COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company does not have significant future annual commitments, other than related to leases and debt, which are disclosed in Notes 10 and 11, respectively. The Company has commercial relationships with license holders across the markets in which it operates with mutually beneficial purchasing and supply arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business. In conjunction with the OCC acquisition (see Note 4, “Acquisitions”) in December 2021, the Company entered into a supply agreement with a producer and supplier of medical cannabis products in Ohio (the “Ohio Supply Agreement”) with an initial expiration date of August 2028. Under the Ohio Supply Agreement, the Company will purchase products from the supplier that results in 7.5% of the Company’s monthly gross sales of all products in its Ohio dispensaries for the first five years, and 5% for the remaining term. The Company can establish the selling price of the products and the purchases are made at the lowest then-prevailing wholesale market price of products sold by the supplier to other dispensaries in Ohio. Indemnifications We are party to a variety of agreements under which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters. These agreements are primarily standard indemnification arrangements entered into in our ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, we may agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such indemnifications, and such costs would only be recognized as incurred. During 2023 and 2022, the Company paid for certain legal fees on behalf of certain officers of the Company who are parties to an employment related claim with a related party entity. These legal fees were not material and the Company has determined that, based on the status of the claim, no additional reserve related to the matter is required as of December 31, 2023. Legal and Other Matters The Company’s operations are subject to a variety of local and state regulations. Failure to comply with one or more of those regulations could result in fines, restrictions on its operations, or losses of permits that could result in the Company ceasing operations. While management believes that the Company is in compliance with applicable local and state regulations as of December 31, 2023 in all material respects, cannabis regulations continue to evolve and are subject to differing interpretations, and accordingly, the Company may be subject to regulatory fines, penalties, or restrictions in the future. State laws that permit and regulate the production, distribution, and use of cannabis for adult use or medical purposes are in direct conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811) (the “CSA”), which makes cannabis use and possession federally illegal. Although certain states and territories of the United States authorize medical and/or adult use cannabis production and distribution by licensed or registered entities, under United States federal law, the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal and any such acts are criminal acts under federal law under the CSA. Although the Company’s activities are believed to be compliant with applicable state and local laws, strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to cannabis may neither absolve the Company of liability under United States federal law, nor may it provide a defense to any federal proceeding which may be brought against the Company. The Company may be, from time to time, subject to various administrative, regulatory, and other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Contingent liabilities associated with legal proceedings are recorded when a liability is probable and the contingent liability can be estimated. We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. At December 31, 2023 there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, other than as disclosed below. TVP Settlement In December 2020, TVP, LLC, TVP Grand Rapids, LLC and, TVP Alma, LLC (collectively, the “TVP Parties”) filed a claim alleging breach of contract against FPAW Michigan, LLC (“FPAW”) and AWH related to a purchase agreement that was entered into in September 2019 for the Company’s potential acquisition of certain real estate properties in Michigan. FPAW was a VIE of the Company at that time through FPAW Michigan 2, Inc. and became a subsidiary of the Company in December 2020. The TVP Parties asked the court to grant specific performance of the contracts between the Company and the TVP Parties, which, if granted, would have resulted in AWH issuing approximately 4,770 common units as originally agreed in September 2019 and paying approximately $16,500 in cash to the TVP parties in exchange for the entities holding the properties subject to the agreements. AWH and FPAW filed an answer to the complaint on January 28, 2021 and believed there existed valid defenses to the demand for specific performance due to lack of suitability of three of the six properties subject to the original transaction agreements. On April 14, 2021, FPAW and AWH entered into a settlement agreement with the TVP Parties (the “Settlement Agreement”) which provides for, among other items, the dismissal of all claims brought by the TVP Parties against FPAW and AWH upon performance of each parties’ obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, FPAW and AWH delivered a cash payment of $9,000 to TVP, LLC on the date of the Settlement Agreement and made an additional cash payment of $5,480 in January 2022. In addition, on April 14, 2021, upon the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the Company issued 4,770 AWH historical common units with a fair value of $26,041 at issuance to an escrow account, to be held in the name of an escrow agent (the “Escrow Units”). Also as part of the Settlement Agreement, and in order to avoid further potential litigation, the Company issued 255 AWH historical common units with a fair value of $1,390 at issuance to a party to one of the original property purchase agreements that was not a party to the litigation matter. These common units, along with the Escrow Units, converted into shares of Class A common stock upon the Conversion in the same manner as all other common units of AWH. Upon the receipt of the initial cash payment of $9,000 and the issuance of the Escrow Units, the TVP Parties filed a stipulated order dismissing all lawsuits, with prejudice and without costs, against FPAW and AWH. The Escrow Units are issued and outstanding and will remain in the escrow account until such time as the TVP Parties exercise an option to hold the Escrow Units directly (the “Put Option”), which can be exercised for three years from the date of the