NOTE 21 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

The Company is the lessee under five operating leases and four finance leases. These leases contain rent holidays and customary escalations of lease payments for the type of facilities being leased. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term, including cancelable option periods which the Company fully expects to exercise. Certain leases require the payment of property taxes, insurance and/or maintenance costs in addition to the rent payments.

The details of the Company’s operating lease agreements are as follows:

The Company leases machinery and office equipment under finance leases that expire in February 2022 through June 2024 with such terms being a major part of the economic useful life of the leased property.

The components of lease expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 were as follows:

 SCHEDULE OF COMPONENTS OF LEASE EXPENSE

The weighted average remaining lease term for operating leases is 8.5 years, and for the finance lease is 2.8 years. The weighted average discount rate used to determine the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities was 7.5% for all leases.

Future minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2020 under all non-cancelable leases having an initial or remaining term of more than one year were:

 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE MINIMUM LEASE PAYMENTS UNDER ALL NON-CANCELABLE OPERATING LEASES

Terminated Employment Agreement

An employment agreement which commenced in 2012 with Thomas Kidrin, the former CEO of the Company, which provided Mr. Kidrin with salary, car allowances, stock options, life insurance, and other employee benefits, was terminated by the Company in 2017. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Company maintained an accrual of approximately $1,043,000 for any amounts that may be owed under this agreement, although the Company contends that such agreement is not valid and no amount is due.

In July 2019, Mr. Kidrin, also a former director of the Company, filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court, which alleges the Company failed to pay all wages owed to him and breached the employment agreement, and requests multiple damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest. The Company has moved to dismiss certain counts of the complaint and has asserted counterclaims against Mr. Kidrin alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter and prosecute its counterclaims.

Maryland Acquisition

As previously disclosed in Note 3 – Acquisitions, Kind has sought to renege on the MOU and the parties’ agreement to a partnership/joint venture made in the fall of 2016. The Company engaged with the members of Kind in good faith in an attempt to reach updated terms acceptable to both parties, however the members of Kind failed to reciprocate in good faith, resulting in an impasse. Incrementally, both parties through counsel further sought to resolve the impasse, however such initiative resulted in both parties commencing legal proceedings.

In November 2019, Kind commenced an action in the Circuit Court for Washington County, MD captioned Kind Therapeutics USA, Inc. vs. MariMed, Inc., et al. (Case No. C-21-CV-19-000670) asserting claims against the Company, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and seeking an accounting and declaratory judgment and damages in excess of $75,000. On November 15, 2019, the Company filed counterclaims against Kind and a third-party complaint against the members of Kind (Jennifer DiPietro, Susan Zimmerman, and Sophia Leonard-Burns) and William Tham (the “Counterclaims”). The Counterclaims, as amended, allege breach of contract with respect to each of the partnership/joint venture agreement, the MOU, the MSA, the Lease, and the Licensing and Manufacturing Agreement (“LMA”), unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks reformation of the MSA, a declaratory judgment regarding enforceability of the partnership/joint venture arrangement and/or the MOU, specific performance of the parties’ various contracts, and the establishment of a constructive trust for the Company’s benefit. The Counterclaims also seek damages. Both parties, MariMed (including MariMed Holdings MD, LLC and MariMed Advisors Inc.) and Kind, brought motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. By Opinion and Order entered on November 21, 2019, the Court denied both parties motions for a temporary restraining order. In its opinion, the Court specifically noted that, contrary to Kind’s allegations, the MSA and the Lease “appear to be independent, valid and enforceable contracts.”

A hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for preliminary injunction was held in September 2020 and November 2020. Also in November 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment as to the Lease, determining that the Lease is valid and enforceable. Based on this ruling, the Company is seeking judgment at trial in the amount of approximately $5.4 million for past due rent and expenses owed by Kind under the Lease.

In December 2020, the Court entered a Preliminary Injunction Order, accompanied by a Memorandum Opinion, denying Kind’s motion for a preliminary injunction (which Kind had withdrawn at the conclusion of the hearing) and granting the Company’s request for preliminary injunction. The Court determined that the Company is likely to succeed with respect to the validity and enforceability of the MSA and the LMA, that the Company would suffer substantial and irreparable harm without the preliminary injunction, and that the balance of convenience and public interest both warranted the issuance of a preliminary injunction in the Company’s favor. The Court ordered, inter alia, that the MSA and LMA are in effect pending judgment after trial on the merits, and that Kind and its members, and their attorneys, agents, employees, and representatives, are prohibited from (a) interfering with the Company’s duties and responsibilities under the MSA and (b) withdrawing funds, making any distribution, paying any loans, returning any capital, or making any payment towards a debt from any Kind bank or other financial account(s) without written consent of the Company or Order of the Court, thereby preserving the Company’s control of Kind’s operations and finances at least through the jury trial currently scheduled to begin on March 28, 2022. Further, the Court ordered Kind to pay management and licensing fees to the Company beginning January 1, 2021. Kind has noted an appeal of the Order to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which is pending; however, the preliminary injunction order remains in effect.

In addition to the favorable rulings on the Lease, MSA, and LMA, the Company believes that its claims for declaratory relief, specific performance, and/or breach of contract with respect to the 70%/30% partnership/joint venture agreement claims are meritorious. Further, the Company believes that Kind’s claims against the Company are without merit. On March 18, 2021, the Court issued an opinion and order on Kind’s motion for summary judgment finding that the MOU was not enforceable by the Company against Kind as a final binding agreement. The Company is evaluating an appeal of this ruling which under Maryland rules can only be pursued upon final judgment. The Company intends to aggressively prosecute and defend the action. Trial has been scheduled from March 28, 2022 to April 11, 2022.

Lawsuit

In August 2020, Jennifer DiPietro, directly and derivatively on behalf of Mari Holdings MD LLC (“Mari-MD”) and Mia Development LLC (“Mia”), commenced a suit against the Company’s CEO, CFO, and wholly-owned subsidiary MariMed Advisors Inc. (“MMA”), in Suffolk Superior Court, Massachusetts.

In this action, DiPietro, a party to prior ongoing litigation in Maryland involving the Company and Kind as discussed above, brings claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty, seeks access to books and records, and an accounting related to her investments in Mari-MD and Mia. DiPietro seeks unspecified money damages and rescission of her interest in Mari-MD, but not of her investment in Mia, which has provided substantial returns to members.

The Company has answered the complaint and MMA has moved for leave to file counterclaims against DiPietro on its own behalf and derivatively on behalf of Mari-MD for breach of her fiduciary duties to each of those entities, for tortious interference with Mari-MD’s lease and MMA’s management services agreement with Kind, and for breach of Mari-MD’s operating agreement.

The Company believes that the allegations of the complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. The Company’s counterclaim seeks monetary damages from DiPietro, including the Company’s legal fees in the Kind action.

GenCanna Bankruptcy

As discussed in Note 4 – Investments, in February 2020, GenCanna USA, under pressure from certain of its creditors including MGG, agreed to convert the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding into a voluntary Chapter 11 proceeding. In addition, GenCanna and GenCanna USA’s subsidiary, Hemp Kentucky LLC (collectively with GenCanna and GenCanna USA, the “GenCanna Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court.

In May 2020, after an abbreviated solicitation/bid/sale process, the Bankruptcy Court, over numerous objections by creditors and shareholders of the GenCanna Debtors which included the Company, entered an order authorizing the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the GenCanna Debtors to MGG. After the consummation of the sale of all or substantially all of their assets and business, the GenCanna Debtors n/k/a OGGUSA, Inc. and OGG, Inc. (the “OGGUSA Debtors”) filed their liquidating plan of reorganization (the “Liquidating Plan”) to collect various prepetition payments and commercial claims against third parties, liquidate the remaining assets of the ODDUSA Debtors, and make payments to creditors. The Company and the unsecured creditors committee filed objections to such Liquidating Plan, including opposition to the release of litigation against the OGGUSA Debtors’ senior lender, MGG, for lender liability, equitable subordination, and return of preference. As a part of such plan confirmation process, the OGGUSA Debtors filed various objections to proofs of claims filed by various creditors, including the proof of claim in the amount of approximately $33.6 million filed by the Company. Through intense and lengthy negotiations with the OGGUSA Debtors and the unsecured creditors committee regarding the objections to the Liquidating Plan, the Company reached an agreement with the OGGUSA Debtors to withdraw the objections to the Company’s claim and to have it approved by the Bankruptcy Court as a general unsecured claim in the amount of $31.0 million.

Since the approval of the Liquidating Plan, the OGGUSA Debtors have been in the process of liquidating the remaining assets, negotiating and prosecuting objections to other creditors’ claims, and pursuing the collection of accounts receivable and Chapter 5 bankruptcy avoidance claims. As of the date of this filing, there is insufficient information as to how much of the Company’s allowed claim will be paid upon the completion of the liquidation of the remaining assets of the OGGUSA Debtors.