01513-GLR, and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 19, 2023, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:23-cv-00737-GLR and 1:23-cv-01513-GLR with case number 1:23-cv-00737-GLR as the lead case, and kept the stay in place. The Company intends to vigorously defend each of these lawsuits. However, at this time, the Company cannot predict the probable outcome of these actions, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. The consolidated case remains stayed as Case Number 24-C-22-003312.
We may, from time to time, be a party to other legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. Although the results of these proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the final outcome of these matters is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Regardless of final outcomes, however, any such proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations may nonetheless impose a significant burden on management and employees and may come with significant defense costs or unfavorable preliminary and interim rulings.
12. Subsequent Events
New Leases
In April 2024, we executed a new long-term lease with Lume Cannabis Co. at our property located at 10070 Harvest Park in Dimondale, Michigan.
In May 2024, we executed a new long-term lease at our property located at 19533 McLane Street in Palm Springs, California.
The commencement date under each of these leases is conditioned upon, among other things, the tenant’s receipt of approvals to conduct cannabis operations by the requisite state and local authorities.