Settlement Agreement. Upon their exercise of the Put Option, the Escrow Units shall be released to the TVP Parties and the TVP Parties shall transfer to FPAW the equity interests of the entities that hold the three real estate properties to be acquired. FPAW and AWH currently operate dispensaries at these locations pursuant to lease agreements. In February 2024, the TVP Parties notified the Company that they are exercising the Put Option in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The settlement charge of $36,511 is reflected within “Settlement expense” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for 2021 and the fair value of the share issuance of $27,431 is reflected within “Equity issued in litigation settlement” on the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity. The $5,400 fair value of the three properties to be acquired per the settlement is recorded within “Other noncurrent assets” as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, and will remain until the time such property titles transfer to the Company. Stockholder Dispute On May 28, 2021, Senvest Management, LLC, Hadron Capital (Cayman) LTD., and Measure8 Venture Partners, LLC (collectively, the “Claimants”), as former holders of the Company’s AWH Convertible Promissory Notes, pursuant to the Company’s 2019 Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement, filed an arbitration demand, which was subsequently amended on July 28, 2021 (the “Arbitration Demand”), against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer at the time, Abner Kurtin, before the American Arbitration Association. In their Arbitration Demand, the Claimants take issue with the April 22, 2021 amendment of the terms of the 2019 Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement (the “Amended Notes Consent”), which was approved by holders of approximately 66% of the principal amount of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes, in excess of the simple majority required to amend the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes. The Amended Notes Consent set the conversion price of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes at $2.96 per share. The Claimants alleged that the Amended Notes Consent was obtained improperly and is void. The Company disputed the Claimants’ allegations and contended that the Amended Notes Consent was properly obtained in accordance with the terms of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes and 2019 Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement and the Amended Notes Consent was binding on all holders of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes. The Company, Mr. Kurtin, and the Claimants entered into a settlement agreement, dated April 29, 2022, whereby the Company agreed to pay the Claimants a total of $5,000. This amount is included within “Settlement expense” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for 2022 and was paid in May 2022. MedMen NY Litigation On February 25, 2021, the Company entered into a definitive investment agreement (the “Investment Agreement”) with subsidiaries of MedMen Enterprises Inc. (“MedMen”), under which we would have, subject to regulatory approval, completed an investment (the “Investment”) of approximately $73,000 in MedMen NY, Inc. (“MMNY”), a licensed medical cannabis operator in the state of New York. Following the completion of the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, we were expected to hold all the outstanding equity of MMNY. Specifically, the Investment Agreement provided that at closing, the Company was going to pay to MedMen’s senior lenders $35,000, less certain transaction costs and a prepaid deposit of $4,000, and AWH New York, LLC was going to issue a senior secured promissory note in favor of MMNY’s senior secured lender in the principal amount of $28,000, guaranteed by AWH, which cash investment and note would be used to reduce the amounts owed to MMNY’s senior secured lender. Following its investment, AWH would hold a controlling interest in MMNY equal to approximately 86.7% of the equity in MMNY, and be provided with an option to acquire MedMen’s remaining interest in MMNY in the future for a nominal additional payment, which option the Company intended to exercise. The Investment Agreement also required AWH to make an additional investment of $10,000 in MMNY, which investment would also be used to repay MMNY’s senior secured lender, if adult-use cannabis sales commenced in MMNY’s dispensaries. The Company contends that, in December 2021, the parties to the Investment Agreement received the required approvals from the State of New York to close the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, but MedMen has disputed the adequacy of the approvals provided by the State of New York. The Company delivered notice to MedMen in December 2021 that it wished to close the transactions as required by the Investment Agreement. Nevertheless, MedMen, on January 2, 2022, gave notice to the Company that MedMen purported to terminate the Investment Agreement. Following receipt of such notice, on January 13, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against MedMen and others in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Court”), requesting specific performance that the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement must move forward, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Company simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the “Motion”) requiring MedMen to operate its New York business in the ordinary course of business and to refrain from any activities or transactions that might impair, encumber, or dissipate MedMen’s New York assets. The parties resolved the Motion via a “Stipulation and Order” entered by the Court on January 21, 2022 that required that MMNY operate only in compliance with the law and in a manner consistent with its ordinary course of business that preserved all assets of MMNY. It further required MMNY to not take certain actions, including any actions that would have a material adverse effect on MedMen’s New York business. On March 27, 2023, the parties entered a further stipulation that modified the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order by lifting the Court’s prohibition against a sale or transfer of MMNY or its assets, without waiver of any claims that the Company might have in the event of such a transaction. That further stipulation modifying the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order was entered by the Court on August 1, 2023. On January 24, 2022, MedMen filed counterclaims against the Company, alleging that Ascend had breached the Investment Agreement, and seeking declaratory relief that