b'CASES GOODWINCuraleaf Holdings, Inc.: In re Curaleaf Securitiesplaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 6, Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-04486-BMC2020. The case is ongoing and defendants motion to (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019) dismiss was filed on March 6, 2020.Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (Curaleaf) is a Massachusetts- Greenlane Holdings, Inc.: Hammond v. based leading cannabis operator with 50 cannabisGreenlane Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 9:19-cv-dispensaries over 12 states, in addition to 14 cannabis81259-RKA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 11, 2019)cultivation sites and over one million active wholesaleGreenlane Holdings, Inc. (Greenlane) is a cannabis cannabis dispensary accounts. company that distributes premium products containing In November 2018, Curaleaf made a number ofhemp-derived CBD, in addition to e-cigarettes, announcements related to the launch of its hemp- vaporizers and accessories.based CBD products. The products, which included gelIn April 2019, Greenlane raised approximately $110 capsules, oil droplets and vape pens, were marketed asmillion in an IPO selling approximately 6.5 million potential solutions to chronic pain, anxiety, depression,shares of common stock at $17 per share. In its PTSD, the treatment of Parkinsons and AlzheimersRegistration Statement the company stated that they disease, in addition to the growth and spread ofwere one of the largest distributors of products made cancer. In July 2019, the FDA publicly issued a warningby JUUL labs, an e-cigarette manufacturer based in letter to Curaleaf stating the agencys belief that theSan Francisco, and touted the companys competitive company was selling unapproved and misbrandedmarket advantages due to its relationship with JUUL. In drugs and improperly marketing its CBD products asMarch 2019, the city of San Francisco announced that dietary supplements in violation of the Federal Food,it planned to introduce a major initiative to ban the sale Drug and Cosmetic Act. The letter required Curaleaf toof e-cigarette products that had not undergone review provide the FDA with information that they had takenby the FDA and prohibit the sale, manufacture and steps to address the violations. Following the issuancedistribution of all tobacco products on San Francisco of the letter, the companys stock price fell 8%. In Julyproperty, which included property subleased by 2019, Curaleaf issued a press release reporting thatJUUL Labs. In June 2019, the San Francisco Board of it provided a response to the FDA and removed anySupervisors announced that it would, indeed, ban the statements on its website highlighted in the agencyssale and distribution of e-cigarette products within the letter regarding the products health benefits andcity. The next day, Greenlanes stock price fell 17% to discontinued many of those products. However, theclose at $11 per share and continued to decline over company denied that its conduct was in violation of thethe following days until it closed at $9.32 on June 24, federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. On an August2019. In response, the company released a statement 2, 2019 earnings call, the companys CFO at the timeacknowledging the citys ban but noting that it did not defended the company, emphasizing that successfulanticipate a material impact from the new regulation companies take risks and characterized its regulatorybecause the city, and Northern California region, issues as a situation with a tremendous amount ofrepresented an immaterial percentage of its total ambiguity.JUUL sales.Investors brought a putative class action againstInvestors filed a putative class action against the the company and its CEO, COO and CFO, allegingcompany, its CEO, CFO, Chief Strategy Officer, four violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchangecompany directors, and the companys underwriters Act, and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs allege that Curaleafalleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the consistently touted the potential growth and qualitySecurities Act in connection with its April 2019 IPO. of their CBD products in the U.S. despite the factPlaintiffs alleged that the companys Registration that the regulatory scheme was complex and thatStatement included materially false and misleading the companys products were not FDA-approved,statements because it failed to disclose that the City and therefore, the companys statements about itsof San Francisco had introduced a major initiative that expansion were false and materially misleading. would impact the sale, manufacture, and distribution of The case was consolidated in November 2019 ande-cigarettes and, accordingly, the companys financial 13'