Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
|Commitments and Contingencies
|Commitments and Contingencies
19. Commitments and Contingencies
One of the Company’s subsidiaries is a guarantor to a lease agreement of a Massachusetts dispensary. The Company also has a loan receivable balance due from the same party, the Teneo Fund SPVi LLC Note, as discussed in Note 10 — Loans Receivable. The Company may be liable for the future minimum rental payments under this lease if the dispensary defaults as follows:
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. Management is of the opinion that the outcome of these uncertainties will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.
On July 14, 2020, the Company was served with a claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against it and certain of its former directors and officers. The plaintiff claimed and sought to claim on behalf of a proposed class, an unspecified amount of damages for alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants about the Company’s business in its public disclosure during the proposed class period of October 12, 2018 to May 1, 2019. Prior to any hearings in the matter, the parties reached a settlement of the proposed class action. The settlement was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on behalf of a defined certified class of investors, by Order dated November 29, 2021. The plan for the distribution of the settlement funds is ongoing.
In September 2020, the Company entered into a partial settlement agreement and release with O’Melveny & Myers LLP (“OMM”) in respect of a previously disclosed arbitration instituted by OMM. Pursuant to initial arbitration documents, OMM claimed that the Company had failed to pay approximately $3,100 in fees, of which an amount in excess of $100 was specifically attributable to certain Baker Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, “Baker”) matters. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and release, the Company agreed to pay $100 in full and final settlement of the invoices outstanding for services rendered and costs incurred in the legal representation by OMM of those specific Baker matters, but not of the invoices concerning OMM’s other representation of the Company. On March 19, 2020, OMM filed suit against the Company concerning its claims against the Company in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and on August 10, 2020 the Company filed suit against OMM in San Francisco Superior Court, asserting its own claims against OMM and an OMM partner, and also concerning the alleged fees and costs still claimed by OMM. After OMM’s British Columbia action was stayed on the ground of inconvenient forum, OMM answered the Company’s complaint and asserted cross-claims to recover the alleged fees and costs of its representation of the Company. The parties executed a settlement agreement on November 30, 2022. The amount reserved for settlement is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.
On February 2, 2021, the Haze Corp., Nevada (“Haze NV”) filed a complaint in Clark County, Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court against Brand Canna Growth Partners, Inc. (“BCGP”), Michael Orr, Santé Veritas Holdings, Inc. (“SVH”) and Santé Veritas Therapeutics Inc. (“SVT”). As explained below, Haze NV later amended its complaint to name a second plaintiff, the Haze Corp., Ontario (“Haze Ontario,” and together with Haze NV, the “Plaintiffs”). SVH and SVT are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company. In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Haze Ontario entered into a Finders’ Fee Agreement with BCGP in 2017 and under that agreement Haze Ontario is owed payments for acquisitions
that it facilitated. Plaintiffs further allege that Haze Ontario assigned its rights to payment under the Finder’s Fee Agreement to Haze NV. Plaintiffs allege that BCGP is influenced and governed by SVH and SVT because they had the same principal, defendant Michael Orr, and SVH and SVT are liable for BCGP’s or Orr’s obligations under the Finders’ Fee Agreement. SVT and SVH moved for dismissal. On May 13, 2021, the court granted the motion without prejudice. On May 17, 2021, Haze NV moved for leave to amend its complaint, adding Haze Ontario as a plaintiff and again naming SVT and SVH as defendants. That motion to amend was granted by the court on June 29, 2021. SVT and SVH again moved to dismiss on July 23, 2021. On August 10, 2021, Plaintiffs again moved to amend, seeking to add TILT Holdings Inc. and TILT Holdings US, Inc. as defendants. On October 7, 2021, the motions to dismiss were denied without prejudice and the court ordered the parties to participate in limited jurisdictional discovery before entertaining renewed motions to dismiss. The parties are now participating in the court-ordered limited jurisdictional discovery period, which began on May 1, 2022. This limited discovery period is closed and defendants are preparing their renewed motions to dismiss.
On November 13, 2020, VPR Brands, LP (“VPR”) filed a lawsuit against Jupiter in the United States District Court in the District of Arizona. VPR claims infringement of several claims in United States Patent Number 8,205,622. Jupiter filed an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) as AIA Review No.: IPR2022-00299 on December 20, 2021 alleging that the patent claims involved in the suit are invalid. The request for IPR was denied on July 12, 2022 and a request on rehearing was denied on October 11, 2022. This lawsuit is presently in the discovery phase. Jupiter, through its counsel, has analyzed the claims and is vigorously defending the lawsuit.