Chicago Atlantic Real Estate Finance Inc

We are a commercial mortgage real estate investment trust ("REIT"). Our primary investment objective is to provide attractive, risk-adjusted returns for stockholders over time primarily through consistent current income dividends and other distributions and secondarily through capital appreciation. We intend to achieve this objective by originating, structuring and investing in first mortgage loans and alternative structured financings secured by commercial real estate properties. Our current portfolio is comprised primarily of senior loans to state-licensed operators in the cannabis industry, secured by real estate, equipment, receivables, licenses or other assets of the borrowers to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations governing such borrowers. We also invest in companies or properties that are not related to the cannabis industry that provide return characteristics consistent with our investment objective. From time to time, we may also invest in mezzanine loans, preferred equity or other forms of joint venture equity to the extent consistent with our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and maintaining our qualification as a REIT. We may enter into credit agreements with borrowers that permit them to incur debt that ranks equally with, or senior to, the loans we extend to such companies under such credit agreements. There is no assurance that we will achieve our investment objective. We commenced operations on March 30, 2021 and completed our initial public offering (“IPO”) in December 2021.

We believe that cannabis operators’ limited access to traditional bank and non-bank financing has provided attractive opportunities for us to make loans to companies that exhibit strong fundamentals but require more customized financing structures and loan products than regulated financial institutions can provide in the current regulatory environment. We believe that continued state-level legalization of cannabis for medical and adult use creates an increased loan demand by companies operating in the cannabis industry and property owners leasing to cannabis tenants. Furthermore, we believe we are differentiated from our competitors because we seek to target operators and facilities that exhibit lower-risk characteristics on a relative basis, which we believe include generally limiting exposure to ground-up construction, lending to cannabis operators with operational and/or profitable facilities, diversification of geographies and distribution channels, among other factors.

We are externally managed by Chicago Atlantic REIT Manager, LLC (our “Manager”). Our Manager and its affiliates seek to originate real estate loans between $5 million and $200 million, generally with one- to five-year terms and amortization when terms exceed three years. We generally act as co-lenders in such transactions and intend to hold up to $50 million of the aggregate loan amount, with the remainder to be held by affiliates or third party co-investors. We may revise such concentration limits from time to time as our loan portfolio grows. Other investment vehicles managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager may co-invest with us or hold positions in a loan where we have also invested, including by means of allocating commitments, participating in loans or other means of syndicating loans. We will not engage in a co-investment transaction with an affiliate where the affiliate has a senior position to the loan held by us. To the extent that an affiliate provides financing to one of our borrowers, such loans will be working capital loans or loans that are subordinate to our loans. We may also serve as co-lenders in loans originated by third parties and, in the future, we may also acquire loans or loan participations.

Our loans are generally secured by real estate and, when lending to owner-operators in the cannabis industry, also other collateral, such as equipment, receivables, intellectual property, licenses or other assets of the borrowers to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations governing such borrowers.

As of December 31, 2023, our portfolio is comprised primarily of first mortgage loans to established multi-state or single-state cannabis operators or property owners. In addition, we own approximately $0.8 million, at fair value, of publicly-traded corporate bonds issued by a multi-state cannabis operator. We consider cannabis operators to be established if they are state-licensed and are deemed to be operational and in good standing by the applicable state regulator. We do not own any warrants or other forms of equity in any of our portfolio companies that are involved in the cannabis industry, and we will not take warrants or equity in such issuers until permitted by applicable laws and regulations, including U.S. federal laws and regulations.

We impose strict loan covenants and seek personal or corporate guarantees for additional protection. As of December 31, 2023, 27.1% of the loans held in our portfolio based on outstanding principal, are backed by personal or corporate guarantees. We aim to maintain a diversified portfolio across jurisdictions and across verticals, including cultivators, processors, dispensaries, and other businesses ancillary thereto. In addition, we may invest in borrowers that have equity securities that are publicly traded on the Canadian Stock Exchange (“CSE”) in Canada and/or over-the-counter in the United States.

