NOTE 18 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

California Operating Licenses

The Company’s subsidiaries have operated compliantly and have been eligible for applicable licenses and renewals of those licenses.

Litigation and Claims

The Company is the subject of lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. The Company reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and it discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued if such disclosure is necessary for the Company’s financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, the Company evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of the loss. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. Based upon present information, the Company determined that there was one matter that required an accrual as of June 30, 2023.

Magee v. UMBRLA, Inc. et al. - The Company is currently involved in a breach of contract action brought by former LTRMN, Inc. (“LTRMN”) employee, Kurtis Magee, which was filed by Mr. Magee in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, on July 21, 2020. Mr. Magee alleges breach of contract in connection with Mr. Magee’s separation agreement with LTRMN. Trial in this matter is set for April 29, 2024. The Company believes the likelihood of a loss contingency is probable. Accordingly, the Company has accrued $0.50 million for this matter in the consolidated balance sheet.

Terra Tech Corp. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al. - On or about December 6, 2021, the Company initiated an action in California Superior Court, County of Alameda, against National Fire & marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”), Woodruff-Sawyer & Co., and R-T Specialty, LLC in connection with the denial of an insurance claim by National Fire following the vandalism and looting of the Company’s Bay Area dispensaries in May 2020. The Company alleges that coverage levels for the Company were changed after the policy was bound, in a manner inconsistent with the binder, which prevented the Company from fully recovering its losses in connection with the incidents. Trial in this matter has not been set. No amount has been recognized in the consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022 for the gain contingency.

Unrivaled Brands, Inc. et al v. Mystic Holdings, Inc., et al. - On May 11, 2022, Unrivaled and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Medifarm I, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) initiated an action in the Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe, against Mystic Holdings, Inc. (“Mystic”) and Picksy Reno LLC (collectively with Mystic, “Defendants”) in connection with Defendants’ failure to honor Plaintiffs’ exercise of a put option entitling Plaintiffs to the repurchase of approximately 8,332,096 shares of Mystic at a price of $1.00 per share. A trial date has not yet been set. No amount has been recognized in the consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022 for the gain contingency.

Fusion LLF, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On June 27, 2022, Fusion LLF, LLC filed an action against the Company, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, alleging claims for breach of contract, account stated, and right to attach order and writ of attachment. The complaint claims at least $4.55 million in damages. On August 11, 2022, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. On August 5, 2022, Fushion LLF, LLC filed an application for a right to attach order and writ of attachment, which was denied on December 8, 2022.

People's California, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On July 19, 2022, People’s California, LLC, the sellers of People's First Choice, filed an action against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, bringing claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from the Company’s alleged breach of certain agreements with People’s California, LLC. The complaint claims at least $23.00 million in damages.

On September 20, 2022, the Company filed a cross-complaint in the matter in November 2021. The Company was seeking a minimum of $5.40 million in damages.

On March 6, 2023, the parties entered into a binding term sheet to settle the litigation. The litigation is stayed pending final documentation of the settlement agreement. The litigation is expected to be dismissed in the next 180 days. Refer to "Note 11 - Notes Payable" for further details.

People's California, LLC v. Kovacevich, et al - On August 1, 2022, People’s California, LLC filed an action against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, derivatively on behalf of the Company and listing the Company as a nominal defendant alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, self-dealing, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment based on a series of corporate transactions and management decisions. The Complaint does not state a specific claim for damages.

On March 6, 2023, the parties entered into a binding term sheet to settle the litigation. The litigation is stayed pending final documentation of the settlement agreement. The litigation is expected to be dismissed in the next 180 days.

1149 South LA Street Fashion District, LLC vs Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On January 30, 2023, 1149 South LA Street Fashion District, LLC and 1135 South LA Street Fashion District LLC filed an action against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging claims for breach of written contract, breach of written guaranty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, waste, and declaratory relief. The complaint claims at least $0.58 million in damages. On April 10, 2023, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Because no conclusion has been formed as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, no opinion is expressed as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company.

Greenlane Holdings, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On February 6, 2023, Greenlane Holdings, LLC, a related party, filed an action against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging claims for breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges damages of $0.40 million. On April 10, 2023, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Because no conclusion has been formed as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, no opinion is expressed as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company.

WGS Group, Inc. vs Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On July 17, 2023 WGS Group, Inc. filed an action against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange Central Justice Center, alleging claims for damages and declaratory relief, breach of security service agreements, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit, violations of business and professional code sections 17200 Et SEQ., declaratory relief regarding successor-in-interest liability, and declaratory relief regarding ultra vires actions imposing personal liability on chief financial officer. Because no conclusion has been formed as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, no opinion is expressed as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company.

