b'On June 15, 2020 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint. The amended complaint included additional allegations related to the companys statements regarding a five year supply agreement with the Canadian governments Societe Quebecoise du Canabis (SQDC Agreement), which was supposed to guarantee substantial revenue for the company due to the contracts volume commitment feature. Ultimately, the government did not meet its purchase obligation, which negatively impacted the companys revenue. However, the company decided to relieve the SQDC of its obligations under the agreement.On March 9, 2021, the court granted defendants motion and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. In its opinion, the court rejected plaintiffs claims, concluding that the allegations amounted to hindsight pleading. Specifically, the court explained that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that at the time the company issued its prospectus defendants knew that the purchase obligation in the SQDC agreement would not be met given that demand for cannabis was difficult to predict. Rather, the court held that the company had adequately disclosed risks associated with demand in a newly legalized industry, as well the companys dependence on its purchase agreements.'