We are an externally managed Maryland corporation that elected to be taxed as a REIT under Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2021. We believe that we have qualified as a REIT and that our method of operation will enable us to continue to qualify as a REIT. However, no assurances can be given that our beliefs or expectations will be fulfilled, since qualification as a REIT depends on us continuing to satisfy numerous asset, income and distribution tests described under “—U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — Taxation”, which in turn depend, in part, on our operating results. We also intend to operate our business in a manner that will permit us and our subsidiaries to maintain one or more exclusions or exemptions from registration under the Investment Company Act.

Our Manager

We are externally managed by our Manager pursuant to our Management Agreement. Our senior management team is provided by our Manager and includes John Mazarakis, our Executive Chairman, Anthony Cappell, our Co-Chief Executive Officer, Peter Sack, our Co-Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Andreas Bodmeier, our President and Chief Investment Officer. Our Manager is supported by additional investment professionals with significant expertise in executing our investment strategy and accounting, operational, and legal professionals.

Our Manager’s Investment Committee, which is comprised of John Mazarakis, Anthony Cappell, Dr. Andreas Bodmeier, and Peter Sack, advises and consults with our Manager and its investment professionals with respect to our investment strategy, portfolio construction, financing, investment guidelines, and risk management, and approves all of our investments. The investment professionals of our Manager have over 100 years of combined experience in private credit, real estate lending, retail, real estate acquisitions and development, investment advice, risk management, and consulting. Collectively, the investment professionals have originated, underwritten, structured, documented, managed, or syndicated over $8.0 billion in credit and real estate transactions, which includes loans to cannabis operators, loans to companies engaged in activities unrelated to cannabis, as well as commercial real estate loans. The depth and breadth of the management and investment team allows our Manager to address all facets of our operations.

Pursuant to our Management Agreement with our Manager, our Manager manages our loan portfolio and our day-to-day operations, subject at all times to the further terms and conditions set forth in our Management Agreement and such further limitations or parameters as may be imposed from time to time by our board of directors (our “Board”). Under our Management Agreement, our Manager has contractual responsibilities to us, including to provide us with a management team (whether our Manager’s own employees or individuals for which our Manager has contracted with other parties to provide services to its clients), who will be our executive officers, and the Manager’s Investment Committee. Our Manager will use its commercially reasonable efforts to perform its duties under our Management Agreement.

The initial term of our Management Agreement is for three years and shall continue until May 1, 2024. After the initial term, our Management Agreement shall automatically renew every year for an additional one-year period, unless we or our Manager elect not to renew. Our Management Agreement may be terminated by us or our Manager under certain specified circumstances.

The following table summarizes the compensation, fees and expense reimbursements that we pay to our Manager under our Management Agreement. A portion or all of the fees may be paid in shares of our common stock, at the sole discretion of our Manager.

Summary Compensation Table

Our Competitive Strengths

We expect demand for financing in the cannabis market to continue to rise due to recent and future state legalization of cannabis for recreational and medical use, while federal prohibition on cannabis use and commercialization hampers certain commercial and financial activities. We believe we are well positioned to maintain and expand our position as a credible source of financing for cannabis industry operators and other property owners with the goal of becoming the lender of choice to leading cannabis industry operators, due to the following factors:

Leading Cannabis Lending Platform. Chicago Atlantic Group, LP (our “Sponsor”) and its affiliates have originated and closed more than 70 loans totaling approximately $1.8 billion to companies operating in the cannabis industry, making their first loan to a cannabis operator in April 2019. We believe we are a leading capital provider in the cannabis ecosystem with the requisite domain expertise, deep relationships, nimble execution capabilities, stringent underwriting standards, and strong risk analytics to become the lender of choice in the industry. We believe our broad network of deep relationships allows us to originate a substantial number of loans that are not broadly marketed. We believe we are differentiated from our competitors because we seek to target operators and facilities that exhibit lower-risk characteristics on a relative basis, which we believe include generally limiting exposure to ground-up construction, lending to cannabis operators with operational and profitable facilities, diversification of geographies and distribution channels, among other factors.

Sizable Portfolio with Compelling Risk-Adjusted Returns That is Secured by Different Types of Collateral. We believe our current portfolio investments have attractive risk-adjusted returns. As of December 31, 2023, the yield to maturity (“YTM”) IRR on our loans is 19.4% on a weighted average basis and ranges from 14.7% to 36.3% through coupons, OID, unused fees, exit fees, and other yield-enhancing fees, as applicable. Our loans are primarily secured by real property and certain personal property, including licenses, equipment, and other assets to the extent permitted by applicable laws and the regulations governing our borrowers.

Disciplined, “Credit-First” Underwriting Process. We have developed a systematic underwriting process that applies a consistent approach to credit review and approval, with a focus on evaluating credit first and then appropriately assessing the risk-reward profile of each loan. We subject all of our potential loans and operators to rigorous underwriting criteria. Our assessment of credit is paramount, as we seek to minimize potential credit losses through effective due diligence, structuring, and covenant design. We seek to customize each transaction structure and financial and operational covenants to reflect risks identified through the underwriting and due diligence process with the goal of maximizing risk-adjusted returns. Our Manager’s investment professionals have extensive experience with and the ability to execute on innovative financing solutions that meet the needs of cannabis operators. We also seek to actively supplement our origination and credit underwriting activities through site visits and consistent dialogue with operators and outside capital partners, if any.

Our Team’s Track Record in Identifying Market Inefficiencies. Members of our Manager’s Investment Committee have had successful careers in private credit, real estate lending, acquisitions, and development, consumer retail, investments, risk management, and consulting. We believe that our willingness and ability to invest and lend in market niches encumbered by regulatory uncertainty, where constrained or less nimble market participants are absent, offers us a distinct advantage. We believe our focus on identifying opportunities in such markets provides for commensurate returns relative to risk. Our relentless pursuit of all relevant information in connection with each transaction is a discrete focus of our investment team. We believe by carefully assessing specific challenges and because we possess the ability to understand and quantify the risks involved, we are able to effectively capitalize on market inefficiencies. We believe these types of assets provide an attractive, and often overlooked, investment opportunity.

Nimble Execution. We believe we have nimble execution capabilities, with the ability to redeploy capital more quickly than the typical REIT land ownership models because we offer shorter terms on our loans than typical equity REITs. Our current portfolio as of December 31, 2023 has a weighted average maturity of 2.1 years with significant prepayment protections, whereas we believe that certain competitors with typical equity REIT land ownership models often have long-term leases averaging 10 years or more. The duration of our loans, as compared to the length of leases usually employed by equity REITs, allows us to redeploy our capital with more flexibility as market changes occur instead of being locked in for longer periods of time. This model also allows our borrowers to retain control of their real estate assets, which is important to their businesses and allows for more flexibility regarding their capital structure.

Our Growth Strategy

Objective

Our primary investment objective is to provide attractive, risk-adjusted returns for stockholders over time, primarily through consistent current income dividends and other distributions and secondarily through capital appreciation. We intend to achieve this objective by originating, structuring and investing in a diversified portfolio of income-producing first mortgage loans and alternative structured financings secured by commercial real estate properties. Our current portfolio is comprised primarily of senior loans to state-licensed operators in the cannabis industry, secured by real estate, equipment, receivables, licenses or other assets of the borrowers to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations governing such borrowers. We intend to grow the size of our portfolio by continuing the track record of our business by making loans to leading operators and property owners in the cannabis industry.

Key elements of our strategy include:

•

Targeting loans for origination and investment that typically have the following characteristics:

•

principal balance greater than $5 million;

•

real estate collateral coverage of at least one times the principal balance;

•

secured by commercial real estate properties, including cannabis cultivation facilities, processing facilities and dispensaries; and

•

well-capitalized operators with substantial experience in particular real estate sectors and geographic markets.

•

Diversifying our financing sources with increased access to equity and debt capital, which may provide us with a lower overall cost of funding and the ability to hold larger loan sizes, among other things.

We intend to continue providing financing to state-licensed cannabis cultivators, processors, distributors, retailers, vertically-integrated cannabis firms, non-plant touching manufacturers, suppliers, and service providers to such industries, and other businesses ancillary thereto, located in the U.S. and Canada. We will continue to focus on operators with strong collateral, in the form of real estate, equipment and receivables owned by the borrower, and may opportunistically invest in “all asset lien” cash flow loans, to the extent that allows us to maintain our qualification as a REIT, with a strict focus on adhering to conservative underwriting criteria. Our Manager will regularly evaluate loans and intends to retain an independent third-party valuation firm to provide input on the valuation of unquoted assets, which our Manager considers along with various other subjective and objective factors when making any such evaluation. The collateral underlying our loans is located in states in the U.S. that we believe have attractive regulatory environments for companies operating in the cannabis industry, economic conditions and commercial real estate fundamentals.

An evaluation of the real estate and other collateral is an important part of our Manager’s underwriting process, but we may be limited in our ability to foreclose on certain collateral. If we expect that exercising rights and remedies available to us would lead to a lower recovery, we may instead seek to sell a defaulted loan to a third party or force the sale of collateral underlying the loan as permitted in our standard loan agreements. There may be no readily available market for our loans, so we can provide no assurances that a third party would buy such loans or that the sales price of such loans would be sufficient to recover our outstanding principal balance. For more information, see “Risk Factors — Certain assets of our borrowers may not be used as collateral or transferred to us due to applicable state laws and regulations governing the cannabis industry, and such restrictions could negatively impact our profitability.”

We may diversify our portfolio by also lending or investing in properties that are not related to the cannabis industry if they provide return characteristics consistent with our investment objective. From time to time, we may invest in mezzanine loans, preferred equity or other forms of joint venture equity.

We draw upon our Manager’s expertise in sourcing, underwriting, structuring and funding capabilities to implement our growth strategy. We believe that our current growth strategy provides significant potential opportunities to our stockholders for attractive risk-adjusted returns over time. However, to capitalize on the appropriate loan opportunities at different points in the economic and real estate investment cycle, we may modify or expand our growth strategy from time to time.

Manager’s Investment Committee

The Manager’s Investment Committee overseeing the loan portfolio and the loan origination process for us is focused on managing our credit risk through a comprehensive investment review process. As part of the investment process, the Manager’s Investment Committee must approve each loan before commitment papers are issued.

In addition, the Audit Committee of our Board may assist our Board in its oversight of the determination of the fair value of assets, as applicable, that are not publicly traded or for which current market values are not readily available by evaluating various subjective and objective factors, including input provided by an independent valuation firm that we currently retain to provide input on the valuation of such assets.

Our Portfolio

As of December 31, 2023, loans to 27 different borrowers comprise our portfolio, totaling approximately $355.7 million in total principal amount, with approximately $7.5 million in committed future fundings to such borrowers. As of December 31, 2023, our loan portfolio had a weighted-average yield-to-maturity internal rate of return (“YTM IRR”) of 19.4% and was secured by real estate and, with respect to certain of our loans, substantially all assets in the borrowers and certain of their subsidiaries, including equipment, receivables, and licenses. The YTM IRR on our loans is designed to present the total annualized return anticipated on the loans if such loans are held until they mature, which is consistent with our operating strategy. YTM IRR summarizes various components of such return, such as cash interest, paid-in-kind interest, original issue discount, and exit fees, in one measure that is comparable across loans. YTM IRR is calculated using various inputs, including (i) cash and paid-in-kind (“PIK”) interest, which is capitalized and added to the outstanding principal balance of the applicable loan, (ii) original issue discount (“OID”), (iii) amortization, (iv) unused fees, and (v) exit fees. Certain of our loans have extension fees, which are not included in our YTM IRR calculations, but may increase YTM IRR if such extension options are exercised by borrowers.

As of December 31, 2023, approximately 80.5% of our portfolio was comprised of floating rate loans that pay interest at the Prime Rate plus an applicable margin and were subject to a Prime Rate floor, and 19.5% of our portfolio was comprised of fixed rate loans. All of our loans had prepayment penalties at origination and 54% of our loans, based on outstanding principal, are still protected by prepayment penalties as of December 31, 2023.

The table below summarizes our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2023.

(1)

All loans originated prior to April 1, 2021 were purchased from affiliated entities at fair value plus accrued interest on or subsequent to April 1, 2021. Loan numbering in the table above is maintained from origination for purposes of comparability and may not be sequential due to maturities, payoffs, or refinancings.

(2)

Certain loans are subject to contractual extension options and may be subject to performance based on other conditions as stipulated in the loan agreement. Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities stated herein and certain borrowers may have the right to prepay with or without a contractual prepayment penalty. The Company may also extend contractual maturities and amend other terms of the loans in connection with loan modifications.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Estimated YTM, calculated on a weighted average principal basis, includes a variety of fees and features that affect the total yield, which may include, but is not limited to, OID, exit fees, prepayment fees, unused fees and contingent features. OID is recognized as a discount to the funded loan principal and is accreted to income over the term of the loan. The estimated YTM calculations require management to make estimates and assumptions, including, but not limited to, the timing and amounts of loan draws on delayed draw loans, the timing and collectability of exit fees, the probability and timing of prepayments and the probability of contingent features occurring. For example, certain credit agreements contain provisions pursuant to which certain PIK interest rates and fees earned by us under such credit agreements will decrease upon the satisfaction of certain specified criteria which we believe may improve the risk profile of the applicable borrower. To be conservative, we have not assumed any prepayment penalties or early payoffs in our estimated YTM calculation. Estimated YTM is based on current management estimates and assumptions, which may change. Actual results could differ from those estimates and assumptions.

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

The aggregate loan commitment to Loan #3 includes a $15.9 million initial commitment which has a base interest rate of 13.625% cash, 2.75% PIK and a second commitment of $4.2 million which has an interest rate of 15.00% cash, 2.00% PIK. The statistics presented reflect the weighted average of the terms under all advances for the total aggregate loan commitment.

(19)

As of December 1, 2023, this loan was placed on non-accrual status. In March 2024, we entered into an amendment to Loan #6, which extended the maturity date to April 15, 2024. In connection with this amendment, Loan #6 was restored to accrual status (Note 14).

(20)

As of May 1, 2023, Loan #9 was placed on non-accrual status and continues to be on non-accrual as of December 31, 2023. Loan #9 is included on the consolidated balance sheet as a loan held for investment – related party (Note 7)

Collateral Overview

Our loans to cannabis operators are secured by various types of assets of our borrowers, including real property and certain personal property, including licenses, equipment, receivables, and other assets to the extent permitted by applicable laws and the regulations governing our borrowers. As such, we do not have liens on cannabis inventory and cannot foreclose on liens on state licenses as they are generally not transferable. See “Risk Factors — Certain assets of our borrowers may not be used as collateral or transferred to us due to applicable state laws and regulations governing the cannabis industry, and such restrictions could negatively impact our profitability.”

The table below represents the real estate collateral securing our loans as of December 31, 2023. The real estate collateral values in the table below were measured at the time of underwriting and based on various sources of data available at such time. In addition, the real estate that secures our loans is generally appraised by a third party at least once a year, or more frequently as needed.

In the event that a borrower defaults on its loan, we have a number of potential remedies that we may pursue, depending on the nature of the default, the size of the loan, the value of the underlying collateral and the financial condition of the borrower. We may seek to sell the loan to a third party, provide consent to allow the borrower to sell the real estate to a third party, institute a foreclosure proceeding to have the real estate sold or evict the tenant, have the cannabis operations removed from the property and take title to the underlying real estate. We believe the appraised value of the real estate underlying our loans impacts the amount of the recovery we would receive in each such scenario. However, the amount of any such recovery will likely be less than the appraised value of the real estate and may not be sufficient to pay off the remaining balance on the defaulted loan.

