Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 18 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Lease Commitments

The Company is the lessee under five operating leases and four finance leases. These leases contain rent holidays and customary escalations of lease payments for the type of facilities being leased. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the expected lease term, including cancelable option periods which the Company fully expects to exercise. Certain leases require the payment of property taxes, insurance and/or maintenance costs in addition to the rent payments.

The details of the Company’s operating lease agreements are as follows:

● Delaware – 4,000 square feet of retail space in a multi-use building under a five-year lease that commenced in October 2016 and contains a five-year option to extend the term. The Company developed the space into a cannabis dispensary which is subleased to its cannabis-licensed client.

● Delaware – a 100,000 square foot warehouse leased in March 2019 that the Company is developing into a cultivation and processing facility to be subleased to the same Delaware client. The lease term is 10 years, with an option to extend the term for three additional five-year periods.

● Nevada – 10,000 square feet of an industrial building that the Company has built-out into a cannabis cultivation facility and plans to rent to its cannabis-licensed client under a sub-lease which will be coterminous with this lease expiring in 2024.

● Massachusetts – 10,000 square feet of office space which the Company utilizes as its corporate offices under a 10-year lease with a related party expiring in 2028, with an option to extend the term for an additional five-year period.

● Maryland – a 2,700 square foot 2-unit apartment under a lease that expires in July 2020 with an option to renew for a two-year term.

The Company leases machinery and office equipment under finance leases that expire in February 2022 through June 2024 with such terms being a major part of the economic useful life of the leased property.

The components of lease expense for the year ended March 31, 2020 were as follows:

Operating lease cost	$	246,462
Finance lease cost:
Amortization of right-of-use assets	$	8,171
Interest on lease liabilities		2,087
Total finance lease cost	$	256,720

The weighted average remaining lease term for operating leases is 9.1 years, and for the finance lease is 3.4 years. The weighted average discount rate used to determine the right-of-use assets and lease liabilities was 7.5% for all leases.

Future minimum lease payments as of March 31, 2020 under all non-cancelable leases having an initial or remaining term of more than one year were:

	Operating Leases			Finance Lease
2020	$	750,504		$	28,809
2021		1,008,227			38,412
2022		949,535			27,123
2023		910,166			23,201
2024		835,411			3,229
Thereafter		4,304,441			-
Total lease payments		8,758,284		$	120,774
Less: imputed interest		(2,490,229	)		(14,465	)
	$	6,268,055		$	106,309

Terminated Employment Agreement

An employment agreement which commenced in 2012 with Thomas Kidrin, the former CEO of the Company, that provided Mr. Kidrin with salary, car allowances, stock options, life insurance, and other employee benefits, was terminated by the Company in 2017. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company maintained an accrual of approximately $1,043,000 for any amounts that may be owed under this agreement, although the Company contends that such agreement is not valid and no amount is due.

In July 2019, Mr. Kidrin, also a former director of the Company, filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court, that alleges the Company failed to pay all wages owed to him and breached the employment agreement, and requests multiple damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest. The Company has moved to dismiss certain counts of the complaint and has asserted counterclaims against Mr. Kidrin alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter and prosecute its counterclaims.

Maryland Acquisition

As previously disclosed in Note 3 – Acquisitions, the sellers of Kind have attempted to renegotiate the terms of the MOU, alleging that the MOU is not an enforceable agreement, despite the MOU containing all the definitive material terms with respect to the acquisition transaction and confirming the management and lease agreements. The Company engaged with the sellers in a good faith attempt to reach updated terms acceptable to both parties, but the non-reciprocation of the sellers resulted in an impasse and both parties commencing legal proceedings.

On November 13, 2019, Kind Therapeutics USA Inc. (“Kind”) commenced an action in the Circuit Court for Washington County, MD captioned Kind Therapeutics USA, Inc. vs. MariMed, Inc., et al. (Case No. C-21-CV-19-000670) asserting claims against the Company, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and unjust enrichment, and seeking declaratory judgment and damages in excess of $75,000. On November 15, 2019, the Company filed counterclaims against Kind and a third-party complaint against the Members of Kind (Jennifer DiPietro, Susan Zimmerman, and Sophia Leonard-Burns) and William Tham (the “Counterclaim”). The Counterclaim alleges breach of contract with respect to each of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) and the Management Agreement (“MSA”), unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, and fraud in the inducement, and seeking a declaratory judgement that the MOU is an enforceable contract, specific performance of such contact, and the establishment of a constructive trust for the Company’s benefit. The Counterclaim also seeks damages.

Both parties, MariMed (including MariMed Holdings MD, LLC and MariMed Advisors Inc.) and Kind, brought motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. By Opinion and Order entered on November 21, 2019, the Court denied both parties motions for a temporary restraining order. In its opinion, the Court specifically noted that, contrary to Kind’s allegations, the MSA and the 20-year lease agreement for Kind’s utilization of the Company’s cultivation and production facility (“Lease”) “appear to be independent, valid and enforceable contracts.” Each party’s preliminary injunction motion is currently pending before the Court.

On or about April 3, 2020, the Company filed its First Amended Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint in which additional claims were added and clarified, including breach of Lease and breach of the Licensing and Manufacturing Agreement (“LMA”) against Kind, along with other alternative claims and seeking damages. The Company believes that its claims for breach of contract with respect to the MOU, the MSA, the Lease, and the LMA, as well as its claims for unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance, and fraud in the inducement are meritorious. Further, the Company believes that Kind’s claims against the Company are without merit. The Company intends to aggressively prosecute and defend the action. No trial date is currently scheduled.