NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)

NOTE 1 – BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, NATURE OF OPERATIONS

Business Description

Notis Global, Inc, (formerly Medbox, Inc.) which is incorporated in the state of Nevada (the “Company”), provides specialized services to the hemp and marijuana industry, owns independently and through affiliates, real property and licenses that it leases and assigns or sublicenses to partner cultivators and operators in return for a percentage of revenues or profits from sales and operations, distributes hemp product processed by contractual partners and sells associated vaporization devices. Prior to 2016, through its consulting services, Company worked with clients who seek to enter the medical and cultivation marijuana markets in those states where approved. In 2015, the Company expanded into hemp cultivation with the acquisition of a 320 acre farm in Colorado by the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, EWSD 1, LLC. The farm is operated by an independent farming partner. In addition, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Vaporfection International, Inc. (“VII”), the Company sold a line of vaporizer and accessory products online and through distribution partners. On March 28, 2016, the Company sold the assets of VII and exited the vaporizer and accessory business. The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

Effective January 28, 2016, the Company changed its legal corporate name from Medbox, Inc., to Notis Global, Inc. The name change was effected through a parent/subsidiary short-form merger pursuant to Section 92A.180 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Notis Global, Inc., the Company’s wholly-owned Nevada subsidiary formed solely for the purpose of the name change, was merged with and into the Company, with Notis Global, Inc. as the surviving entity. The merger had the effect of amending the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to reflect the new legal name of the Company. There were no other changes to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation. The Company’s Board of Directors approved the merger.

Notis Global, Inc., operates the business directly and through the utilization of 5 primary operating subsidiaries, as follows:

On March 3, 2014, in order to obtain the license for one of the Company’s clients, the Company registered an affiliated nonprofit corporation Allied Patient Care, Inc, in the State of Oregon. Additionally, on April 21, 2014, the Company registered an affiliated nonprofit corporation Alternative Health Cooperative, Inc. in the State of California.

NOTE 2 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Going Concern

The condensed consolidated financial statements were prepared on a going concern basis. The going concern basis assumes that the Company will continue in operation for the foreseeable future and will be able to realize its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company had net income of approximately $1.2 million, negative cash flow from operations of $1.4 million and negative working capital of $28.7 million. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company had a net loss of approximately $50.5 million, negative cash flow from operations of $9.6 million and negative working capital of $32.9 million. The Company will need to raise capital in order to fund its operations. The Company is also in the process of obtaining final approval on a settlement agreement in their Class action and Derivative lawsuits (Note 11) and recently received a Wells Notice from the SEC (Note 11) in connection with misstatements by prior management in the Company’s financial statements for 2012, 2013 and the first three quarters of 2014. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, however, a rejection of the settlement agreements or adverse action of the SEC could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition,

5

Table of Contents

results of operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future. These factors, among others, raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the Company’s ability to raise additional capital and implement its business plan. The condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might be necessary if the Company is unable to continue as a going concern.

Management’s plans include:

On April 13, 2016, Notis Global, Inc. entered into a note purchase agreement with an accredited investor pursuant to which the Company agreed to sell, and the investor agreed to purchase, a convertible promissory note in the aggregate principal amount of $225,000. The Company also expects that the acquisition of EWSD I, LLC (“EWSD”) (Note 3), who owns a 320-acre farm in Pueblo, Colorado, will generate recurring revenues for the Company through farming hemp, extracting CBD oil and controlling the full production cycle to ensure consistent quality. Lastly, management is actively seeking additional financing over the next few months to fund operations.

The Company will continue to execute on its business model by attempting to raise additional capital through the sales of debt or equity securities or other means. However, there is no guarantee that such financing will be available on terms acceptable to the Company, or at all. It is uncertain whether the Company can obtain financing to fund operating deficits until profitability is achieved. This need may be adversely impacted by: unavailability of financing, uncertain market conditions, timing for and possible delays in approval of dispensary and cultivation sites and timing for and possible delays in obtaining licenses from regulatory bodies for the operation of cultivation centers and dispensaries, and adverse operating results. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time.

Principles of Consolidation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Notis Global, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, as named in Note 1 above. All intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements as well as the reported expenses during the reporting periods. The Company’s significant estimates and assumptions include accounts receivable and note receivable collectability, inventory reserves, advances on investments, the valuation of restricted stock and warrants received from customers, the amortization and recoverability of capitalized patent costs and useful lives and recoverability of long-lived assets, the derivative liability, and income tax expense. Some of these judgments can be subjective and complex, and, consequently, actual results may differ from these estimates. Although the Company believes that its estimates and assumptions are reasonable, they are based upon information available at the time the estimates and assumptions were made. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Reclassification

The Company has reclassified certain prior fiscal year amounts in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements to be consistent with the current fiscal year presentation.

Concentrations of Credit Risk

The Company maintains cash balances at several financial institutions in the Los Angeles, California area, Iowa, Illinois and Florida. Accounts at each institution are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $250,000. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts and periodically evaluates the credit worthiness of the financial institutions and has determined the credit exposure to be negligible.

Advertising and Marketing Costs

Advertising and marketing costs are expensed as incurred. The Company incurred advertising and marketing costs of approximately $39,000 and $0 for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

6

Table of Contents

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Pursuant to ASC No. 825, Financial Instruments , the Company is required to estimate the fair value of all financial instruments included on its balance sheets. The carrying value of cash, accounts receivable, other receivables, inventory, accounts payable and accrued expenses, notes payable, related party notes payable, customer deposits, provision for customer refunds and short term loans payable approximate their fair value due to the short period to maturity of these instruments.

Embedded derivative - The Company’s convertible notes payable include embedded features that require bifurcation due to a reset provision and are accounted for as a separate embedded derivative (see Note 7).

As of December 31, 2015, and for new issuances of convertible debentures during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company estimated the fair value of the conversion feature derivatives embedded in the convertible debentures based on a Monte Carlo Simulation model (“MCS”). The MCS model was used to simulate the stock price of the Company from the valuation date through to the maturity date of the related debenture and to better estimate the fair value of the derivative liability due to the complex nature of the convertible debentures and embedded instruments. Management believes that the use of the MCS model compared to the black Scholes model as previously used would provide a better estimate of the fair value of these instruments. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, using the MCS model, the Company valued these embedded derivatives using a “with-and-without method,” where the value of the Convertible Debentures including the embedded derivatives, is defined as the “with”, and the value of the Convertible Debentures excluding the embedded derivatives, is defined as the “without.” This method estimates the value of the embedded derivatives by observing the difference between the value of the Convertible Debentures with the embedded derivatives and the value of the Convertible Debentures without the embedded derivatives. The Company believes the “with-and-without method” results in a measurement that is more representative of the fair value of the embedded derivatives.

For each simulation path, the Company used the Geometric Brownian Motion (“GBM”) model to determine future stock prices at the maturity date. The inputs utilized in the application of the GBM model included a starting stock price, an expected term of each debenture remaining from the valuation date to maturity, an estimated volatility, and a risk-free rate.

For the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company estimated the fair value of the conversion feature derivatives embedded in the convertible debentures based on an internally calculated adjustment to the MCS valuation determined at December 31, 2015. This adjustment took into consideration the changes in the assumptions, such as market value and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock, and the discount rate used in the December 31, 2015 valuation as compared to March 31, 2016.    The Company believes this methodology results in a reasonable fair value of the embedded derivatives for the interim period.

For the three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company estimated the fair value of the conversion feature derivatives embedded in the convertible debentures based on weighted probabilities of assumptions used in the Black Scholes pricing model. The key valuation assumptions used consists, in part, of the price of the Company’s common stock, a risk free interest rate based on the average yield of a Treasury note and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock all as of the measurement dates, and the various estimated reset exercise prices weighted by probability.

Warrants

The Company reexamined the determination made as of December 31, 2015 that they did not have sufficient authorized shares available for all of their outstanding warrants to be classified in equity at March 31, 2016, and concluded there still were insufficient authorized shares (Note 7). Therefore, the Company recognized a Warrant liability as of March 31, 2016. The Company estimated the fair value of the warrant liability based on a Black Scholes valuation model. The key assumptions used consist of the price of the Company’s stock, a risk free interest rate based on the average yield of a two or three year Treasury note (based on remaining term of the related warrants), and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock over the remaining life of the warrants.

A three-tier fair value hierarchy is used to prioritize the inputs in measuring fair value as follows:

7

Table of Contents

The assets or liabilities’ fair value measurement within the fair value hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The following table provides a summary of the relevant assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis.

8

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth a summary of the changes in the fair value of the Company’s Level 3 financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

Revenue Recognition

Prior to 2015, the Company entered into transactions with clients who are interested in being granted the right to have the Company engage exclusively with them in certain territories (which are described as territory rights) to obtain the necessary licenses to operate a dispensary or cultivation center for the location, and to consult in daily operations of the dispensary or cultivation center.

Terms for each transaction are varied and, prior to 2015, sales arrangements typically included the delivery of our dispensing technology and dispensary location build-out and/or consultation on the location, licensing, build out and operation of a cultivation center. Prior to 2015, the Company’s standard contracts had a five year term, calling for an upfront, non-refundable consulting fee, and containing options including acquiring a Medbox dispensary machine and having the Company perform the build-outs for the location, at set prices. The up-front fees under these contracts are recognized over the five year term, and are included in Deferred revenue. The Company has determined these optional purchases each constituted a separate purchasing decision, and therefore are considered a separate arrangement for revenue recognition purposes. Revenue on each of these options are evaluated for recognition when and if the customer decides to enter into the arrangement.

In 2015 and 2016, the Company concentrated on revenue generating transactions to develop and set up dispensaries, including obtaining the conditional use permits (“CUP”) that grant the dispensary the authorization to operate, as well as cultivation centers. The Company enters into joint ventures and operating agreements, whereby separate unrelated party controls the operations of the dispensary or cultivation center, and the Company receives an agreed upon percentage of the revenue or profits of the operating entity.

Based on these contracts, and other auxiliary agreements, our current revenue model consists of the following income streams:

Consulting fee revenues and build-outs

Prior to 2015, Consulting fee revenues were a consistent component of our revenues and were negotiated at the time the Company entered into a contract. Consulting revenue consisted of providing ongoing consulting services over the life of the contract, to the established business in the areas of regulatory compliance, security, operations and other matters to operate the dispensary. The majority of the consulting fees from prior to 2015 arose from the upfront, non-refundable consulting fee in the Company’s standard contract, and were recognized using the straight line method over the life of the contract. Consulting fee revenue is only recognized when the following four criteria are met: 1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, 2) delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, 3) sales price is fixed and determinable and 4) collectability is reasonably assured. Consulting fee revenue continues to be recognized in our income statement over the life of the aforementioned contracts.

Due to the uncertainties inherent in the emerging industry, the Company deferred recognition of revenue for sale of completed dispensaries with licenses until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the municipality. The certificate of occupancy is the final approval to open a dispensary in the customer’s community, at which time all criteria for revenue recognition, including delivery and acceptance, has been met. Additionally, at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, under the contract terms, all payments owed by the customer have been received by the Company. Similarly, recognition of revenue for the sale of a completed cultivation center is deferred until all licensing and permitting is completed and approved.

Unbilled costs and associated fees related to the build-outs are recorded in inventory and are subject to valuation testing at each quarter end for net realizable value (lower of cost or market) and collectability. None of these costs were included in Inventory as of March 31, 2016.

9

Table of Contents

Revenues from Operating Agreements

The Company enters into operating agreements with independent parties, giving the operator the rights to control the operations of a dispensary or cultivation center during the term of the agreement. In exchange, the Company earns a fee based on a percentage of the revenue or profit of the dispensary or cultivation center. The Company has determined they are not the principal in the revenue sharing agreements and recognizes revenue under these agreements on a net basis as the fees are earned and it has been concluded that collectability is reasonably assured.

Cost of Revenue

Cost of revenue consists primarily of expenses associated with the delivery and distribution of our products and services. We only begin capitalizing costs when we have obtained a license and a site for operation of a customer dispensary or cultivation center. The previously capitalized costs are charged to cost of revenue in the same period that the associated revenue is earned. In the case where it is determined that previously inventoried costs are in excess of the projected net realizable value of the sale of the licenses, then the excess cost above net realizable value is written off to cost of revenues. Cost of revenues also includes the rent expense on master leases held in the Company’s name, which are subleased to the Company’s operators. In addition, cost of revenue related to our vaporizer line of products consists of direct procurement cost of the products along with costs associated with order fulfillment, shipping, inventory storage and inventory management costs.

Inventory

Inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market value. Cost is determined on a cost basis that approximates the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method.

Work in process and related capitalized costs includes costs to build out a dispensary in Portland, Oregon that opened in the second quarter of 2015. Costs included tenant improvements to the facility, furniture, fixtures and Medbox dispensary units to be used by the licensed operator. The costs related to the Portland dispensary have been classified in deferred costs and are amortized straight-line over remaining term of the lease.

Basic and Diluted Net Loss Per Share

Basic net income/loss per share is computed by dividing net income (loss) available to common stockholders by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per share includes the effects of any outstanding options, warrants and other potentially dilutive securities.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company had 3,000,000 shares of Series A preferred stock outstanding with par value of $0.001 that could have been converted into 15,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. On August 24, 2015, 2 million shares of Series A preferred stock was cancelled, leaving 1 million shares outstanding, which were converted into common shares on November 16, 2015. There are no Series A preferred stock outstanding at March 31, 2016. Additionally, the Company had approximately 50,119,000 and 338,000 warrants to purchase common stock outstanding as of March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which were not included in the computation of diluted loss per share, as based on their exercise prices they would all have an anti-dilutive effect on net loss per share. The Company also had approximately $7,661,000 and $3,300,000 in convertible debentures outstanding at March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, that are convertible at the holders’ option at a conversion price of the lower of $0.75 or 51% to 60% of either the lowest trading price or the VWAP over the last 20 to 30 days prior to conversion (subject to reset upon a future dilutive financing), whose underlying shares resulted in an additional 5,746,769,206 dilutive shares being included in the computation of diluted net income per share.

Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Bad Debts

The Company is subject to credit risk as it extends credit to our customers for work performed as specified in individual contracts. The Company extends credit to its customers, mostly on an unsecured basis after performing certain credit analyses. Prior to 2015, our typical terms required the customer to pay a portion of the contract price up front and the rest upon certain agreed milestones. The Company’s management periodically reviews the creditworthiness of its customers and provides for probable uncollectible amounts through a charge to operations and a credit to an allowance for doubtful accounts based on our assessment of the current status of individual accounts. Accounts still outstanding after the Company has used reasonable collection efforts are written off through a charge to the allowance for doubtful accounts. As of March 31, 2016, the Company’s management considered all accounts outstanding fully collectible.

Property and Equipment

Property and equipment are recorded at cost. Expenditures for major additions and improvements are capitalized and minor replacements, maintenance, and repairs are charged to expense as incurred. When property and equipment are retired or otherwise

10

Table of Contents

disposed of, the cost and accumulated depreciation are removed from the accounts and any resulting gain or loss is included in the results of operations for the respective period. Depreciation is provided over the estimated useful lives of the related assets using the straight-line method for financial statement purposes. The Company uses accelerated depreciation methods for tax purposes where appropriate. The estimated useful lives for significant property and equipment categories are as follows:

Income Taxes

The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method. The Company recognizes deferred tax liabilities and assets for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the consolidated financial statements or tax returns. Under this method, deferred tax liabilities and assets are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse. The components of the deferred tax assets and liabilities are classified as current and non-current based on their characteristics. A valuation allowance is provided for certain deferred tax assets if it is more likely than not that the Company will not realize tax assets through future operations.

In addition, the Company’s management performs an evaluation of all uncertain income tax positions taken or expected to be taken in the course of preparing the Company’s income tax returns to determine whether the income tax positions meet a “more likely than not” standard of being sustained under examination by the applicable taxing authorities. This evaluation is required to be performed for all open tax years, as defined by the various statutes of limitations, for federal and state purposes.

Commitments and Contingencies

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the consolidated financial statements are issued, which may result in a loss to the Company but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The Company’s management and its legal counsel assess such contingent liabilities, and such assessment inherently involves an exercise of judgment. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against the Company or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company’s legal counsel evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought therein.

If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be estimated, then the estimated liability would be accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, would be disclosed.

Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed unless they involve guarantees, in which case the nature of the guarantee would be disclosed.

The Company accrues all legal costs expected to be incurred per event. For legal matters covered by insurance, the Company accrues all legal costs expected to be incurred per event up to the amount of the deductible.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers,” which requires an entity to recognize the amount of revenue to which it expects to be entitled for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers. ASU 2014-09 will replace most existing revenue recognition guidance in U.S. GAAP when it becomes effective. The new standard is effective for annual reporting periods for public business entities beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. The new standard permits the use of either the retrospective or cumulative effect transition method. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that ASU 2014-09 will have on its financial statements and related disclosures. The Company has not yet selected a transition method nor determined the effect of the standard on its ongoing financial reporting.

11

Table of Contents

On July 22, 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued a new standard that requires entities to measure most inventory “at the lower of cost and net realizable value,” thereby simplifying the current guidance under which an entity must measure inventory at the lower of cost or market. The new standard will not apply to inventories that are measured by using either the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method or the retail inventory method. The new standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2015, the FASB issued a new standard that requires an entity to determine whether a cloud computing arrangement contains a software license. If the arrangement contains a software license, the entity would account for the fees related to the software license element in a manner consistent with how the acquisition of other software licenses is accounted for. If the arrangement does not contain a software license, the customer would account for the arrangement as a service contract. The new standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015, and interim periods in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016. The Company is in the process of evaluating the impact of adoption on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued “Leases (Topic 842)” (ASU 2016-02). This update amends leasing accounting requirements. The most significant change will result in the recognition of lease assets and lease liabilities by lessees for those leases classified as operating leases under current guidance. The new guidance will also require significant additional disclosures about the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows from leases. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2018, which for the Company is December 31, 2018, the first day of its 2019 fiscal year. Upon adoption, entities are required to recognize and measure leases at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach. Early adoption is permitted, and a number of optional practical expedients may be elected to simplify the impact of adoption. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting this guidance. The overall impact is that assets and liabilities arising from leases are expected to increase based on the present value of remaining estimated lease payments at the time of adoption.

Management’s Evaluation of Subsequent Events

The Company evaluates events that have occurred after the balance sheet date of March 31, 2016, through the date which the consolidated financial statements were issued. Based upon the review, other than described in Note 18 – Subsequent Events, the Company did not identify any recognized or non-recognized subsequent events that would have required adjustment or disclosure in the consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 3 – ASSET ACQUISITION

On July 24, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Membership Interest (the “Acquisition Agreement”) with East West Secured Development, LLC (the “Seller”) to purchase 100% of the membership interest of EWSD I, LLC (“EWSD”) which has entered into an agreement with Southwest Farms, Inc. (“Southwest”) to purchase certain real property comprised of 320-acres of agricultural land in Pueblo, Colorado (the “Acquired Property” or “the Farm”).

The purchase price to acquire EWSD consisted of (i) $500,000 paid by the Company as a deposit into the escrow for the Acquired Property, and (ii) the Company’s future payments to Seller of a royalty of 3% of the adjusted gross revenue, if any, from operation of the Acquired Property (including sale of any portion of or interest in the Acquired Property less any applicable expenses) for the three-year period beginning on January 1, 2016. Such royalty payments shall be payable 50% in cash and 50% in Company common stock (the “Royalty Payment”). The Company determined that the royalty payments could not be estimated at the time of acquisition, and, therefore, the contingent payments have not been recognized as part of the acquisition price. The contingent consideration will be re-measured to fair value each subsequent period until the contingency is resolved, in this case, for the three year period beginning on January 1, 2016, with any changes in fair value recognized in earnings. Per the terms of the agreement, the closing is deemed to have occurred when the Special Warranty Deed is recorded (which occurred on August 7, 2015) and all terms of the purchase agreement for the Farm have been complied with, including the Farm closing, which also took place on August 7, 2015. Therefore, the acquisition date has been determined to be August 7, 2015. There were no assets or liabilities of EWSD on the acquisition date.

In connection with EWSD’s purchase of the Acquired Property, EWSD entered into a secured promissory note (the “Note”) with Southwest in the principal amount of $3,670,000 (Note 8). Interest on the outstanding principal balance of the Note shall accrue at the rate of five percent per annum. The Note shall be payable by EWSD in thirty-five payments of principal and interest, which shall be calculated based upon an amortization period of thirty years, commencing on September 1, 2015 and continuing thereafter on the first day of each calendar month through and including July 1, 2018; and one final balloon payment of all unpaid principal and accrued but unpaid interest on August 1, 2018. The Note is secured by a deed of trust, security agreement, assignment of rents and financing statement encumbering the Acquired Property.

12

Table of Contents

EWSD also entered into an unsecured promissory note (the “Unsecured Note”) in the principal amount of $830,000 with the Seller (Note 8), in respect of payments previously made by Seller to Southwest in connection with acquiring the Farm. Interest on the outstanding principal balance of the Unsecured Note shall accrue at the rate of six percent per annum. The Unsecured Note shall be payable by EWSD in thirty-five payments of principal and interest, which shall be calculated based upon an amortization period of thirty years, commencing on September 1, 2015 and continuing thereafter on the first day of each calendar month through and including July 1, 2018; and one final balloon payment of all unpaid principal and accrued but unpaid interest on August 1, 2018.

Farming Agreement

On December 18, 2015, the Company and its subsidiary EWSD I, LLC (“EWSD”), entered into a Farming Agreement (the “Farming Agreement”) with Whole Hemp Company (“Whole Hemp” now known as “Folium Biosciences”), pursuant to which Folium Biosciences would manufacture products from hemp and cannabis crops it would grow on EWSD farmland, and the Company would build greenhouses for such activities up to an aggregate size of 200,000 square feet. Folium Biosciences would pay all preapproved costs of such construction on or before September 30, 2017 as partial consideration for a revocable license to use the greenhouses and a separate 10 acre plot of EWSD farmland (the “10 Acres”). EWSD would retain ownership of the greenhouses. For the first growing season commencing October 1, 2016, the Company would receive a percentage of gross sales of all Folium Biosciences products on a monthly basis, and the Company’s share would increase incrementally based on the extent of crops planted on EWSD farmland according to a mutually agreed schedule. In addition, the Company would receive 50% of Folium Biosciences’s gross profits from the farming activities on the 10 Acres. The Company planned to recognize all revenue from the Farming Agreement at the net amount received when it has been earned and determined collectable.

Pursuant to the Farming Agreement, the Company also granted Folium Biosciences a warrant to purchase 4,000,000 shares of Company common stock at an exercise price of $0.50 per share, exercisable at any time within 5 years. The warrants were valued at $76,000, using a Black Scholes Merton Model, with key valuation assumptions used that consist of the price of the Company’s stock at settlement date, a risk free interest rate based on the average yield of a 5 year Treasury note and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock all as of the measurement date. The fair value of the warrants is included in Deferred costs and will be recognized over the life of the Farming Agreement.

On March 11, 2016, the Company and EWSD entered into a First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement with Whole Hemp, amending and restating in certain respects the Farming Agreement. The First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement clarifies that EWSD, rather than the Company, would be responsible for the building of greenhouses to be utilized by Whole Hemp for growing hemp and cannabis crops pursuant to the agreement, and that EWSD would be the recipient of all payments by Whole Hemp (including all revenue sharing arrangements) under the agreement.

Since May 7, 2016, we believe Folium Biosciences has been in default, principally because they abandoned their obligation to provide farming activities under the First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement. On May 13, 2016, EWSD notified Folium Biosciences of its defaults under the First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement and EWSD’s election to terminate the First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement.

By its terms, the First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party, if the other party was in material breach of any obligation under the First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement, which breach continued uncured for 30 days following written notice thereof.

Growers’ Distributor Agreement

On December 18, 2015, the Company also entered into a Growers’ Agent Agreement with Folium Biosciences, which was amended on March 11, 2016, to change the name of the agreement to Growers’ Distributor Agreement, (“Distributor Agreement”) as well clarify some terms. Pursuant to the Distributor Agreement, the Company would provide marketing, sales, and related services on behalf of Folium Biosciences in connection with the sale of its Cannabidiol oil product, from which the Company would receive a percentage of gross revenues (other than the sale of such product generated from the EWSD 10 Acres and the Folium Biosciences 40 acre plot subject to the Farming Agreement). The Growers’ Agent Agreement was effective until September 30, 2025. The Company would sell the product on behalf of Folium Biosciences on a commission basis. The Company may not act as agent of any other grower, distributor or manufacturer of the same product unless such other party agrees.

On March 11, 2016, the Company and EWSD entered into a First Amended and Restated Grower’s Distributor Agreement with Whole Hemp, amending and restating in certain respects the Grower’s Agent Agreement, including by substituting EWSD as a party in-place of the Company.

Because we believe Folium Biosciences is in default, principally because they abandoned their obligation to provide farming activities under the First Amended and Restated Farming Agreement since May 7, 2016, EWSD notified Whole Hemp on May 13, 2016 of its election to terminate the Restated Grower’s Distributor Agreement.

By its terms, the Restated Grower’s Distributor Agreement could be terminated at any time by either party, if the other party was in material breach of any obligation under the Restated Grower’s Distributor Agreement, which breach continued uncured for 30 days following written notice thereof.

As we continue to navigate the nascent world of hemp and CBD growing, cultivation, production and sales, it became clear that controlling all aspects of the business is the best strategy to ensure that we are meeting all of our goals. Again, we are taking action now to protect the investment all the stakeholders have all made in Notis Global.

The Company did not write down any slow moving or obsolete inventory during the three months ended March, 31, 2016 and 2015.

13

Table of Contents

NOTE 5 – DISPENSARIES

Portland

The Company holds the license to operate a dispensary in Portland, Oregon, and a master lease on the property in which the dispensary is located. In April 2015, the Company entered into an Operating Agreement (“Original Agreement”) with an unrelated party (the “Operator”) in which the Operator was to manage and operate the Dispensary. The Original Agreement also included an annual Licensor Fee of 5% of the annual Gross Revenues, which would have begun after the additional fees related to the startup of the new venture had been paid in full.

On December 3, 2015 the Company replaced the original operator of the Portland dispensary with another operator under a new Operator Agreement (the “Agreement”). Per the terms of the Agreement, the Dispensary was “under the exclusive supervision and control of Operator, which shall be responsible for the proper and efficient operation of the Dispensary”. The term of the Agreement includes an initial term of five years, and a renewal term for an additional five years. The renewal term is at the discretion of the Operator. There is a License fee, which is based on a flat 10% of Gross Revenues. The Company’s management has determined that under this Agreement they do not hold the controlling financial interest in the Dispensary and are not the primary beneficiary, and therefore did not consolidate the Dispensary in their consolidated financial statements.

Sunrise Property Investments, LLC

On December 3, 2015, the Company entered into an Operating Agreement with PSM Investment Group, LLC (“PSM”), for the governance of Sunrise Property Investments, LLC (“Sunrise”). Pursuant to the agreement, each of the two members contributed 50% of the capital of Sunrise. The Company’s contribution to the investment was the conditional use permit for the location, which was determined to have a zero cost basis, based on its carrying value in the Company’s financial statements. Sunrise acquired the property on which a dispensary will be located in San Diego on December 31, 2015. The Company has determined it should not consolidate the financial position and results of operations in its consolidated financial statements as it does not hold greater than 50% voting interest or is able to exercise influence over the operations and management in Sunrise. Instead, the Company accounts for Sunrise as an equity method investment. No income or loss has been recognized from Sunrise for the year ending December 31, 2015.

Alternative Health Cooperative, Inc. (“Alternative”) is a not-for-profit corporation, managed by an employee of Notis Global, which holds the conditional user permit (“CUP”) to run the dispensary. On January 1, 2016, Sunrise entered into an Operator Agreement with Alternative for Sunrise to operate the dispensary located on the Sunrise property. The Operator Agreement engages Sunrise to “supervise, direct and control the management of the dispensary”. The Agreement also states that the operation of the dispensary shall be under the exclusive supervision and control of Sunrise which shall be responsible for the proper and efficient operation of the dispensary. The Company had determined that under the operating agreement neither it nor Alternative hold the controlling financial interest in the dispensary, but that Sunrise is the controlling entity. Therefore, the Company did not consolidate the dispensary in its consolidated financial statements.

The Company incorporated a new wholly owned subsidiary, San Diego Sunrise, LLC (“San Diego Sunrise”), on February 22, 2016, in order to enter into a partnership agreement with PSM Investments to create an entity which would control the dispensary operations. Thereafter, Sunrise Dispensary LLC (“Dispensary”) was incorporated by PSM Investments and San Diego Sunrise on February 24, 2016, with each party holding a 50% ownership interest in the new entity. Immediately after which, Sunrise assigned the Operating Agreement with Alternative to Dispensary. The Company therefore indirectly held a 50% interest in the Sunrise Dispensary, through its subsidiary, San Diego Sunrise.

In February 2016, the Company sold 70% of its ownership interest in San Diego Sunrise for approximately $299,000. As of March 31, 2016, the Company owned 50% of Sunrise and 30% of San Diego Sunrise. These investments are accounted for under the equity method, with the Company’s proportionate share of the income or losses of the investments reflected in the Company’s financial statements. There has been no activity, aside from the sale of the Company’s ownership interests, in these investees as of, and for the three months ended, March 31, 2016.

Sunrise Delivery

On November 24, 2015, the Company entered into a Management Agreement (“the Agreement”) with Rise Industries (“the Operator”) for a delivery service to be called Sunrise Delivery, operating under the conditional use permit awarded to the Sunrise Dispensary. The delivery service began operations on December 19, 2015 and, due to the short period between commencement of operations and the year end, the results of operations were not material for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Under the Agreement, the Operator is fully and solely responsible to collect all revenue and pay all expenses arising from the delivery service, including acquisition of inventory. The Company’s name is not being used in connection with any advertising, marketing, product or delivery services provided by the Operator. The Company determined that under the Agreement they do not hold the controlling financial interest in the delivery service and the Operator is the controlling entity. Therefore, the Company did not consolidate Sunrise Delivery in their financial statements. The Company also evaluated whether the revenue earned from the delivery service should be recognized at the gross or net amount. As the Company meets the three indicators of being an agent, the Company will report the earnings or losses from the delivery service on a net basis, under the equity method of accounting.

14

Table of Contents

On December 9, 2015, the Company provided a $60,000 loan to Sunrise Delivery for working capital, with interest at prime and payable in one year and added an additional advance of $10,000 in the first quarter of 2016. In connection with the decision to sell 70% of their interests in the San Diego dispensary, the Company wrote off the loans totaling $70,000 as uncollectible at the end of the first quarter of 2016.

Washington

In the course of seeking licenses for new locations, the Company has to enter into real estate purchase agreements in order to secure the sites to be developed for clients’ dispensaries and cultivation centers. During the second quarter of 2014, one of the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a real estate purchase agreement for a property in the State of Washington. The purchase transaction was closed during the third quarter of 2014 for a total purchase price of $399,594, partially financed by a promissory note for $249,000. The note was due January 30, 2015 and bore interest at twelve percent (12%). The Company did not repay the note on its maturity date, and therefore began incurring interest at the default interest rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum. On September 30, 2015, the Company, through its subsidiary MJ Property Investments, and the seller of the property entered into an amendment to the Note Payable, whereby the maturity date was extended to April 1, 2017, and the interest rate returned to twelve percent (12%) per annum (see Note 8).

NOTE 6 – VAPORFECTION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Company acquired certain intangible assets with its purchase of 100% of the outstanding common stock of Vaporfection International Inc. (“VII”) on April 1, 2013. The Company accounts for intangible assets acquired in a business combination, if any, under the purchase method of accounting at their estimated fair values at the date of acquisition. Intangibles are either amortized over their estimated lives, if a definite life is determined, or are not amortized if their life is considered indefinite.

On December 31, 2015, the Company re-evaluated the future value of the intangible assets and determined none of the carrying value of the intangible assets were recoverable, and its carrying value exceeded its fair value. Therefore, the Company recognized an impairment loss on Intangibles of $586,000.

On December 31, 2015, the Company also performed the first step of the Goodwill impairment test, and, based on the same conclusions as above, determined there were indications of impairment of the Goodwill and they had to perform the second step of the impairment test, which compares the carrying value of the Goodwill to the implied Goodwill. The Company re-evaluated the fair value of all the associated assets of VII at December 31, 2015 and determined that there was no implied Goodwill. As there is no implied Goodwill, the impairment loss recognized was be the entire carrying value of Goodwill, approximately $1,260,000.

In light of these impairments, as discussed above, the Company wrote down all other assets related to the business, such as fixed assets and costs to develop the website as of December 31, 2015, resulting in a impairment of approximately $80,000. The Company also wrote down the Inventory of VII to its estimated fair value of $82,000.

The Board made a decision the last week of January 2016, to sell the assets of Vaporfection and exit the vaporizer business and sell the remaining inventory and related assets during the first half of 2016. The Company analyzed if Vaporfection should be presented as a Discontinued Operation under the guidance of ASC 205, Presentation of Financial Statements, 20, Discontinued Operations, (“ASC 205-20”), and determined the decision to exit the Vaporfection business was not a strategic shift in the Company’s business, as the Board and management did not consider the strategy for the business to be built around the sale of vape machines or peripherals.

On March 28, 2016, the Company sold the assets of the subsidiary for $70,000, which is payable $35,000 at the closing and with a 6% Note Payable, due September 30, 2016. The Company recognized approximately $6,000 as a gain on sale of the assets of their subsidiary for the three months ended March 31, 2016.

NOTE 7 – CONVERTIBLE NOTES PAYABLE AND DERIVATIVE LIABILITY

July and September 2014 Debentures

On July 21, 2014, as amended on September 19, 2014 and October 20, 2014, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement whereby the Company agreed to issue convertible debentures (“July 2014 Debentures”) in the aggregate principal amount of $3,500,000, in five tranches. The July 2014 Debentures bore interest at the rate of 10% per year. The debt was due July 21, 2015.

15

Table of Contents

Also on September 19, 2014, as amended on October 20, 2014, the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement pursuant to which it agreed to issue convertible debentures (“September 2014 Debentures”) in the aggregate principal amount of $2,500,000, in two tranches. The September 2014 Debentures bore interest at the rate of 5% per year. The debt was due September 19, 2015.

Both the original July 2014 Purchase Agreement Debentures and September 2014 Debentures, prior to subsequent amendment, share the following significant terms:

All amounts are convertible at any time, in whole or in part, at the option of the holders into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price. The Notes were initially convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at the initial Fixed Conversion Price of $11.75 per share. The Fixed Conversion Price is subject to adjustment for stock splits, combinations or similar events. If the Company makes any subsequent equity sales (subject to certain exceptions), under which an effective price per share is lower than the Fixed Conversion Price, then the conversion price will be reduced to equal such price. The Company may make the amortization payments on the debt in cash, prompting a 30% premium or, subject to certain conditions, in shares of common stock valued at 70% of the lowest volume weighted average price of the common stock for the 20 prior trading days.

The conversion feature of the July 2014 Debenture and the September 2014 Debenture meets the definition of a derivative and due to the reset provision to occur upon subsequent sales of securities at a price lower than the fixed conversion price, requires bifurcation and is accounted for as a derivative liability, with a discount created on the Debentures that would be amortized over the life of the Debentures using the effective interest rate method. The fair value of the embedded derivative is measured and recognized at fair value each subsequent reporting period and the changes in fair value are recognized in the Statement of Operations as Change in fair value of derivative liability. See Note 2 Fair value of financial instruments for additional information on the fair value and gains or losses on the embedded derivative.

In connection with each of the purchase agreements, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement with the respective investors, pursuant to which the Company agreed to file a registration statement for the resale of the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of, or payable as principal and interest on, the respective debentures, within 45 days of the initial closing date under each agreement, and to have such registration statements declared effective within 120 days of the initial closing dates of each purchase agreement. Through subsequent modifications of the July 2014 Debentures and September 2014 Debentures, the required date to file the registration statement and the effective date of the registration statement were modified, and the registration statement filed on April 9, 2015, and became effective on June 11, 2015.

On January 30, 2015, the Company and certain of the Investors entered into an Amendment, Modification and Supplement to the Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement Amendment” or the “Modification”) pursuant to which the Investors agreed to purchase an additional $1,800,000 in seven Modified Closings. The Modification also eliminated the amortization payments discussed above, and provided for accrued and unpaid interest to be payable upon conversion or maturity rather than on specified payment dates. The Company was also required to open a new dispensary in Portland, Oregon through a licensed operator during the first calendar quarter of 2015 (which was later modified to April 30, 2015). The Company also had to file the Registration Statement by March 8, 2015 (later amended), and it had to be declared effective by June 15, 2015 in order to avoid default and acceleration under the Amended and Restated Debenture. As noted above, the Registration Statement was filed on April 9, 2015, and became effective June 11, 2015.

As part of the January 30, 2015 Modification, the parties entered into a Modified Debenture Agreement for the $200,000 that was funded at the Closing and agreed to use the same form of Modified Debenture for each of the other foregoing Modified Closings (collectively, the “Modified Debentures”). The fixed conversion price of the Modified Debenture on January 30, 2015 was the lower of $5.00 or 51% of the lowest volume weighted average price for the 20 consecutive trading days prior to the applicable conversion date. This new fixed conversion price was a dilutive issuance to the outstanding July 2014 and September 2014 Debentures, thereby triggering a reset of the older fixed conversion price. As a result of the reset to the conversion price, at January 30, 2015, the derivative liability was re-measured to a fair value of approximately $2,690,000, using a weighted probability model as estimated by management. A decrease in fair value of the derivative liability of approximately $1,072,000 was recognized as a gain on the Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Loss, in the three months ended March 31, 2015.

The additional Modified Debentures under the July 2014 Debentures as of closing dates had a fixed conversion price of the lower of $1.83 or 51% of the VWAP for the last 20 days prior to the conversion. This new fixed conversion price was a dilutive issuance to the outstanding July 2014 and September 2014 Debentures, thereby triggering a reset of the previous $5 fixed conversion price. This reset resulted in the derivative liability being revalued at February 27, 2015, using a weighted probability model for a fair value of $2,720,000.

The additional Modified Debentures under the September 2014 Debentures closed on January 29, 2015 in the amount of $100,000 and February 24, 2015 in the amount of $100,000. These Modified Debentures have a fixed conversion price of the lower of $5.00 or 51%

16

Table of Contents

of the VWAP for the last 20 days prior to the conversion. This new fixed conversion price was a dilutive issuance to the outstanding September 2014 Debentures, thereby triggering a reset of the previous $5.00 fixed conversion price. The resulting reset and re-measurement of the fair value of the derivative liability is included in the amounts of the change to fair value discussed above.

The April 17, 2015 closing under the July 2014 Modified Debentures contained a fixed conversion price of the lower of $0.88 or 51% of the VWAP for the last 40 days prior to the conversion. This new fixed conversion price was a dilutive issuance to the outstanding July 2014 and September 2014 Debentures, thereby triggering a reset of the previous $1.83 fixed conversion price. This reset resulted in the derivative liability being revalued at April 17, 2015, using a weighted probability model for a fair value of $3,287,000, for a increase in fair value of approximately $1,764,000, recognized as a loss on the Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Loss.

There was additional funding of $1,300,000 of the September 2014 Modified Debentures under the closing schedule detailed above. These Modified Debentures all have a fixed conversion price of the lower of $0.88 or 51% of the VWAP for the last 40 days prior to the conversion.

The Directors’ convertible debentures required under the March 23, 2015 Modification, issued in the first quarter of 2015, total $150,000, and have a three year term and an interest rate of 8% per annum. They were originally convertible at a fixed conversion price of the lower of $1.83 or 51% of the VWAP for the last 20 days prior to conversion. As with the Modified Debentures, the debentures included a reset provision, which resulted in the conversion feature being bifurcated and accounted for as a derivative liability, with an initial fair value of $132,175. The director’s convertible debentures also reset on February 27, 2015 and April 17, 2015, with the changes to fair value included in the amounts disclosed above. The Directors debentures were all converted during the third quarter of 2015.

The Modified Debentures also included a warrant instrument granting the Investor the right to purchase shares of common stock of the Company equal to the principal amount of the applicable Modified Debenture divided by a price equal to 120% of the last reported closing price of the common stock on the applicable closing date of the Modified Debenture, with a three year term.

August 2015 Debentures

On August 14, 2015, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement whereby they agreed to issue convertible debentures in the aggregate principal amount of up to $3,979,877 to certain Investors. The initial closing in the aggregate principal amount of $650,000 occurred on August 14, 2015. An additional 11 payments were made in the total amount of $2,434,143 through December 31, 2015. The August 2015 Debentures bear interest at the rate of 10% per year. During the first quarter of 2016, an additional approximately $895,000 was funded.

On August 20, 2015, the Company also entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with another Investor in the aggregate principal amount of up to $1,500,000 (collectively the “August 2015 Debentures”), which was amended on September 19, 2015, to increase the principal by an additional $200,000..

The August 2015 Debentures contain the following significant terms:

The debentures all mature in one year from the date of each individual closing.

All amounts are convertible at any time, in whole or in part, at the option of the holders into shares of the Company’s common stock at a fixed conversion price. The conversion price is the lower of (a) $0.75, or (b) a 49% discount to the lowest daily VWAP (as reported by Bloomberg) of the Common Stock during the 30 trading days prior to the conversion date. The Fixed Conversion Price is subject to adjustment for stock splits, combinations or similar events. If the Company makes any subsequent equity sales (subject to certain exceptions), under which an effective price per share is lower than the Fixed Conversion Price, then the conversion price will be reset to equal such price. The Company may prepay the Debentures in cash, prompting a 30% premium or, subject to certain conditions, in shares of common stock valued at 51% of the lowest volume weighted average price of the common stock of the Company for the 30 prior trading days. The premium will be recognized at such time as the Company may choose to prepay the Debentures.

In connection with each of the purchase agreements, the Company entered into a registration rights agreement with the respective Investors pursuant to which the Company agreed to file a registration statement for the resale of the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of, or payable as principal and interest on, the respective debentures, within 45 days of the initial closing date under each agreement, and to have such registration statements declared effective within 120 days of the initial closing dates of each purchase agreement. The pre-effective registration statement was filed with the SEC on October 16, 2015.

The conversion feature of the August 2015 Debenture meets the definition of a derivative and due to the reset provision to occur upon subsequent sales of securities at a price lower than the fixed conversion price, requires bifurcation and is accounted for as a derivative

17

Table of Contents

liability. The derivatives related to all closings on the August 2015 debentures were initially recognized at estimated fair values of approximately $11,205,000 and created a discount on the Debentures that will be amortized over the life of the Debentures using the effective interest rate method. The fair value of the embedded derivative is measured and recognized at fair value each subsequent reporting period and the changes in fair value are recognized in the Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss) as Change in fair value of derivative liability. For the year ended December 31, 2014, and the interim periods through September 30, 2015, the Company estimated the fair value of the conversion feature derivatives embedded in the convertible debentures based on weighted probabilities of assumptions used in the Black Scholes pricing model. The key valuation assumptions used consists, in part, of the price of the Company’s common stock, ranging from $8.81 down to $0.05; a risk free interest rate ranging from 0.41% to 0.12% and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock, ranging from 196.78% to 106.38%, and the various estimated reset exercise prices weighted by probability.

As of December 31, 2015, and for new issuances of convertible debentures during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company estimated the fair value of the conversion feature derivatives embedded in the convertible debentures based on a Monte Carlo Simulation model (“MCS”). The MCS model was used to simulate the stock price of the Company from the valuation date through to the maturity date of the related debenture and to better estimate the fair value of the derivative liability due to the complex nature of the convertible debentures and embedded instruments. Management believes that the use of the MCS model compared to the black Scholes model as previously used would provide a better estimate of the fair value of these instruments. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, using the MCS model, the Company valued these embedded derivatives using a “with-and-without method,” where the value of the Convertible Debentures including the embedded derivatives, is defined as the “with”, and the value of the Convertible Debentures excluding the embedded derivatives, is defined as the “without.” This method estimates the value of the embedded derivatives by observing the difference between the value of the Convertible Debentures with the embedded derivatives and the value of the Convertible Debentures without the embedded derivatives. The Company believes the “with-and-without method” results in a measurement that is more representative of the fair value of the embedded derivatives.

For each simulation path, the Company used the Geometric Brownian Motion (“GBM”) model to determine future stock prices at the maturity date. The inputs utilized in the application of the GBM model included a starting stock price ranging from $0.03 to $0.10, an expected term of each debenture remaining from the valuation date to maturity ranging from .24 years to 1.04 years, an estimated volatility of ranging from 193% to 219%, and a risk-free rate ranging from .20% to .70%. See Note 2 Fair value of financial instruments for additional information on the fair value and gains or losses on the embedded derivative.

For the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company estimated the fair value of the conversion feature derivatives embedded in the convertible debentures based on an internally calculated adjustment to the MCS valuation determined at December 31, 2015. This adjustment took into consideration the changes in the assumptions, such as market value and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock, and the discount rate used in the December 31, 2015 valuation as compared to March 31, 2016. The Company believes this methodology results in a reasonable fair value of the embedded derivatives for the interim period.

Entry into Security Agreement

In connection with entry into the August 20 Purchase Agreement and August 14 Purchase Agreement, the Investors and the Company entered into a Security Agreement, dated August 21, 2015, securing the amounts underlying the August 14 Debentures and the August 20 Debentures. The Security Agreement grants a security interest in all assets and personal property of the Company, subject to certain excluded real property assets. The security interests under the Security Agreement terminated following the date that the registration statement registering the shares underlying the Convertible Debentures was declared effective, which occurred on December 15, 2015.

July 2015 Debenture

On July 10, 2015, another accredited Investor and affiliate of the July 2014 Investor (the “July 2015 Investor”) purchased a separate Convertible Debenture (the “July 2015 Debenture”) in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000, that closed in five weekly tranches between July 10 and August 15, 2015. The July 2015 Debenture is in substantially the same form as the August 14 Debentures, and does not include issuance of warrants. As such, the conversion feature was also determined to require bifurcation and derivative accounting. All amounts related to the July 2015 derivative liability are included in amounts disclosed above for the August 2015 debentures.

18

Table of Contents

On October 14, 2015, the August 2015 Investor assigned the right to purchase August 2015 Debentures in the principal amount of $100,000 to the July 2015 Investor and the July 2015 Investor purchased such August 2015 Debentures on the same day.

October 2015 Debentures

On October 14, 2015, the Company issued seven debentures in the aggregate of $2,000,000 to a service provider (the “October 2015 Investor”) as consideration for services previously rendered to the Company on the same terms as the August 14 Debentures and August 14 Purchase Agreement (the “October 2015 Debentures” and “October 2015 Purchase Agreement”, respectively) except that the October 2015 Purchase Agreement does not provide for registration rights to the October 2015 Investor with regard to the shares underlying the October 2015 Debentures. The service provider has agreed with the Company not to convert the October 2015 Debentures for any amount in excess of fees payable for services previously rendered to the Company at the time of conversion. To the extent that the sale of shares underlying the October 2015 Debentures do not satisfy outstanding amounts payable to the service provider, such amounts will remain payable to the service provider by the Company. In the three months ending March 31, 2016, funding closed on $425,000 of the October 2015 debentures.

December 28, 2015 Amendment and Restriction Agreement

On December 28, 2015, the Company, the August 14 Investor and the August 20 Investor entered into a Debenture Amendment and Restriction Agreement (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which (1) the August 14 Investor agreed to be restricted from converting any of its convertible debentures into common stock until February 21, 2016, subject to certain limitations set forth below (the “Restriction”) and (2) the August 14 Investor agreed to assign, as of the effective date of the Agreement approximately $390,000 of its convertible debentures to the August 20 Investor in exchange for the amount of principal outstanding under such debenture plus a premium in cash from the August 20 Investor (the “Assigned Debentures”). The accrued and unpaid interest under the Assigned Debentures remained payable by the Company to the August 14 Investor.

The August 14 Investor also agreed to amend the terms of each of its debentures (other than the debentures that were assigned) such that the debenture is convertible at a 40% discount to the lowest trading price of the Company’s common stock during the 30 consecutive prior trading days rather than at a 49% discount to the lowest ‘volume weighted-average price’ during the 30 consecutive prior trading days. This was not considered to be a modification of the terms of the conversion feature, requiring evaluation of the debenture to determine if it was modified or extinguished, as the conversion feature is separately accounted for as a derivative, and is outside of the scope of the guidance on debt modifications. The change in the conversion price will be reflected in its fair value under derivative accounting.

As consideration for entering into the Agreement, the August 14 Investor was issued a promissory note from the Company in the principal amount of $700,000 (the “Promissory Note”). The Promissory Note has a term of ten months, accrues interest at a rate of 10% per annum, and outstanding principal and accrued interest under the Promissory Note may be pre-paid at any time by the Company without penalty. The Promissory Note is not convertible other than in an event of default, in which case it is convertible on the terms of the other debentures held by the August 14 Investor. This conversion feature was considered to be a contingent conversion feature, and therefore the conversion feature would not be bifurcated and accounted for as a derivative, as are the conversion features of all other debentures, until such time as and if the Company is in an event of default. The Promissory Note is being accounted for as a finance expense of the December 28, 2015 transaction, similar to a debt discount, and will be amortized to financing expense over the ten month life of the note (Note 8).

19

Table of Contents

The August 20 Investor shall also acquire from the August 14 Investor an additional $650,000 of the convertible debentures held by the August 14 Investor (1) upon the declaration of effectiveness of a post-effective amendment (the “POSAM”) to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 originally filed by the Company on October 16, 2015 and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2015 (the “Registration Statement”) reflecting the terms of the Agreement, or (2) at the option of the August 20 Investor (the “Option”), at an earlier time. The August 14 Investor exercised the Option on January 25, 2016. The POSAM was declared effective on February 3, 2016.

At March 31, 2016, the Company had not paid the principal due of $9,600 on a convertible debenture which was due on March 27, 2016. The Company was in default and obtained a waiver from the lender on May 11, 2016 waiving all rights relating to the nonpayment and extending the maturity date of the convertible debenture to August 1, 2016. In the same waiver agreement, the terms of five additional convertible debentures with maturity dates in May and June of 2016 totaling $122,084 were also extended to a maturity date of August 1, 2016.

February 10, 2016 Financing

On February 10, 2016, the Company entered into a Note Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with an accredited investor (the “Investor”), pursuant to which the Company agreed to sell, and the Investor agreed to purchase, a promissory note (the “Note”) in the aggregate principal amount of $275,000. The closing occurred on February 11, 2016.

The Investor deducted a commitment fee in the amount of $25,000 at the closing. The Note bears interest at the rate of 10% per year and matures on October 31, 2016. The Company may prepay all or any part of the outstanding balance of the Note at any time without penalty. In the event that the Company or any of its subsidiaries becomes subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings or takes certain related corporate actions, all outstanding principal and accrued interest under the Note will immediately and automatically become due and payable. In addition, the Note identifies certain other events of default, the occurrence of which would entitle the Investor to declare the outstanding principal and accrued interest immediately due and payable or to convert the Note, in whole or in part, into shares of the Company’s common stock at a conversion price that is the lower of (a) $0.75, or (b) a 51% discount to the lowest daily volume weighted average price of the Company’s common stock during the 20 trading days prior to the conversion date.

This conversion feature was considered to be a contingent conversion feature, and therefore the conversion feature would not be bifurcated and accounted for as a derivative, as are the conversion features of all other debentures, until such time as and if the Company is in an event of default. The balance of this note is included with Notes Payable on the accompanying condensed consolidated Balance Sheet (Note 8).

February 18, 2016 Financing

On February 18, 2016, the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with an accredited investor (the “Investor”) pursuant to which the Company agreed to sell, and the Investor agreed to purchase, convertible debentures (the “Debentures”) in the aggregate principal amount of $420,000, in two tranches.

The initial closing in the aggregate principal amount of $210,000 occurred on February 18, 2016. The second closing in the amount of $210,000 occurred on March 18, 2016 ($125,000) and March 22, 2016 ($85,000). The Debentures bear interest at the rate of 10% per year and mature after one year and are subject to a financing fee of 5%.

Each of the Debentures are convertible at the option of the holders into shares of the common stock of the Company at a conversion price that is lower of (a) $0.75, or (b) a 40% discount to the lowest traded price of the common stock of the Company during the 30 trading days prior to the conversion date. The Company may prepay the Debentures in cash, prompting a 30% premium.

The conversion feature of the Debentures meets the definition of a derivative and due to the reset provision to occur upon subsequent sales of securities at a price lower than the fixed conversion price, requires bifurcation and is accounted for as a derivative liability.

The derivatives related to both the February 18, 2016 convertible debentures and the additional closings on the August 2015 and October 2015 debentures, were initially recognized at their estimated fair values as described previously, which amounted to approximately $4,082,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2016 and $1,885,000 for the same period of 2015. The resulting debt discount is amortized as over the life of the convertible debenture, or until conversion if earlier, which resulted in amortization expense of $1,868,000 and $1,820,000, for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Additionally, the current year closings to convertible debentures resulted in the calculated fair value of the debt being greater than the face amounts of the debt by approximately $2,302,000, with this excess amount being immediately expensed as Financing costs. Financing costs for the three months ended March 31, 2015, were approximately $525,000. The fair value of the embedded derivative consisting of all related convertible debentures is measured and recognized at fair value each subsequent reporting period and the changes in fair value for all derivatives for three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, resulted in a gain of approximately $8,880,000 and $2,239,000, respectively, which are recognized in the condensed consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss) as Change in fair value of derivative liability.

20

Table of Contents

March 15 2016 Financing

The Company entered into a Note Purchase Agreement, effective as of March 14, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), with an Investor (the “March 15 Investor”) pursuant to which the March 15 Investor purchased and the Company issued and sold a promissory note in the original principal amount of $140,000 (the “First Promissory Note”). Upon satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Note Purchase Agreement, the Company will issue and sell a second promissory note in the original principal amount of $137,500 (the “Second Promissory Note”). Each Promissory Note matures six (6) months after the date of its issuance. The First Promissory Note carries an original issue discount of $12,500 (the “First Promissory Note OID”). In addition, Company agreed to pay $5,000 towards the March 15 Investor’s legal fees incurred in connection with the purchase and sale of the First Promissory Note and the Second Promissory Note, $2,500 of which was paid to the March 15 Investor prior to the Effective Date and $2,500 of which amount (the “Carried Transaction Expense Amount”) is included in the initial principal balance of the First Promissory Note. The purchase price of the First Promissory Note was $125,000, computed as follows: $140,000 initial principal balance, less the First Promissory Note OID, less the Carried Transaction Expense Amount. The Second Promissory Note, if issued, also carries an original issue discount of $12,500 (the “Second Promissory Note OID”). The purchase price of the Second Promissory Note shall be $125,000, computed as follows: $137,500 initial principal balance, less the Second Promissory Note OID (the “Second Promissory Note Purchase Price”).

On March 15, 2016, the Company issued and sold the First Promissory Note to the March 15 Investor. Upon satisfaction of the terms (the “Mandatory Second Promissory Note Conditions”), the Company shall issue and sell the Second Promissory Note to the March 15 Investor. The Mandatory Second Promissory Note Conditions means that each of the following conditions has been satisfied on or before the date that is ninety (90) days from the Effective Date: (i) the Share Reserve (as defined in the First Promissory Note) for the First Promissory Note shall have been established; (ii) no Event of Default (as defined in the First Promissory Note) shall have occurred under the First Promissory Note; (iii) the median daily dollar volume of the Common Stock on its principal market for the nineteen (19) Trading Days (as defined in the First Promissory Note) immediately preceding the Share Reserve Date is greater than $75,000 per Trading Day; and (iv) the Company has notified Investor in writing that it has elected to require that Investor pay the Second Promissory Note Purchase Price. If the Mandatory Second Promissory Note Conditions are not satisfied as of the date that is ninety (90) days from the Effective Date, then the March 15 Investor shall not be obligated to pay the Second Promissory Note Purchase Price and the Second Promissory Note shall not be considered a valid, binding, or enforceable obligation of the Company, and, thereafter, the Second Promissory Note shall only be issued and the Second Promissory Note Purchase Price will only be payable upon the mutual written agreement of Company and the March 15 Investor. The First Promissory Note and/or the Second Promissory Note may be prepaid at any time by the Company in the sole discretion of the Company at a 25% premium to the outstanding balance under the applicable Promissory Note.

In the event that the First Promissory Note and/or the Second Promissory Note is not paid in full on or before maturity by the Company, then the March 15 Investor shall have the right at any time thereafter until such time as the First Promissory Note and/or the Second Promissory Note is paid in full, at the March 15 Investor’s election, to convert (each instance of conversion being a “Conversion”) all or any part of the outstanding balance into shares (“Conversion Shares”) of fully paid and non-assessable Common Stock of the Company as per the following conversion formula: the number of Conversion Shares equals the amount being converted divided by 50% multiplied by the lowest daily volume weighted average price of the Common Stock in the twenty (20) Trading Days immediately preceding the applicable Conversion. At any time and from time to time after the March 15 Investor becoming aware of the occurrence of any event of default, the March 15 Investor may accelerate the First Promissory Note and/or the Second Promissory by written notice to the Company, with the outstanding balance of the respective Note becoming immediately due and payable in cash at 125% of the outstanding balance.

This conversion feature was considered to be a contingent conversion feature, and therefore the conversion feature would not be bifurcated and accounted for as a derivative, as are the conversion features of all other debentures, until such time as and if the Company is in an event of default. The balance of the First Promissory Note is included with Notes Payable on the accompanying condensed consolidated Balance Sheet (Note 8).

Related Party Financing

One of the directors on the Company’s Board, entered into three separate subordinated convertible promissory notes convertible at $0.01 with the Company on March 4, 2016, March 10, 2016 and March 15, 2016, respectively, each in the principal amount of $25,000, for a total of $75,000. Also on March 15, 2016, another of the Company’s directors entered into a subordinated convertible promissory note convertible at $0.01 with the Company in the principal amount of $25,000, and two other of the Company’s directors each entered into a subordinated convertible promissory note convertible at $0.01 with the Company in the principal amount of $2,500. All of the foregoing convertible promissory notes have three year terms and an interest rate of 8% per annum. The debentures were evaluated to determine if the conversion feature fell within the guidance for derivative accounting, and as the debentures are convertible at a fixed conversion price, and do not include a the reset provision to occur upon subsequent sales of securities at a price lower than the fixed conversion price, the Company concluded the conversion feature did not qualify as a derivative.

21

Table of Contents

In connection with their funding of the Notes (collectively the “Notes”), the directors each receive a warrant, exercisable for a period of three (3) years from the date of Notes, to purchase an amount of Company Common Stock equal to 50% of the principal sum under each of the director notes, at an exercise price equal to 200% of the applicable Conversion Price. The exercise price of the Warrants is $0.02. The warrants were determined to have a fair value of $42,000, calculated with the Black Sholes Merton model, with key valuation assumptions used that consist of the price of the Company’s stock at settlement date, a risk free interest rate based on the average yield of a 3 year Treasury note and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock all as of the measurement date.

Conversions

During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, $928,000 and $1,400,000 of principal and approximately $8,000 and $25,000, of accrued interest were converted into approximately 151,824,000 and 1,919,000 of the Company’s common shares at an average price of $0.01 and $0.74, based on 51% of the calculated VWAP. Upon conversion, the derivative fair value for the amounts converted were re-measured through the date of conversion, with the conversion date fair value reclassified to equity, amounting to approximately $1,765,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2016. As a result of the conversions, the resulting decrease of fair value of approximately $1,512,000 of the related debt discount was recognized on the Statement of Consolidated Comprehensive Income (Loss).

22

Table of Contents

Effective September 18, 2015, the holder of the September 2014 Debentures and the Company agreed to amend its September 2014 Warrants, to reduce the exercise price of the warrants to purchase an aggregate of 2,291,832 shares of the Company’s common stock to six cents per share. Additionally, the holder of the July 2014 Debentures and the Company agreed to amend its July 2014 Warrants, to reduce the exercise price of the warrants to purchase an aggregate of 6,332,441 shares of Common Stock to six cents per share. As a result of the amendment, the fair value of the warrants was remeasured as of September 18, 2015, for an additional fair value of approximately $38,000 recognized as a financing expense. During the year ended December 31, 2015, approximately 2,292,000 warrants were exercised for cash proceeds of $137,510 at an average exercise price of $0.06.

During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, there were no warrants exercised.

The Company determined at issuance that the warrants were properly classified in equity as there is no cash settlement provision and the warrants have a fixed exercise price and, therefore, result in an obligation to deliver a known number of shares.

The Company adopted a sequencing policy that reclassifies contracts, with the exception of stock options, from equity to assets or liabilities for those with the earliest inception date first. Any future issuance of securities, as well as period-end reevaluations, will be evaluated as to reclassification as a liability under our sequencing policy of earliest inception date first until all of the convertible debentures are either converted or settled.

The Company reevaluated the warrants as of March 31, 2016 and determined that they did not have a sufficient number of authorized and unissued shares to settle all existing commitments, and the fair value of the warrants for which there was insufficient authorized shares, were reclassified out of equity to a liability. Under the sequencing policy, of the approximately 50,120,000 warrants outstanding at March 31, 2016, it was determined there was not sufficient authorized shares for approximately 49,625,000 of the outstanding warrants. The fair value of these warrants was re-measured on March 31, 2016 using the Black Scholes Merton Model, with key valuation assumptions used that consist of the price of the Company’s stock on March 31, 2016, a risk free interest rate based on the average yield of a 2 or 3 year Treasury note and expected volatility of the Company’s common stock, resulting in the fair value for the Warrant liability of $426,000.

23

Table of Contents

Maturities on Notes Payable are as follows:

NOTE 9 – SHARE BASED AWARDS, RESTRICTED STOCK AND RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS (“RSUs”)

The Board resolved that, beginning with the fourth calendar quarter of 2015, the Company shall pay each member of the Company’s Board of Directors, who is not also an employee of the Company, for each calendar quarter during which such member continues to serve on the Board compensation in the amount of $15,000 in cash and 325,000 shares of Company common stock. The 975,000 shares issued to all the directors for the three months ended March 31, 2016 were valued at the market price of the Company’s common stock on March 31, 2016, for total compensation expense of $9,750. On March 31, 2016, the Board awarded the Chairman a cash bonus of approximately $89,000 and following the increase in the Company’s authorized shares of common stock during the second quarter of 2016 the Board intended to issue to the Chairman determined that, 2,230,000 shares of Company common stock for his service in the three months ended March 31, 2016, which at the time of such determination was at the market price of the Company’s common stock on such date.

The Board also voted on November 20, 2015, to increase the shares available for grant under the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan to 32,000,000. The Company intends to file a Form S-8 regarding the increased shares available for grant now that the increase in authorized shares has been approved.

24

Table of Contents

A summary of the activity related to RSUs for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 is presented below:

A summary of the expense related to restricted stock, RSUs and stock option awards for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 is presented below:

NOTE 10 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company issued two convertible notes to one of its directors in the aggregate principal amount of $100,000 and one convertible note to another of its director in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000. These notes were all converted to common stock during the third quarter of 2015.

During the first quarter of 2016, the Company issued three convertible notes to one of its directors in the aggregate principal amount of $75,000 and one convertible note to another of its director in the aggregate principal amount of $25,000, plus a convertible note to each of its other two directors, in the amount of $2,500 each. See Note 7 for a description of these notes.

NOTE 11 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases property for its day to day operations and facilities for possible retail dispensary locations and cultivation locations as part of the process of applying for retail dispensary and cultivation licenses.

25

Table of Contents

Office Leases

On August 1, 2011, the Company entered into a lease agreement for office space located in West Hollywood, California through June 30, 2017 at a current monthly rate of $14,828 per month. The Company moved to new offices in Los Angeles, CA in April 2015. The sublease on the new office has a term of 18 months with monthly rent of $7,486.

The landlord for the West Hollywood space has filed a suit against the Company and independent guarantors on the West Hollywood lease. The Company has expensed all lease payments due under the West Hollywood lease. The Company’s liability for the West Hollywood lease will be adjusted, if required, upon settlement of the suit with the landlord.

Total rent expense under operating leases for the quarters ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 was approximately $289,000 and $45,000, respectively.

Retail/Cultivation facility leases

The Company’s business model of acquiring retail dispensary and cultivation licenses often requires us to acquire real estate either through lease arrangements or through purchase agreements in order to secure a possible license. Deposits in escrow consist of amounts paid to open escrow accounts for the purchase of multiple properties to be used to develop retail dispensary or product cultivation facilities.

The following table is a summary of our material contractual lease commitments as of March 31, 2016:

Litigation

On May 22, 2013, Medbox initiated litigation in the United States District Court in the District of Arizona against three shareholders of MedVend Holdings LLC (“Medvend”) in connection with a contemplated transaction that Medbox entered into for the purchase of an approximate 50% ownership stake in Medvend for $4.1 million. The lawsuit alleges fraud and related claims arising out of the contemplated transaction during the quarter ended June 30, 2013. The litigation is pending and Medbox has sought cancellation due to a fraudulent sale of the stock because the selling shareholders lacked the power or authority to sell their ownership stake in MedVend, and their actions were a breach of representations made by them in the agreement. On November 19, 2013 the litigation was transferred to United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. MedVend recently joined the suit pursuant to a consolidation order executed by a new judge assigned to the matter. In the litigation, the selling shareholder defendants seek alternatively to have the transaction performed, or to have it unwound and be awarded damages and allege breach of the agreement by Medbox and that $600,000 was wrongfully retained by the Company. Medbox has denied liability with respect to any and all such counterclaims. A new litigation schedule was recently issued setting trial for September 2015. On June 5, 2014, the Company entered into a purchase and sale agreement (the “Medvend PSA”) with PVM International, Inc. (“PVMI”) concerning this matter. Pursuant to the Medvend PSA, the Company sold to PVMI the Company’s rights and claims attributable to or controlled by the Company against those three certain stockholders of Medvend, known as Kaplan, Tartaglia and Kovan (the “Medvend Rights and Claims”), in exchange for the return by PVMI to the Company of 30,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. PVMI is owned by Vincent Mehdizadeh, formerly the Company’s largest stockholder. On December 17, 2015, the Company entered into a revocation of the Medvend PSA, which provided that from that date forward, Medbox would take over the litigation and be responsible for the costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the Medvend Litigation from December 17, 2015 forward. All costs and attorneys’ fees through December 16, 2015 will be borne by PVMI. After the filing of a motion for substitution of Medbox n/k/a Notis Global, Inc. for PVMI, Defendants’ agreed, via a stipulated order, to permit the substitution. The Court entered the order substituting Notis Global, Inc. for PVMI on February 17, 2016. The case is in the discovery stage, and, at this time, the Company cannot determine whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is probable or remote, nor can they reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable.

On February 20, 2015, Michael A. Glinter, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendants Medbox, Inc. the Board and certain executive officers (Pejman Medizadeh, Matthew Feinstein, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Ned Siegel, Jennifer Love, and C. Douglas Mitchell) filed a suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los

26

Table of Contents

Angeles. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse of control by the defendants. Relief is sought awarding damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duty and to direct the Company and the defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. This action has been stayed pending the outcome of the actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Calabrese and Gray). The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On January 21, 2015, Josh Crystal on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California against Medbox, Inc., and certain past and present members of the Board (Pejman Medizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and C. Douglas Mitchell). The suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company must file a responsive pleading on or before December 4, 2015. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On January 18, 2015, Ervin Gutierrez filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws through public announcements and filings that were materially false and misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that violated US GAAP. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company must file a responsive pleading on or before December 4, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On January 29, 2015, Matthew Donnino filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company must file a responsive pleading on or before December 4, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On February 12, 2015, Jennifer Scheffer, derivatively on behalf of Medbox, Guy Marsala, Ned Siegel, Mitchell Lowe and C. Douglas Mitchell filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada seeking damages for breaches of fiduciary duty regarding the issuance and dissemination of false and misleading statements and regarding allegedly improper and unfair related party transactions, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets. On April 17, 2015, Ned Siegel and Mitchell Lowe filed a Motion to Dismiss. On April 20, 2015, the Company filed a Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss. On July 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing on and granted the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On March 10, 2015 Robert J. Calabrese, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Medbox, Inc., filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against certain Company officers and/or directors (Ned L. Siegel, Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Bruce Bedrick, and Jennifer S. Love). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and gross mismanagement by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim financial periods. Specifically the suit alleges that defendants caused the Company to overstate the Company’s revenues by recognizing revenue on customer contracts before it had been earned. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses for all damages sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On March 27, 2015 Tyler Gray, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Medbox, Inc., filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain executive officers (Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Matthew Feinstein, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanski, Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Ned Siegel, Jennifer S. Love, and C. Douglas Mitchell). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and abuse of control. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses for all damages sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. Additionally the plaintiff

27

Table of Contents

seeks declaratory judgments that plaintiff may maintain the action on behalf of the Company, that the plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Company, and that the defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company. Lastly the plaintiff seeks that the Company be directed to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On May 20, 2015 Patricia des Groseilliers, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Medbox, Inc., filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain executive officers (Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Ned Siegel, Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Bruce Bedrick, Jennifer S. Love, Matthew Feinstein, C. Douglas Mitchell, and Thomas Iwanski). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses for all damages sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. Additionally the plaintiff seeks declaratory judgments that plaintiff may maintain the action on behalf of the Company, that the plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Company, and that the defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company. Lastly the plaintiff seeks that the Company be directed to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. On April 22, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting, without a hearing, shareholder Richard Merritts’ Motion to Intervene in the lawsuit titled Mike Jones v. Guy Marsala, et al. , in order to conduct limited discovery. The Order granting the Motion to Intervene also continued the final fairness hearing, previously scheduled for May 16, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On June 3, 2015 Mike Jones, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Medbox, Inc., filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain executive officers (Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Ned Siegel, Jennifer S. Love, C. Douglas Mitchell, Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Matthew Feinstein, Bruce Bedrick, and Thomas Iwanski). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and breach of duty of honest services. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses for all damages sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. Additionally the plaintiff seeks declaratory judgments that plaintiff may maintain the action on behalf of the Company, that the plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Company, and that the defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company. Lastly the plaintiff seeks that the Company be directed to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. On July 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating this litigation with those previously consolidated in the Central District (Crystal, Gutierrez, and Donnino). The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. On March 25, 2016, shareholder Richard Merritts, who filed a derivative lawsuit against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain executive officers on October 27, 2015, filed a Motion to Intervene in the case. By his Motion, Merritts seeks limited intervention in the Jones shareholder derivative action in order to seek confirmatory information and discovery regarding the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement preliminarily approved by the Court on February 3, 2016. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Jones and the Company separately filed oppositions to the Motion to Intervene. The hearing on the Motion to Intervene is set for April 25, 2016. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On July 20, 2015 Kimberly Freeman, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Medbox, Inc., filed a suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada against the Company’s Board of Directors and certain executive officers (Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Guy Marsala, Ned Siegel, J. Mitchell Lowe, Jennifer S. Love, C. Douglas Mitchell, and Bruce Bedrick). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses for all damages sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing. Additionally the plaintiff seeks declaratory judgments that plaintiff may maintain the action on behalf of the Company, that the plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Company, and that the defendants have breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company. Lastly the plaintiff seeks that the Company be directed to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015. See more detailed discussion below under Class Settlement and Derivative Settlements .

On October 16, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and uncertainties inherent in litigation, the parties to the class actions and derivative lawsuits named above entered into settlements that collectively effect a global settlement of all claims asserted in the class actions and the derivative actions. The global settlement provides, among other things, for the release and dismissal of all asserted claims. The global settlement is contingent on final court approval, respectively, of the settlements of the class actions and derivative actions. If the global settlement does not receive final court approval, it could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future.

Class Settlement

On December 1, 2015, Medbox and the class plaintiffs in Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO (JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) notified the Court of the settlement. The Court stayed the action pending the Court’s review of the settlement and directed the parties to file a stipulation of settlement. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement that included the stipulation of settlement. On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement provides for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a final approval hearing. The Court originally scheduled the Final Settlement Approval Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., but continued it to August 15, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. to be heard at the same time as the Final Settlement Approval Hearing for the derivative actions, discussed below. The principal terms of the settlement are:

28

Table of Contents

By entering into the settlement, the settling parties have resolved the class claims to their mutual satisfaction. However, the final determination is subject to approval by the Federal Courts. Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation.

The Company has accrued the amounts per the terms of the settlement that are their responsibility in Accrued settlement and severance expense on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. This consists of the $150,000 cash payment, and the fair value of 2,000,000 of the Company’s stock, based on the fair value as of December 31, 2015 of $0.03, approximately $52,000.

Derivative Settlements

As previously announced on October 22, 2015, on October 16, 2015, the Company, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into a memorandum of understanding of settlement (the “Settlement”) in the following shareholder derivative actions: (1) Mike Jones v. Guy Marsala, et al., in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California; (2) Jennifer Scheffer v. P. Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada; (3) Kimberly Y. Freeman v. Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada; (4) Tyler Gray v. Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; (5) Robert J. Calabrese v. Ned L. Siegel, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; (6) Patricia des Groseilliers v. Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; (7) Michael A. Glinter v. Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (the “Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits”). In addition to the Company, Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Matthew Feinstein, Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanski, Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Ned Siegel, and C. Douglas Mitchell were named as defendants in all of the lawsuits, and Jennifer S. Love was named in all of the lawsuits but the Scheffer action (the “Individual Defendants”).

On December 3, 2015, the parties in the Jones v. Marsala action advised the Court of the settlements in the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits and that the parties would be submitting the settlement to the Court in the Jones action for approval. The Court thereafter issued an order vacating all pending dates in the action and ordered Plaintiff to file the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement for the Court’s approval. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Derivative Settlement that included the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Court originally scheduled a final Settlement Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., but subsequently continued that hearing to August 15, 2016 at 1:30. By the terms of the settlement, a final Court approval would provide for a release of the claims in the Shareholder Derivative Actions and a bar against continued prosecution of all claims covered by the release. By entering into the Settlement, the settling parties have resolved the derivative claims to their mutual satisfaction. The Individual Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation.

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company agrees to adopt and adhere to certain corporate governance processes in the future. In addition to these corporate governance measures, the Company’s insurers, on behalf of the Individual Defendants, will make a payment of $300,000 into the settlement escrow account and Messrs. Mehdizadeh and Bedrick will deliver 2,000,000 and 300,000 shares, respectively, of their Medbox, Inc. common stock into the settlement escrow account. Subject to Court approval, the funds and common stock in the settlement escrow account will be paid as attorneys’ fees and expenses, or as service awards to plaintiffs.

The Settlement remains subject to approval by the Court. The Court must determine whether (1) the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders, (2) if the judgment, as provided for in the Settlement, should be entered, and (3) if the request of plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be granted.

The Company’s responsibilities as to the proposed settlements have been accrued and included in Accrued settlement and severance expenses on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2015. If the Class or Derivative settlements do not receive final court approval, it could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future.

29

Table of Contents

On October 27, 2015, separate from the above lawsuits and settlement, Richard Merritts, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant Medbox, Inc., filed a suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the Board and certain executive officers (Guy Marsala, J. Mitchell Lowe, Ned Siegel, Jennifer S. Love, C. Douglas Mitchell, Pejman Vincent Mehdizadeh, Matthew Feinstein, Bruce Bedrick, Jeff Goh, and Thomas Iwanski). The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. Relief is sought awarding damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duty and to direct the Company and the defendants to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable law. On February 16, 2016, the court issued an order staying the litigation pending final court approval of the settlement of the other pending derivative actions involving Medbox, Inc., as nominal defendant, and former and current officers and directors. The settlement of the other derivative actions has been preliminarily approved by the court in Jones v. Marsala, et al., Case No. 15-cv-4170 BRO (JEMx), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 25, 2016, Merritts filed a Motion to Intervene in the case filed by Mike Jones in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. By his Motion, Merritts seeks limited intervention in the Jones shareholder derivative action in order to seek confirmatory information and discovery regarding the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement preliminarily approved by the Court on February 3, 2016. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Jones and the Company separately filed oppositions to the Motion to Intervene. On April 22, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting, without a hearing, shareholder Richard Merritts’ Motion to Intervene in the lawsuit titled Mike Jones v. Guy Marsala, et al. , in order to conduct limited discovery. The Order granting the Motion to Intervene also continued the final fairness hearing, previously scheduled for May 16, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

Other litigation

On December 26, 2014, Medicine Dispensing Systems, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Medbox, filed a suit against Kind Meds, Inc. to collect fees of approximately $550,000 arising under a contract to establish a dispensary. Kind Meds, Inc. filed a cross complaint against Medicine Dispensing Systems for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, claiming damages of not less than $500,000. On November 14, 2015, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement wherein the matter was resolved, and the complaint and cross complaint were subsequently dismissed with no amounts owing by the Company, and the complaint and cross complaint were subsequently dismissed.

30

Table of Contents

The Company commenced arbitration proceedings against a former employee on June 13, 2013 related to employment claims asserted by the employee. Thereafter, the employee filed a suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit was stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration and thereafter dismissed without prejudice. The Company obtained a favorable arbitration award. The Company then filed an Application to Confirm the Arbitration Award in Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County. After being unable to serve the employee, the Company performed service by publication and filed proofs of publication for service on the employee on February 27, 2015 and March 2, 2015. On November 13, 2015, the parties entered into a Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement wherein the matter was resolved with no amounts owing by the Company, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice.

The lease for the former office at 8439 West Sunset Blvd. in West Hollywood, CA has been partially subleased. The Company plans to sublease the remainder of the office in West Hollywood, CA and continues to incur rent expense while the space is being marketed. The landlord for the prior lease filed a suit in Los Angeles Superior Court in April 2015 against the Company for damages they allege have been incurred from unpaid rent and otherwise. In January 2016, the landlord filed a first amended complaint adding the independent guarantors under the lease as co-defendents and specifying damages claim of approximately $300,000. A trial date has been set in November 2016. The Company is presently unable to determine whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute is probable or remote, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, should the outcome be unfavorable.

SEC MATTER

In October 2014, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed a special board committee (the “Special Committee”) to investigate a federal grand jury subpoena pertaining to the Company’s financial reporting which was served upon the Company’s predecessor independent registered public accounting firm as well as certain alleged wrongdoing raised by a former employee of the Company. The Company was subsequently served with two SEC subpoenas in early November 2014. The Company is fully cooperating with the grand jury and the SEC. In connection with its investigation of these matters, the Special Committee in conjunction with the Audit Committee initiated an internal review by management and by an outside professional advisor of certain prior period financial reporting of the Company. The outside professional advisor reviewed the Company’s revenue recognition methodology for certain contracts for the third and fourth quarters of 2013. As a result of certain errors discovered in connection with the review by management and its professional advisor, the Audit Committee, upon management’s recommendation, concluded on December 24, 2014 that the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013 and for the third and fourth quarters therein, as well as for the quarters ended June 30, 2014, June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2014, should no longer be relied upon and would be restated to correct the errors. On March 6, 2015 the audit committee determined that the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012, together with all three, six and nine month financial information contained therein, and the quarterly information for the first two quarters of the 2013 fiscal year should also be restated. On March 11, 2015, the Company filed its restated Form 10 Registration Statement with the SEC with restated financial information for the years ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013, and on March 16, 2015, the Company filed amended and restated quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, with restated financial information for the periods ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2014, respectively.

The staff of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently advised counsel for the Company in a telephone conversation, followed by a written “Wells” notice, that it is has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the Commission file an enforcement action against the Company in connection with misstatements by prior management in the Company’s financial statements for 2012, 2013 and the first three quarters of 2014. A Wells Notice is neither a formal allegation of wrongdoing nor a finding that any violations of law have occurred. Rather, it provides the Company with an opportunity to respond to issues raised by the Staff and offer its perspective prior to any SEC decision to institute proceedings. These proceedings could result in the Company being subject to an injunction and cease and desist order from further violations of the securities laws as well as monetary penalties of disgorgement, pre-judgment interest and a civil penalty. The Company has responded in writing to the “Wells” notice. Under current management, the Company restated the relevant financial statements and took other remedial action, and has been cooperating with the SEC’s investigation since November 2014, including the appointment of a Special Committee of the Board to investigate the conduct of prior management and disclose this conduct to the SEC. The Company has also produced documents to the SEC and has made witnesses available, both voluntarily and for sworn testimony pursuant to subpoena. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the investigation, any potential enforcement actions or any other impact on the Company that may arise as a result of such investigation. The Company has not established a liability for this matter, because it believes that the probability of loss related to this matter and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. An adverse judgment or action of the SEC could have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future.

31

Table of Contents