MedMen had properly terminated the Investment Agreement. On February 14, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s counterclaims and filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) that included additional claims against MedMen for breach of contract. The First Amended Complaint contained several causes of action, including for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint sought damages in addition to continuing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 7, 2022, MedMen filed amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. On April 20, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the time for MedMen to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss until May 5, 2022. In addition, the parties agreed to stay all discovery, including both party and non-party discovery. On May 5, 2022, the parties filed another stipulation order with the Court adjourning until further notice from the Court MedMen’s time to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. The parties again stipulated that all discovery remains stayed pending further order from the Court. On May 10, 2022, the Company and MedMen signed a term sheet (the “Term Sheet”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to use best efforts to enter into a settlement agreement and enter into new or amended transactional documents. Specifically, if consummated, the agreements contemplated by the Term Sheet would have entailed, among other things, the Company paying MedMen $15,000 in additional transaction consideration, and MedMen withdrawing its counterclaims against the Company. Per the amended transaction terms contemplated in the Term Sheet, upon closing, the Company would have received a 99.99% controlling interest in MMNY and the Company would have paid MedMen $74,000, which reflected the original transaction consideration plus an additional $11,000 per the parties’ Term Sheet, less a $4,000 deposit that the Company already paid. The amended transaction terms contemplated in the Term Sheet also would have required MedMen to provide a representation and warranty that the status of the MMNY assets had not materially changed since December 31, 2021 and an acknowledgement that the representations and warranties from the Investment Agreement would survive for three months after the closing of the contemplated transactions. However, after the Company determined that MedMen could not make or provide the representations and warranties that MedMen would have been required to make as part of the contemplated transactions, the Company determined that it no longer intended to consummate the contemplated transactions. On September 30, 2022, the Company sought leave from the Court to file a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint contains breach of contract claims against MedMen, as well as a claim for the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for anticipatory breach of contract. In connection with those claims, the Company is no longer seeking injunctive or declaratory relief; however, the Company continues to seek damages from MedMen, including, but not limited to, the return of the $4,000 deposit, approximately $2,400 of advances pursuant to a working capital loan agreement (as described in Note 6, “Notes Receivable”) and other capital expenditure advances paid to MMNY by the Company. On November 21, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby MedMen agreed to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, which is now the Company’s operative pleading in the litigation. In addition, in the stipulation, the Company agreed that it would not contest MedMen’s filing of second amended counterclaims against the Company while reserving all rights with respect to any such counterclaims. Because the parties agreed to the filing of each side’s amended pleadings, on November 28, 2022, the Court determined that Ascend’s March 2022 motion to dismiss was moot. On December 21, 2022, MedMen filed its second amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint. In addition to the allegations in MedMen’s earlier pleadings, MedMen now also alleged that the Company breached the Term Sheet. On January 20, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s second amended counterclaims. On August 18, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order on the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing seven of MedMen’s ten counterclaims, including each of the counterclaims brought by MedMen relating to the Term Sheet. On September 26, 2023, MedMen filed a motion seeking leave to file its third amended counterclaims, in which MedMen seeks to revive its previously dismissed counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On October 24, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to that motion for leave. As further discussed below, the Court denied that motion on February 2, 2024. In addition, on October 18, 2023, MedMen filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s August 18, 2023 Decision and Order with respect to the dismissal of MedMen’s three counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On November 1, 2023 the Company filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with respect to the Court’s determination that the Company’s motion to dismiss was not subject to New York’s anti-SLAPP statute. Both parties have yet to perfect the appeal. On February 2, 2024, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying MedMen’s motion for leave to file its third amended counterclaims. On February 21, 2024, the current counsel-of-record for MedMen filed an order to show cause with the Court seeking leave to withdraw as counsel and stay proceedings for thirty days to permit MedMen time to obtain new counsel. On February 26, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on March 20, 2024 regarding such withdrawal motion. Following the Company’s decision to no longer consummate the contemplated transactions during 2022, the Company expensed a total of $1,704 of capitalized costs, primarily consisting of capital expenditures or deposits that were incurred for certain locations. Additionally, during 2022 the Company established an estimated reserve of $3,700 related to the remaining amounts that it is actively pursuing collecting. These adjustments are included within “General and administrative expenses” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and within “Other” on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for 2022. The Company determined that the estimated reserve remained adequate as of December 31, 2023 and is included within “Other current assets” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2023 and 2022.

The Company does not have significant future annual commitments, other than related to leases and debt, which are disclosed in Notes 10 and 11, respectively. The Company has commercial relationships with license holders across the markets in which it operates with mutually beneficial purchasing and supply arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business.

In conjunction with the OCC acquisition (see Note 4, “Acquisitions”) in December 2021, the Company entered into a supply agreement with a producer and supplier of medical cannabis products in Ohio (the “Ohio Supply Agreement”) with an initial expiration date of August 2028. Under the Ohio Supply Agreement, the Company will purchase products from the supplier that results in 7.5% of the Company’s monthly gross sales of all products in its Ohio dispensaries for the first five years, and 5% for the remaining term. The Company can establish the selling price of the products and the purchases are made at the lowest then-prevailing wholesale market price of products sold by the supplier to other dispensaries in Ohio.

We are party to a variety of agreements under which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters. These agreements are primarily standard indemnification arrangements entered into in our ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, we may agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such indemnifications, and such costs would only be recognized as incurred. During 2023 and 2022, the Company paid for certain legal fees on behalf of certain officers of the Company who are parties to an employment related claim with a related party entity. These legal fees were not material and the Company has determined that, based on the status of the claim, no additional reserve related to the matter is required as of December 31, 2023.

The Company’s operations are subject to a variety of local and state regulations. Failure to comply with one or more of those regulations could result in fines, restrictions on its operations, or losses of permits that could result in the Company ceasing operations. While management believes that the Company is in compliance with applicable

State laws that permit and regulate the production, distribution, and use of cannabis for adult use or medical purposes are in direct conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811) (the “CSA”), which makes cannabis use and possession federally illegal. Although certain states and territories of the United States authorize medical and/or adult use cannabis production and distribution by licensed or registered entities, under United States federal law, the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal and any such acts are criminal acts under federal law under the CSA. Although the Company’s activities are believed to be compliant with applicable state and local laws, strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to cannabis may neither absolve the Company of liability under United States federal law, nor may it provide a defense to any federal proceeding which may be brought against the Company.

The Company may be, from time to time, subject to various administrative, regulatory, and other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Contingent liabilities associated with legal proceedings are recorded when a liability is probable and the contingent liability can be estimated. We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. At December 31, 2023 there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, other than as disclosed below.

In December 2020, TVP, LLC, TVP Grand Rapids, LLC and, TVP Alma, LLC (collectively, the “TVP Parties”) filed a claim alleging breach of contract against FPAW Michigan, LLC (“FPAW”) and AWH related to a purchase agreement that was entered into in September 2019 for the Company’s potential acquisition of certain real estate properties in Michigan. FPAW was a VIE of the Company at that time through FPAW Michigan 2, Inc. and became a subsidiary of the Company in December 2020. The TVP Parties asked the court to grant specific performance of the contracts between the Company and the TVP Parties, which, if granted, would have resulted in AWH issuing approximately 4,770 common units as originally agreed in September 2019 and paying approximately $16,500 in cash to the TVP parties in exchange for the entities holding the properties subject to the agreements. AWH and FPAW filed an answer to the complaint on January 28, 2021 and believed there existed valid defenses to the demand for specific performance due to lack of suitability of three of the six properties subject to the original transaction agreements.

On April 14, 2021, FPAW and AWH entered into a settlement agreement with the TVP Parties (the “Settlement Agreement”) which provides for, among other items, the dismissal of all claims brought by the TVP Parties against FPAW and AWH upon performance of each parties’ obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, FPAW and AWH delivered a cash payment of $9,000 to TVP, LLC on the date of the Settlement Agreement and made an additional cash payment of $5,480 in January 2022. In addition, on April 14, 2021, upon the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the Company issued 4,770 AWH historical common units with a fair value of $26,041 at issuance to an escrow account, to be held in the name of an escrow agent (the “Escrow Units”). Also as part of the Settlement Agreement, and in order to avoid further potential litigation, the Company issued 255 AWH historical common units with a fair value of $1,390 at issuance to a party to one of the original property purchase agreements that was not a party to the litigation matter. These common units, along with the Escrow Units, converted into shares of Class A common stock upon the Conversion in the same manner as all other common units of AWH.

Upon the receipt of the initial cash payment of $9,000 and the issuance of the Escrow Units, the TVP Parties filed a stipulated order dismissing all lawsuits, with prejudice and without costs, against FPAW and AWH. The Escrow Units are issued and outstanding and will remain in the escrow account until such time as the TVP Parties exercise an option to hold the Escrow Units directly (the “Put Option”), which can be exercised for three years from the date of the Settlement Agreement. Upon their exercise of the Put Option, the Escrow Units shall be released to the TVP Parties and the TVP Parties shall transfer to FPAW the equity interests of the entities that hold the three real estate properties to be acquired. FPAW and AWH currently operate dispensaries at these locations

The settlement charge of $36,511 is reflected within “Settlement expense” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for 2021 and the fair value of the share issuance of $27,431 is reflected within “Equity issued in litigation settlement” on the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity. The $5,400 fair value of the three properties to be acquired per the settlement is recorded within “Other noncurrent assets” as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, and will remain until the time such property titles transfer to the Company.

On May 28, 2021, Senvest Management, LLC, Hadron Capital (Cayman) LTD., and Measure8 Venture Partners, LLC (collectively, the “Claimants”), as former holders of the Company’s AWH Convertible Promissory Notes, pursuant to the Company’s 2019 Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement, filed an arbitration demand, which was subsequently amended on July 28, 2021 (the “Arbitration Demand”), against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer at the time, Abner Kurtin, before the American Arbitration Association. In their Arbitration Demand, the Claimants take issue with the April 22, 2021 amendment of the terms of the 2019 Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement (the “Amended Notes Consent”), which was approved by holders of approximately 66% of the principal amount of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes, in excess of the simple majority required to amend the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes. The Amended Notes Consent set the conversion price of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes at $2.96 per share. The Claimants alleged that the Amended Notes Consent was obtained improperly and is void. The Company disputed the Claimants’ allegations and contended that the Amended Notes Consent was properly obtained in accordance with the terms of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes and 2019 Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement and the Amended Notes Consent was binding on all holders of the AWH Convertible Promissory Notes.

On February 25, 2021, the Company entered into a definitive investment agreement (the “Investment Agreement”) with subsidiaries of MedMen Enterprises Inc. (“MedMen”), under which we would have, subject to regulatory approval, completed an investment (the “Investment”) of approximately $73,000 in MedMen NY, Inc. (“MMNY”), a licensed medical cannabis operator in the state of New York. Following the completion of the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, we were expected to hold all the outstanding equity of MMNY. Specifically, the Investment Agreement provided that at closing, the Company was going to pay to MedMen’s senior lenders $35,000, less certain transaction costs and a prepaid deposit of $4,000, and AWH New York, LLC was going to issue a senior secured promissory note in favor of MMNY’s senior secured lender in the principal amount of $28,000, guaranteed by AWH, which cash investment and note would be used to reduce the amounts owed to MMNY’s senior secured lender. Following its investment, AWH would hold a controlling interest in MMNY equal to approximately 86.7% of the equity in MMNY, and be provided with an option to acquire MedMen’s remaining interest in MMNY in the future for a nominal additional payment, which option the Company intended to exercise. The Investment Agreement also required AWH to make an additional investment of $10,000 in MMNY, which investment would also be used to repay MMNY’s senior secured lender, if adult-use cannabis sales commenced in MMNY’s dispensaries.

The Company contends that, in December 2021, the parties to the Investment Agreement received the required approvals from the State of New York to close the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, but MedMen has disputed the adequacy of the approvals provided by the State of New York. The Company delivered notice to MedMen in December 2021 that it wished to close the transactions as required by the Investment Agreement. Nevertheless, MedMen, on January 2, 2022, gave notice to the Company that MedMen purported to terminate the Investment Agreement.

Following receipt of such notice, on January 13, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against MedMen and others in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Court”), requesting specific performance that the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement must move forward, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Company simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the “Motion”) requiring MedMen to operate its New York business in the ordinary course of business and to refrain from any activities or transactions that might impair, encumber, or dissipate MedMen’s New York assets. The parties resolved the Motion via a “Stipulation and Order” entered by the Court on January 21, 2022 that required that MMNY operate only in compliance with the law and in a manner consistent with its ordinary course of business that preserved all assets of MMNY. It further required MMNY to not take certain actions, including any actions that would have a material adverse effect on MedMen’s New York business. On March 27, 2023, the parties entered a further stipulation that modified the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order by lifting the Court’s prohibition against a sale or transfer of MMNY or its assets, without waiver of any claims that the Company might have in the event of such a transaction. That further stipulation modifying the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order was entered by the Court on August 1, 2023.

On January 24, 2022, MedMen filed counterclaims against the Company, alleging that Ascend had breached the Investment Agreement, and seeking declaratory relief that MedMen had properly terminated the Investment Agreement. On February 14, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s counterclaims and filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) that included additional claims against MedMen for breach of contract. The First Amended Complaint contained several causes of action, including for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint sought damages in addition to continuing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 7, 2022, MedMen filed amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. On April 20, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the time for MedMen to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss until May 5, 2022. In addition, the parties agreed to stay all discovery, including both party and non-party discovery. On May 5, 2022, the parties filed another stipulation order with the Court adjourning until further notice from the Court MedMen’s time to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. The parties again stipulated that all discovery remains stayed pending further order from the Court.

On May 10, 2022, the Company and MedMen signed a term sheet (the “Term Sheet”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to use best efforts to enter into a settlement agreement and enter into new or amended transactional documents. Specifically, if consummated, the agreements contemplated by the Term Sheet would have entailed, among other things, the Company paying MedMen $15,000 in additional transaction consideration, and MedMen withdrawing its counterclaims against the Company. Per the amended transaction terms contemplated in the Term Sheet, upon closing, the Company would have received a 99.99% controlling interest in MMNY and the Company would have paid MedMen $74,000, which reflected the original transaction consideration plus an additional $11,000 per the parties’ Term Sheet, less a $4,000 deposit that the Company already paid.

The amended transaction terms contemplated in the Term Sheet also would have required MedMen to provide a representation and warranty that the status of the MMNY assets had not materially changed since December 31, 2021 and an acknowledgement that the representations and warranties from the Investment Agreement would survive for three months after the closing of the contemplated transactions. However, after the Company determined that MedMen could not make or provide the representations and warranties that MedMen would have been required to make as part of the contemplated transactions, the Company determined that it no longer intended to consummate the contemplated transactions.

On September 30, 2022, the Company sought leave from the Court to file a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint contains breach of contract claims against MedMen, as well as a claim for the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for anticipatory breach of contract. In connection with those claims, the Company is no longer seeking injunctive or declaratory relief; however, the Company continues to seek damages from MedMen, including, but not limited to, the return of the $4,000 deposit, approximately $2,400 of advances pursuant to a working capital loan agreement (as described in Note 6, “Notes Receivable”) and other capital expenditure advances paid to MMNY by the Company.

On November 21, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby MedMen agreed to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, which is now the Company’s operative pleading in the litigation. In addition, in the stipulation, the Company agreed that it would not contest MedMen’s filing of second amended counterclaims against the Company while reserving all rights with respect to any such counterclaims. Because the parties agreed to the filing of each side’s amended pleadings, on November 28, 2022, the Court determined that Ascend’s March 2022 motion to dismiss was moot.

On December 21, 2022, MedMen filed its second amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint. In addition to the allegations in MedMen’s earlier pleadings, MedMen now also alleged that the Company breached the Term Sheet. On January 20, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s second amended counterclaims.

On August 18, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order on the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing seven of MedMen’s ten counterclaims, including each of the counterclaims brought by MedMen relating to the Term Sheet. On September 26, 2023, MedMen filed a motion seeking leave to file its third amended counterclaims, in which MedMen seeks to revive its previously dismissed counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On October 24, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to that motion for leave. As further discussed below, the Court denied that motion on February 2, 2024. In addition, on October 18, 2023, MedMen filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s August 18, 2023 Decision and Order with respect to the dismissal of MedMen’s three counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On November 1, 2023 the Company filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with respect to the Court’s determination that the Company’s motion to dismiss was not subject to New York’s anti-SLAPP statute. Both parties have yet to perfect the appeal.

On February 21, 2024, the current counsel-of-record for MedMen filed an order to show cause with the Court seeking leave to withdraw as counsel and stay proceedings for thirty days to permit MedMen time to obtain new counsel. On February 26, 2024, the Court ordered the parties to appear for a hearing on March 20, 2024 regarding such withdrawal motion.