COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 11. - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

License agreements and sponsored research – The Company has entered into various license, sponsored research, collaboration, and other agreements (the “Agreements”) with various counterparties in connection with the Company’s plant biotechnology business relating to tobacco, hemp/cannabis and hops. The schedule below summarizes the Company’s commitments, both financial and other, associated with each Agreement. Costs incurred under the Agreements are generally recorded as research and development expenses on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss.

A
				Future Commitments
Commitment	Counter Party	Product Relationship	Commitment Type	2023		2024		2025		2026		2027 & After		Total
Research Agreement	KeyGene	Hemp / Cannabis / Hops	Contract fee	$	1,824	$	2,081	$	1,589	$	1,302	$	328	$	7,124	(1)
License Agreement	NCSU	Tobacco	Minimum annual royalty		—		100		100		100		1,000		1,300	(2)
Research Agreement	NCSU	Tobacco	Contract fee		95		114		—		—		—		209	(3)
Growing Agreements	Various	Tobacco	Contract fee		119		127		—		—		—		246	(4)
				$	2,038	$	2,422	$	1,689	$	1,402	$	1,328	$	8,879

(1) Exclusive agreement with the Company in the field of the Cannabis Sativa L. plant. The initial term of the agreement was five years with an option for an additional two years. On April 30, 2021, the Company and KeyGene entered into a First Amended and Restated Framework Collaborative Research Agreement which extended the agreement term, from first-quarter 2024 to first-quarter 2027, and preserves the Company’s option for an additional 2-year extension, now through first quarter of 2029. On March 30, 2022, the Company and KeyGene entered into a new Framework Collaborative Research Agreement for a term of three years at an aggregate cost of $1,830 in the field related to the hops plant.

The Company will exclusively own all results and all intellectual property relating to the results of the collaboration with KeyGene (the "Results”). The Company will pay royalties in varying amounts to KeyGene relating to the Company's commercialization in the stated fields of each agreement. The Company has also granted KeyGene a license to commercialize the Results outside of each field and KeyGene will pay royalties in varying amounts to the Company relating to KeyGene's commercialization of the Results outside of each field.

(2) The minimum annual royalty fee is credited against running royalties on sales of licensed products. The Company is also responsible for reimbursing NCSU for actual third-party patent costs incurred, including capitalized patent costs and patent maintenance costs. These costs vary from year to year and the Company has certain rights to direct the activities that result in these costs. Additionally, see Note 17 “Subsequent events.”

(3) On August 4, 2023, the Company entered into a one-year Sponsored Project Agreement with NCSU for continued research of tobacco alkaloid formation.

(4) Various R&D growing agreements for tobacco.

Litigation - In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. When a loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency and record a corresponding amount of related expenses. The Company will then continue to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of any such accrued liability. 

Class Action

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver, Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19 cv 00409.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19 cv 00553.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull case issued an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal district court in the Western District of New York, where it remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285.

Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November 19, 2019 that alleges three counts: Count I sues the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the Company's quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other public statements and documents contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5(a) and (c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 14, 2021, the Court granted the motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 12, 2021 to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 24, 2022, after briefing and oral argument, the Second Circuit issued an order affirming in part, and reversing in part, the District Court’s dismissal order. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the claims relating to the non-disclosure of stock promotion articles, but reversed the District Court’s dismissal order of the claims alleging the non-disclosure of an SEC investigation. The Second Circuit noted in its opinion, however, that the District Court had not addressed certain arguments raised by the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer in the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint as to these remaining claims, and remanded the case to the District Court to address these arguments for the dismissal of the remaining claims. On August 8, 2022, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a renewed motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint to address the arguments not previously addressed by the District Court. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion. On October 12, 2022, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a reply brief in further support of the motion. On January 6, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss, and the case will proceed forward on the remaining claims.

The parties participated in a mediation on March 21, 2023 and reached an initial memorandum of understanding for settlement in principle to resolve the litigation and release all claims against the Company. On April 25, 2023, the parties filed with the Court the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, which includes the final terms of the proposed settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 30, 2023, and scheduled a further settlement hearing for October 3, 2023. The Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of the action on October 23, 2023. The settlement amount that the defendants paid is $3,000 and is fully covered by the Company’s insurance, which has been funded by the Company’s insurance carrier in an escrow account and anticipated to be disbursed in the fourth quarter of 2023. Accordingly, the Company has recorded an accrual for litigation settlement and corresponding indemnification receivable on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2023.

Shareholder Derivative Cases

On February 6, 2019, Melvyn Klein, a resident of Nassau County New York, filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Melvyn Klein, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group v. Henry Sicignano, III, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, Nora B. Sullivan, James W. Cornell, John T. Brodfuehrer and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Case No. 1:19 cv 00748. Mr. Klein brings this action derivatively alleging that (i) the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties for allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements; (ii) the director defendants supposedly wasted corporate assets to defend this lawsuit and the other related lawsuits; (iii) the defendants allegedly violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly approving or allowing false statements regarding the Company to be made; and (iv) the director defendants allegedly violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a 9 promulgated thereunder for allegedly approving or allowing false statements regarding the Company to be made in the Company’s proxy statement.

On February 11, 2019, Stephen Mathew filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, entitled: Stephen Mathew, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. Henry Sicignano, III, John T. Brodfuehrer, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, James W. Cornell, Nora B. Sullivan and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Index No. 801786/2019. Mr. Mathew brings this action derivatively generally alleging the same allegations as in the Klein case. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On August 15, 2019, the Court consolidated the Mathew and Klein actions pursuant to a stipulation by the parties (Western District of New York, Case No. 1-19-cv-0513). On May 3, 2019, the Court ordered the Mathew case stayed. This stay was applied to the Consolidated Action pursuant to the Court’s August 15, 2019 Order Consolidated Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and Establishing a Leadership Structure. As a result of the Court’s denial of the renewed Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, the May 3, 2019 stay will be lifted. No trial date has been set. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims.

On June 10, 2019, Judy Rowley filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, entitled: Judy Rowley, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. Henry Sicignano, III, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, Nora B. Sullivan, James W. Cornell, John T. Brodfuehrer, and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Index No. 807214/2019. Ms. Rowley brought the action derivatively alleging that the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements. The Complaint sought declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims. On September 13, 2019, the Court ordered the litigation stayed pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties. On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice by filing a stipulation of discontinuance with the Court. This dismissal was not pursuant to a settlement.

On January 15, 2020, Kevin Broccuto filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and certain members of the Company's prior Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Clark, entitled: Kevin Broccuto, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. James W. Cornell, Richard M. Sanders, Nora B. Sullivan, Henry Sicignano, III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. A-20-808599. Mr. Broccuto brings this action derivatively alleging three counts: Count I alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties; Count II alleges they committed corporate waste; and Count III that they were unjustly enriched, by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements.

On February 11, 2020, Jerry Wayne filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and certain members of the Company's prior Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Clark, entitled: Jerry Wayne, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. James W. Cornell, Richard M. Sanders, Nora B. Sullivan, Henry Sicignano, III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. A-20-808599. Mr. Wayne brings this action derivatively alleging generally the same allegations as the Broccuto case. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, disgorgement of alleged profits and imposition of constructive trusts, and attorney's fees and costs. The Complaint also seeks to declare as unenforceable the Company's Bylaw requiring derivative lawsuits to be filed in Erie County, New York, where the Company is headquartered.

On March 25, 2020, the Court ordered the Broccuto and Wayne cases consolidated and stayed pursuant to a joint stipulation from the parties. On June 27, 2022, the Court ordered that the stay continue until thirty (30) days after the District Court rules on the renewed Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Noto Class Action case. As a result of the Court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, the June 27, 2022 stay will be lifted. No trial date has been set. The parties participated in a mediation on March 21, 2023, and a subsequent mediation on October 17, 2023, which process is continuing.

We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims.

Insurance Litigation 

In November 2022, there was a fire at the Company’s Grass Valley manufacturing facility in Oregon, which resulted in a total loss of the facility. The Company submitted an insurance claim with Dorchester Insurance Company, Ltd. (“Dorchester”) for casualty loss and business interruption coverage which was acknowledged on November 23, 2022. Dorchester funded $5,000 of casualty loss insurance but has failed to issue any payments in connection with the Company’s business interruption claim.

      On July 19, 2023, the Company filed a Complaint against Dorchester in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division, Case No. 2:23-cv-01057-HL. The Company is alleging breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligence per se. The Company is seeking full recovery of its business interruption claim under the policy plus direct, indirect and consequential damages resulting from Dorchester’s continued delay in issuing coverage payments. Discovery is ongoing.

Needle Rock Farms – Settlement Agreement

During March 2023, the Company negotiated and entered into a settlement agreement related to a water rights dispute with the adjacent property owner for Needle Rock Farms in which the Company agreed to pay $250 in cash upon execution of the settlement, transferred certain farm equipment with net book value of $272, and accrued an additional payment of $225 that is contingent on either the sale of the farm or will be paid within one year. The total charges of $747 recorded in connection with the settlement agreement is included within Other operating expenses, net on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss.