Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
The Company is subject to various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business and in connection with its marketing, distribution and sale of its products. Many of these legal proceedings are in the early stages of litigation and seek damages that are unspecified or not quantified. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does not believe
49
Table of Contents
these legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition but could be material to its results of operations for any particular reporting period depending, in part, on its results for that period.
Class action complaints relating to restatement of 2019 interim financial statements
On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman) and now former Chief Financial Officer. The court has consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the Company’s prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company’s disclosures relating to the Audit Committee of the Board’s review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021.
On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim, as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified amount. The Amended Statement of Claim names (i) the Company, (ii) its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman), (iii) now former Chief Financial Officer, (iv) former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, and (v) current and former members of the Board as defendants and alleges breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleges that certain of the Company’s prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were misrepresentations based on the Company’s March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company’s subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim does not quantify a damage request. On June 28, 2021, the Court dismissed motions brought by the plaintiff for leave to commence a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class action. The plaintiff has appealed the Court’s dismissal of the motions only with respect to the Company, the former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman), and the now former Chief Financial Officer; the remaining defendants were dismissed from the matter with prejudice and the Company and all individual defendants agreed not to seek costs from plaintiff in connection with the dismissal of the motions. On September 26, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the leave and certification motions, granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to bring a claim for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, and remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court.
Regulatory reviews relating to restatement
The Company previously responded to requests for information from various regulatory authorities relating to its previously disclosed restatement of its financial statements for the first three quarters of 2019 as well as the previously disclosed restatement of the second quarter of 2021 interim financial statements (collectively, the “Restatements”). On October 24, 2022, the Company announced settlements with those regulatory authorities as follows:
SEC Settlement
On October 24, 2022, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21(c) of the Exchange Act, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (the “Settlement Order”) resolving the Restatements.
The Company agreed to settle with the SEC, without admitting or denying the allegations described in the Settlement Order. The Settlement Order fully and finally disposes of the investigation of the Company by the SEC into the Restatements without the payment of any civil penalty or other amount.
The Settlement Order required the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13a-13, 13a-15(a), 13a-16 and 12b-20 thereunder. Additionally, the Company agreed to certain undertakings, which include, among other things, retaining a qualified independent consultant (the “Consultant”) to engage in a review of, and make recommendations with respect to, certain of the Company’s internal accounting controls and internal control over financing reporting.
As a result of the Settlement Order, the Company (i) lost its status as a well-known seasoned issuer for a period of three years, (ii) is unable to rely on the private offering exemptions provided by Regulations A and D under the Securities Act for a period of five years and (iii) is unable to rely on the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for a period of three years.
Ontario Securities Commission Settlement
On October 24, 2022, the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal approved a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) between the Company and the staff of the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”), resolving the Restatements.
50
Table of Contents
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which fully and finally disposes the investigation of the Company by the OSC, Cronos agreed to pay a total of C$1.34 million to fully settle the matter, and acknowledged that it had failed to comply with the requirement under Section 77 of the Securities Act (Ontario) to file interim financial reports in the manner set out therein and had acted in a manner contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the Company agreed to retain the Consultant to engage in a review of, and make recommendations with respect to, certain of the Company’s internal accounting controls and internal control over financing reporting, on substantially the same terms as were required by the SEC pursuant the Settlement Order.
Litigation relating to marketing, distribution and sale of products
On June 16, 2020, an alleged consumer filed a Statement of Claim on behalf of a class in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in Alberta, Canada, against the Company and other Canadian cannabis manufacturers and/or distributors. On December 4, 2020, a Third Amended Statement of Claim was filed, which added a second alleged consumer. The Third Amended Statement of Claim alleges claims related to the defendants’ advertised content of cannabinoids in cannabis products for medicinal use on or after June 16, 2010 and cannabis products for adult use on or after October 17, 2018. The Third Amended Statement of Claim seeks a total of C$500 million for breach of contract, compensatory damages, and unjust enrichment or such other amount as may be proven in trial and C$5 million in punitive damages against each defendant, including the Company. The Third Amended Statement of Claim also seeks interest and costs associated with the action. The Company has not responded to the Third Amended Statement of the Claim. On January 31, 2022, upon consent of the Company and the plaintiffs, the court dismissed the case in its entirety as to the Company.
A number of claims, including purported class actions, have been brought in the U.S. against companies engaged in the U.S. hemp business alleging, among other things, violations of state consumer protection, health and advertising laws. On April 8, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Redwood, alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and breaches of the California Commercial Code for breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability with respect to Redwood’s marketing and sale of U.S. hemp products. The complaint did not quantify a damage request. On April 10, 2020, the class action complaint was dismissed for certain pleading deficiencies and the plaintiff was granted leave until April 24, 2020 to amend the complaint to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. On April 28, 2020, the action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. As of the date of this Annual Report, the plaintiff has not refiled the complaint.
We expect litigation and regulatory proceedings relating to the marketing, distribution and sale of our products to increase.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE.
Not applicable.
51
Table of Contents
PART II