Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
We are involved in various regulatory issues, claims and lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which, in the opinion of management, is expected to have a material, adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
Schneyer
On February 25, 2019, Dr. Mark Schneyer (“ Schneyer ”) filed a lawsuit in Minnesota District Court, Fourth District (the “ Court ”), on his own behalf and, derivatively, on behalf of Dorchester Capital, LLC, naming Vireo Health, Inc. (“ Vireo U.S. ”), Dorchester Management, LLC (“ Dorchester Management ”), and Dorchester Capital, LLC (“ Capital ”), as defendants. The essence of the claims made by Schneyer is Vireo U.S. paid an inadequate price for MaryMed, LLC (“ MaryMed ”), which it purchased it from Capital in 2018, and that the consideration given – shares of preferred stock in Vireo U.S. – was distributed inappropriately by Capital at the direction of Dorchester Management (the managing member of Capital). Schneyer, who is a Class B member of Capital, sought unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 and other relief. Dorchester Management, LLC is an affiliated entity to Vireo U.S. and was previously used as a management company over Dorchester Capital, LLC. It no longer has active operations following Vireo Health, Inc.’s acquisition of MaryMed, LLC in 2018. It is owned and controlled by Kyle E. Kingsley and Amber H. Shimpa, executive officers and directors of Vireo U.S. and the Company.
29
Simultaneously with the complaint, Schneyer filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order (“ TRO ”) to prevent the “further transfer” of MaryMed which would, Schneyer claimed, occur if Vireo U.S.’s RTO transactions were allowed to occur. The Court held a hearing on the motion for TRO on March 5, 2019 and denied the motion on the same day.
Weeks prior to commencement of the litigation, Dorchester Management had appointed a special litigation committee (“ SLC ”) on behalf of Capital to investigate the consideration provided by Vireo U.S. for the purchase of MaryMed and assess any potential claims Capital may have as a result of the transaction. The SLC, a retired judge who engaged another retired judge as legal counsel to the SLC, was appointed in accordance with Minnesota law, issued a report on May 1, 2021, recommending, among other things, that certain claims be permitted to proceed (the “ Remaining Derivative Claims ”) and other claims not be permitted to proceed by the Court (the “ Rejected Derivative Claims ”).
On July 7, 2021, Schneyer filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting direct claims on behalf of himself and the Remaining Derivative Claims on behalf of Capital and some Rejected Derivative Claims on behalf of Capital. Under Delaware law, Capital has a right to control the litigation of the Remaining Derivative Claims, the Rejected Derivative Claims, and any other derivative allegations that may be asserted on behalf of Capital. On August 17, 2021, Management exercised this right for Capital and appointed a second independent special litigation committee (the “ Second SLC ”), a partner at an international law firm, to manage the litigation of the claims raised in Schneyer’s Second Amended Complaint. On August 31, 2021, Capital filed a complaint at the Second SLC’s direction alleging the Remaining Derivative Claims and the Rejected Derivative Claims. Schneyer opposed the appointment of the Second SLC.
On December 9, 2021, the Court dismissed Schneyer’s claim for rescissory damages and the Remaining Derivative Claim alleging fraud. The Court also ruled that the Remaining Derivative Claims should be pursued by the Second SLC. Finally, the Court also denied Schneyer’s request to seek punitive damages.
On February 22, 2022, the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied the immediate review of the December 9, 2021 order.
On June 20,2022 the Court issued an order amending and realigning the complaint brought by Capital for the Remaining Derivative Claims. The order also denied Vireo U.S.’s and Dorchester Management’s motion to dismiss the Remaining Derivative Claims brought by Capital.
Following this order, the litigation was permitted to proceed with Schneyer’s three direct contract claims against Vireo U.S and a direct fraud claim against Management and Vireo U.S. on an individual basis, as well as the Remaining Derivative Claims brought by Capital.
While Vireo U.S. continues to believe that Schneyer’s claims lack merit, it agreed to settle the litigation in April 2023 to avoid the expense, distraction and risk of the pre-trial and trial processes. Entering into this settlement in no way changes the defendants’ position that they did nothing wrong and that the claims were baseless.
Verano
On January 31, 2022, the Company entered into the Arrangement Agreement with Verano, pursuant to which Verano was to have acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of Goodness Growth pursuant to a Plan of Arrangement. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Arrangement Agreement and the Plan of Arrangement, holders of Goodness Growth Shares were to receive 0.22652 of a Verano Subordinate Voting Share, subject to adjustment as described below, for each Subordinate Voting Share held, and 22.652 Verano Subordinate Voting Shares for each Multiple Voting Share and Super Voting Share held, immediately prior to the effective time of the Arrangement.
On October 13, 2022, Goodness Growth received a notice of purported termination of the Arrangement Agreement (the “ Notice ”) from Verano. The Notice asserted certain breaches of the Arrangement Agreement, including claims the Company’s public filings and communications with respect to its business and ongoing operations were misleading and that the Company breached its representations to Verano under the Arrangement Agreement. Verano also claimed, as a result of such breaches, it is entitled to payment of a $14,875,000 termination fee and its transaction expenses. Goodness Growth denies all of Verano’s allegations and affirmatively asserts that it has complied with its obligations under the Arrangement Agreement, and with its disclosure obligations under US and Canadian law, in all material respects at all
30
times. The Company believes that Verano has no factual or legal basis to justify or support its purported termination of the Arrangement Agreement, which the Company has determined to treat as a repudiation.
On October 21, 2022, Goodness Growth commenced an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Verano after Verano wrongfully repudiated the Arrangement Agreement. The Company is seeking damages, costs and interest, based on Verano's breach of contract and of its duty of good faith and honest performance. On November 14, 2022, Verano filed counterclaims against the Company for the termination fee and transaction expenses described above. Due to uncertainties inherent in litigation, it is not possible for Goodness Growth to predict the timing or final outcome of the legal proceedings against Verano or to determine the amount of damages, if any, that may be awarded.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.