NOTE 23 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

California Operating Licenses

The Company's entities have operated compliantly and have been eligible for applicable licenses and renewals of those licenses.

Litigation and Claims

The Company is the subject of lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business from time to time. The Company reviews any such legal proceedings and claims on an ongoing basis and follows appropriate accounting guidance when making accrual and disclosure decisions. The Company establishes accruals for those contingencies where the incurrence of a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated, and it discloses the amount accrued and the amount of a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued if such disclosure is necessary for the Company’s financial statements to not be misleading. To estimate whether a loss contingency should be accrued by a charge to income, the Company evaluates, among other factors, the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make areas on able estimate of the amount of the loss. The Company does not record liabilities when the likelihood that the liability has been incurred is probable, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

Based upon present information, the Company determined that there was one matter that required an accrual as of December 31, 2022. Accordingly, the Company has accrued $0.50 million for the Magee litigation detailed below.

Magee v. UMBRLA, Inc. et al. - The Company is currently involved in a breach of contract action brought by former LTRMN, Inc. (“LTRMN”) employee, Kurtis Magee, which was filed by Mr. Magee in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, on July 21, 2020. Mr. Magee alleges breach of contract in connection with Mr. Magee’s separation agreement with LTRMN. Trial in this matter is set for April of 2024.

Terra Tech Corp. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al. - On or about December 6, 2021, the Company initiated an action in California Superior Court, County of Alameda, against National Fire & marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”), Woodruff-Sawyer & Co., and R-T Specialty, LLC in connection with the denial of an insurance claim by National Fire following the vandalism and looting of the Company’s Bay Area dispensaries in May 2020. The Company alleges that coverage levels for the Company were changed after the policy was bound, in a manner inconsistent with the binder, which prevented the Company from fully recovering its losses in connection with the incidents. A case management conference is set for April 25, 2023.

Unrivaled Brands, Inc. et al v. Mystic Holdings, Inc., et al. - On May 11, 2022, Unrivaled and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Medifarm I, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) initiated an action in the Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe, against Mystic Holdings, Inc. (“Mystic”) and Picksy Reno LLC (collectively with Mystic, “Defendants”) in connection with Defendants’ failure to honor Plaintiffs’ exercise of a put option entitling Plaintiffs to the repurchase of approximately 8,332,096 shares of Mystic at a price of $1.00 per share. No proceedings have yet been held in this matter and a trial date has proposed to be scheduled in September 2023.

Fusion LLF, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On June 27, 2022, Fusion LLF, LLC filed an action against the Company, Fusion LLF, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc., Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange Case No. 30-2022-01266856-CU-BC-CJC alleging claims for breach of contract, account stated, and right to attach order and writ of attachment. The complaint claims at least $4.55 million in damages. On August 11, 2022, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. On August 5, 2022, Fushion LLF, LLC filed an application for a right to attach order and writ of attachment, which was denied on December 9, 2022.

People's California, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On July 19, 2022, People’s California, LLC, the sellers of Peoples First Choice, filed an action against the Company, styled, People’s California, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange Case No. 30-2022-01270747-CU-BC-CJC, bringing claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from the Company’s alleged breach of certain agreements with People’s California, LLC. The complaint claims at least $23.00 million in damages.

On September 20, 2022, the Company filed a cross-complaint in the matter in November 2021. The Company was seeking a minimum of $5.40 million in damages.

On March 6, 2023, the parties entered into a binding term sheet to settle the litigation. The litigation in stayed pending final documentation of the settlement agreement. The litigation is expected to be dismissed in the next 180 days.

People's California, LLC v. Kovacevich, et al. - On August 1, 2022, People’s California, LLC filed an action against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, styled People’s California, LLC v. Nicholas Kovacevich, et al, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange Case No. 30-2022-01272843-CU-MC-CJC, derivatively on behalf of the Company and listing the Company as a nominal defendant alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, self-dealing, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment based on a series of corporate transactions and management decisions. The Complaint does not state a specific claim for damages.

On March 6, 2023, the parties entered into a binding term sheet to settle the litigation. The litigation in stayed pending final documentation of the settlement agreement. The litigation is expected to be dismissed in the next 180 days.

Greenlane Holdings, LLC v. Unrivaled Brands, Inc. - On February 6, 2023, Greenlane Holdings, LLC, a related party filed an action against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles Case No. 30-2023-01306675-CU-BC-NJC, alleging claims for breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges damages of $0.40 million. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. Because no conclusion has been formed as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, no opinion is expressed as to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any possible loss to the Company.