LITIGATION AND CLAIMS |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2022 | |
| Litigation Settlement [Abstract] | |
| LITIGATION AND CLAIMS |
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 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.
|