Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2023
|Commitments and Contingencies|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
18. Commitments and Contingencies
One of the Company’s subsidiaries is a guarantor to a lease agreement of a Massachusetts dispensary to which the Company has also extended the Teneo Fund SPVi LLC note, as discussed in the Form 10-K. 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 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 Finder’s 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. (“TILT”) and TILT Holdings US, Inc. (“TILT US” and, collectively with SVT, SVH and TILT, the “TILT Parties”) 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. Upon the closing of the limited jurisdictional discovery period, the TILT Parties moved to dismiss on April 19, 2023. By minute order dated July 21, 2023, the court granted the TILT Parties’ motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
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. The parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement dated April 7, 2023 and executed a settlement agreement on May 15, 2023.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef