Commitments and Contingencies |
11. Commitments and Contingencies Office Lease. The future contractual lease payments for our office lease and the reconciliation to the office lease liability reflected in other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2023 is presented in the table below (in thousands): | | | | Year | | Amount | 2023 (three months ending December 31) | | $ | 124 | 2024 | | | 511 | 2025 | | | 526 | 2026 | | | 543 | 2027 | | | 45 | Total future contractual lease payments | | | 1,749 | Effect of discounting | | | (166) | Office lease liability | | $ | 1,583 |
Improvement Allowances. As of September 30, 2023, we had approximately $17.2 million of commitments related to improvement allowances, which generally may be requested by the tenants at any time up until a date that is near the expiration of the initial term of the applicable lease. Construction Loan. As of September 30, 2023, we had approximately $1.4 million of commitments related to our construction loan for the development of a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility in California. The developer is required to complete construction by December 31, 2023, subject to extension in certain circumstances. Environmental Matters. We follow the policy of monitoring our properties, both targeted acquisition and existing properties, for the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. While there can be no assurance that a material environmental liability does not exist, we are not currently aware of any environmental liabilities that would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow, or that we believe would require disclosure or the recording of a loss contingency. Litigation. Class Action Lawsuit On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Malozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022. On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint; on January 25, 2023, plaintiff responded to defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint; and on March 6, 2023 defendants replied to plaintiff’s response. On September 19, 2023, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. On October 19, 2023, a Second Amended Class Action complaint was filed under the same Case Number, and asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, at this time, we cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. Derivative Action Lawsuit On July 26, 2022, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named John Rice, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Andy Bui, Alan Gold, Gary Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., and was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief, direction to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 6, 2022, the defendants in this action filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Proceedings, which was granted on October 11, 2022. On September 28, 2022, a second derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Karen Drover, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Andy Bui, Alan Gold, Gary Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, David Stecher, Defendants, and Innovative Industrial Properties Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case Number 24-C-22-004243, and filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks actions to reform and improve the Company, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 19, 2022, the parties to both cases filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and to Appoint Lead and Liaison Counsel for plaintiffs, which was granted on December 16, 2022, along with a stay in the lawsuit pending a ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal class action lawsuit described above. On April 17, 2023, a third derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Ross Weintraub, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Ben Regin, Andy Bui, Tracie Hager, Gary Kreitzer, David Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:23-cv-00737-GLR, and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an undetermined amount of damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants in this action filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Proceeding, which was granted on April 17, 2023. On June 5, 2023, a fourth derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Franco DeBlasio, on behalf of Gerich Melenth Nin (GMN) LP, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Alan D. Gold, Tracie J. Hager, Benjamin C. Regin, Andy Bui, Gary A. Kreitzer, David Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:23-cv-01513-GLR, and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company intends to vigorously defend each of these lawsuits. However, at this time, the Company cannot predict the probable outcome of these actions, and, accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. On July 19, 2023, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:23-cv-00737-GLR and 1:23-cv-01513-GLR with case number 1:23-cv-00737-GLR as the lead case, and kept the stay in place. Kings Garden Lawsuit In July 2022, one of our tenants, Kings Garden Inc., defaulted on its obligations to pay base rent and property management fees under each of its six leases with our indirect, wholly owned subsidiary, IIP-CA 2 LP, and defaulted on its obligations to reimburse us for certain insurance premiums at the properties incurred by us that are payable by Kings Garden as operating expenses under such leases. On July 25, 2022, IIP-CA 2 LP filed a lawsuit against Kings Garden. The case was named IIP-CA 2 LP, a Delaware limited partnership v. Kings Garden Inc., a Nevada corporation, CK Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation, and JM Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation, and was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. On August 2, 2022, the case was amended to be named IIP-CA 2 LP, a Delaware limited partnership v. Kings Garden Inc., a Nevada corporation, CK Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation, JM Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation, Michael King, an individual, Gary LaSalle, an individual, Charles Kieley, an individual, and Laurie Kibby, an individual, and to include claims relating to construction at two projects as of June 30, 2022 for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, theft by false pretenses, money had and received, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)). The amount related to these project costs reported in construction in progress as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022 was approximately $28.9 million and $33.2 million, respectively. On September 11, 2022, the parties to the lawsuit entered into a confidential, conditional settlement agreement pertaining to matters related to the lawsuit. Pursuant to the conditional settlement agreement, as of September 30, 2023, the Company has received a total of approximately $19.8 million in partial settlement payments from Kings Garden, which has been accounted for as a reduction to net real estate held for investment on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. During the three months ended September 30, 2023, we received approximately $4.2 million in additional payments from Kings Garden (reflected in the total amount above) and are investigating the remaining additional costs paid of approximately $750,000 related to one construction project to determine whether these are overpayments. Although there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred in connection with the default by Kings Garden and the related construction project related to these potential overpayments, as of September 30, 2023, we are unable to make such an estimate. Additionally, on August 16, 2023, we filed suit against Orr Construction, the general contractor for certain amounts on one construction project undertaken by Kings Garden, named IIP-CA 2 LP v. Orr Builders, asserting claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with economic relationship, intentional interference with contract, conspiracy, violation of California unfair competition law, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Company contends that the lawsuit arose out of representations made to the Company by Orr Construction while investigating payments made for one construction project, relating to the lawsuit named IIP-CA 2 LP, a Delaware limited partnership v. Kings Garden Inc., a Nevada corporation, CK Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation, and JM Endeavors, Inc., a California corporation, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, which was ultimately settled. Although there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred in connection with amounts paid by us and work performed by Orr Construction for that construction project, as of September 30, 2023, we are unable to make such an estimate. On February 14, 2023, Kings Garden filed an Arbitration Demand related to the interpretation of the confidential, conditional settlement agreement between the parties that concerns certain terms governing (along with the relevant lease) the assignment of one of the Kings Garden leases. The Company filed a Response to Kings Garden’s Arbitration Demand, Affirmative Defenses and Counter-Claim on March 1, 2023 (the “Counter-Claim”). Kings Garden filed an answer to the Counter-Claim on March 15, 2023. In July 2023, the Company filed a motion for leave to amend its Counter-Claims. On August 4, 2023, the Company accepted an offer of judgment extended by Kings Garden under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, pursuant to which Kings Garden (i) vacated the remaining four properties it previously occupied in September 2023, paying the stipulated rent during its period of occupancy through September 20, 2023, and (ii) agreed to pay the Company damages and attorneys’ fees totaling approximately $6.0 million, including interest on the then-outstanding amount, on a fully amortizing schedule of approximately $193,000 per month over a three-year period. The offer of judgment included a mutual release. Parallel Pennsylvania Litigation On February 6, 2023, IIP-PA 8 LLC, as landlord and an indirect subsidiary of the Company, filed a lawsuit against Goodblend Pennsylvania LLC, as tenant, and Parallel, as guarantor, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, regarding the lease and related guaranty for one of the Company’s properties located in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract by the tenant and guarantor and ejectment. Goodblend Pennsylvania LLC and Parallel filed preliminary objections to the lawsuit on March 3, 2023. IIP-PA 8 LLC filed its response to Goodblend Pennsylvania LLC’s and Parallel’s preliminary objections on March 23, 2023. The Court issued an Order on June 13, 2023 denying Goodblend Pennsylvania LLC’s and Parallel’s preliminary objections and directing Goodblend Pennsylvania LLC and Parallel to file an answer to the complaint. On October 25, 2023, a consent order was executed by the Court which awarded possession of the property to IIP-PA 8 LLC on October 31, 2023 and damages in favor of IIP-PA 8 LLC in the amount of approximately $15.5 million. Parallel Texas Litigation On February 11, 2023, a subsidiary of Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent under the lease at one of our properties in Texas that is under development. On February 23, 2023, IIP-TX 1 LLC, as landlord and an indirect subsidiary of the Company, filed a lawsuit against Surterra San Marcos, LLC, as tenant, in the Justice Court of Hays County, Texas, regarding the lease, asserting claim for possession. In March 2023, a judgment for possession was entered in favor of IIP-TX 1 LLC, as well as monthly rental amounts due, and we regained possession of the property. On March 13, 2023, IIP-TX 1 LLC filed a subsequent lawsuit against Surterra San Marcos, LLC, Parallel and Sunstream Opportunities LP (“SAF Entity 1”) in the District Court of Hays County, Texas, regarding the same lease, asserting claims against Surterra San Marcos, LLC, Parallel and SAF Entity 1 for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and fraudulent inducement, intentional failure to disclose and misrepresentations and conversion, and also requested the granting of a temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver over the license(s) pertaining to the property’s operations as a regulated cannabis facility. The parties exchanged initial disclosures in September 2023, and are in the discovery phase. Green Peak Michigan Litigation On February 2, 2023, IIP-MI 1 LLC, as landlord and an indirect subsidiary of the Company, filed a lawsuit against Green Peak Industries, Inc. (“Green Peak”), as tenant, in 56-A District Court of the State of Michigan, regarding the lease for one of the Company’s properties located in Michigan, asserting claim for possession. On February 22, 2023, IIP-MI 1 LLC filed a subsequent lawsuit against Green Peak and Tropics LP (“SAF Entity 2”) in the Circuit Court of Eaton County, Michigan, regarding the same lease, asserting claims against Green Peak for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and innocent misrepresentation, against SAF Entity 2 for tortious interference with contract, and against both Green Peak and SAF Entity 2 for civil conspiracy (the “Circuit Court Action”). On March 3, 2023, a stipulated order appointing a receiver over substantially all of Green Peak’s assets was entered in the Circuit Court of Ingham County, Michigan (the “Receivership Case”), pursuant to which the Company re-gained possession of one of the Company’s cultivation and processing properties, which is under redevelopment as of September 30, 2023, and two retail properties. As a result of the Receivership Case the claims asserted against Green Peak in the Circuit Court Action were stayed by order of the court and the claims against SAF Entity 2 were suspended by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of the Receivership Case. On September 28, 2023, a stipulation and order was entered in the Receivership Case, pursuant to which the Company is expected to re-gain possession of another retail property in Michigan on November 30, 2023, with the receiver paying contractually due rent through the last date of occupancy. On October 3, 2023, the court approved the sale of substantially all of Green Peak’s remaining assets in receivership to an affiliate of Green Peak’s senior secured lender, with the order approving the sale entered October 12, 2023. The leases for the remaining properties are expected to be assumed by the purchaser in connection with the closing of the sale. We may, from time to time, be a party to other legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. Although the results of these proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the final outcome of these matters is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Regardless of final outcomes, however, any such proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations may nonetheless impose a significant burden on management and employees and may come with significant defense costs or unfavorable preliminary and interim rulings.
|