We may pursue a sale of a defaulted loan if we believe that such sale would yield higher proceeds or that the sale could be accomplished more quickly than through a foreclosure proceeding while yielding proceeds comparable to what would be expected from a foreclosure sale. To the extent that we determine that the proceeds are more likely to be maximized through instituting a foreclosure sale or through taking title to the underlying property, we will be subject to the rules and regulations under state law that govern foreclosure sales and NASDAQ listing standards that do not permit us to take title to real estate while it is being used to conduct cannabis-related activities. If we foreclose on properties securing our loans, we may have difficulty selling such properties and may be forced to sell a property to a lower quality operator or to a party outside of the cannabis industry. Therefore, appraisal-based real estate collateral values shown in the table below may not equal the value of such real estate if it were to be sold to a third party in a foreclosure or similar proceeding. We may seek to sell a defaulted loan prior to commencing a foreclosure proceeding or during a foreclosure proceeding to a purchaser that is not required to comply with NASDAQ listing standards. We believe a third-party purchaser that is not subject to NASDAQ listing standards may be able to realize greater value from real estate and other collateral securing our loans. However, we can provide no assurances that a third party would buy such loans or that the sales price of such loans would be sufficient to recover the outstanding principal balance, accrued interest, and fees. See “Risk Factors — We will not own real estate as long as it is used in cannabis-related operations due to current statutory prohibitions and exchange listing standards, which may delay or limit our remedies in the event that any of our borrowers default under the terms of their mortgage loans with us.”

(1)

Senior Real Estate Corporate Loans and Senior Delayed Draw Term Loans are structured as loans to owner operators secured by real estate or loans to property owners that are leased to a third party tenant. Senior Loans are corporate loans that are not secured by real estate collateral.

(2)

Real estate is based on appraised value as is, or on a comparable cost basis, as completed. The real estate values shown in the collateral table are estimates by a third-party appraiser of the market value of the subject real property in its current physical condition, use, and zoning as of the appraisal date. The appraisals for cannabis cultivation or dispensary facilities assume that the highest and best use is use as a cannabis cultivator or dispensary, as applicable. The appraisals recognize that the current use is highly regulated by the state in which the property is located; however, there are sales of comparable properties that demonstrate that there is a market for such properties. The appraisals utilize these comparable sales for the appraised property’s value in use. For properties used for cannabis cultivation, the appraisals use similar sized warehouses in their conclusion of the subject’s “as-is” value without licenses to cultivate cannabis. However, the appraised value is assumed to be realized from a purchase by another state-licensed cannabis operator or a third-party purchaser that would lease the subject property to a state-licensed cannabis operator. The regulatory requirements related to real property used in cannabis-related operations may cause significant delays or difficulties in transferring a property to another cannabis operator, as the state regulator may require inspection and approval of the new tenant/user.

(3)

Certain affiliated co-lenders subordinated their interest in the real estate collateral to the Company, thus increasing the collateral coverage for the applicable loan.

(4)

The total real estate collateral coverage ratio represents a weighted average real estate collateral coverage ratio. Further, the value may also be determined using the income approach, based on market lease rates for comparable properties, whether dispensaries or cultivation facilities. It indicates the value to a third-party owner that leases to a dispensary or cultivation facility. Finally, the appraisals may contain a value based on the cost for another operator to construct a similar facility, which we refer to as the “cost approach.” We believe the cost approach provides an indication of what another state-licensed operator would pay for a separate facility instead of constructing it itself. The appraisal’s opinion of value reflects current conditions and the likely actions of market participants as of the date of appraisal. It is based on the available information gathered and provided to the appraiser and does not predict future performance. Changing market or property conditions can and likely will have an effect on the subject’s value.

Revolving Credit Facility

In May 2021, in connection with the Company’s acquisition of its wholly-owned financing subsidiary, Chicago Atlantic Lincoln, LLC (“CAL”), the Company was assigned a secured revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Loan”). The Revolving Loan had an original aggregate borrowing base of up to $10,000,000 and bore interest, payable in cash in arrears, at a per annum rate equal to the greater of (x) Prime Rate plus 1.00% and (y) 4.75%. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $100,000 related to the origination of the Revolving Loan, which were capitalized and are subsequently being amortized through maturity. The maturity date of the Revolving Loan was the earlier of (i) February 12, 2023 and (ii) the date on which the Revolving Loan is terminated pursuant to terms in the Revolving Loan Agreement.

On December 16, 2021, CAL entered into an amended and restated Revolving Loan agreement (the “First Amendment and Restatement”). The First Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $10,000,000 to $45,000,000 and decreased the interest rate, from the greater of the (1) Prime Rate plus 1.00% and (2) 4.75% to the greater of (1) the Prime Rate plus the applicable margin and (2) 3.25%. The applicable margin is derived from a floating rate grid based upon the ratio of debt to equity of CAL and increases from 0% at a ratio of 0.25 to 1 to 1.25% at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. The First Amendment and Restatement also extended the maturity date from February 12, 2023 to the earlier of (i) December 16, 2023 and (ii) the date on which the Revolving Loan is terminated pursuant to the terms of the Revolving Loan agreement. The Company has the option to extend the initial term for an additional one-year term, provided no events of default exist and the Company provides the required notice of the extension pursuant to the First Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $859,500 related to the First Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently being amortized through maturity.

On May 12, 2022, CAL entered into a second amended and restated Revolving Loan agreement (the “Second Amendment and Restatement”). The Second Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $45,000,000 to $65,000,000. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Second Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $177,261 related to the Second Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently amortized through maturity. The Revolving Loan incurs unused fees at a rate of 0.25% per annum which began on July 1, 2022 pursuant to the Second Amendment and Restatement.

On November 7, 2022, CAL entered into a third amended and restated Revolving Loan agreement (the “Third Amendment and Restatement”). The Third Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $65,000,000 to $92,500,000. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Third Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $323,779 related to the Third Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently amortized through maturity.

On February 27, 2023, CAL entered into an amendment to the Third Amendment and Restatement (the “Amendment”). The Amendment extended the contractual maturity date of the Revolving Loan until December 16, 2024 and the Company retained its option to extend the initial term for an additional one-year period, provided no events of default exist and the Company provides 365 days’ notice of the extension pursuant to the Amendment. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Amendment. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $2,988 related to the Amendment, which were capitalized and are subsequently amortized through maturity.

On June 30, 2023, CAL entered into a Fourth Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the “Fourth Amendment and Restatement”). The Fourth Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $92.5 million to $100.0 million. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Fourth Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $109,291 related to the Fourth Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently amortized through maturity.

On February 28, 2024, CAL entered into a Fifth Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement (the “Fifth Amendment and Restatement”). The Fifth Amendment and Restatement, extended the contractual maturity date of the Revolving Loan until June 30, 2026, and expanded the existing accordion feature to permit aggregate loan commitments of up to $150.0 million. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Fifth Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of approximately $0.1 million related to the Fifth Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and will subsequently be amortized through maturity.

The Revolving Loan provides for certain affirmative covenants, including requiring us to deliver financial information and any notices of default, and conducting business in the normal course. Additionally, the Company must comply with certain financial covenants including: (1) maximum capital expenditures of $150,000, (2) maintaining a debt service coverage ratio greater than 1.35 to 1 for the applicable trailing twelve month period, and (3) maintaining a leverage ratio less than 1.50 to 1. As of December 31, 2023, we were in compliance with all financial covenants with respect to the Revolving Loan.

As of December 31, 2023 and 2022, unamortized debt issuance costs related to the Revolving Loan, including all amendments and amendments and restatements thereto, as applicable, of $366,592 and $805,596, respectively, are recorded in other receivables and assets, net on the consolidated balance sheets.

As of December 31, 2023, we had an outstanding balance of $66.0 million and remaining undrawn availability of $34.0 million under the Revolving Loan. Additionally, as of December 31, 2023, $165.7 million in principal of our loans held for investment are pledged as collateral in the borrowing base of the Revolving Loan.

Government Regulation

Our operations are subject to regulation, supervision, and licensing under various United States, state, provincial, and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. In general, lending is a highly regulated industry in the United States and we are required to comply with, among other statutes and regulations, certain provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the USA Patriot Act, regulations promulgated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and U.S. federal and state securities laws and regulations. In addition, certain states have adopted laws or regulations that may, among other requirements, require licensing of lenders and financiers, prescribe disclosures of certain contractual terms, impose limitations on interest rates and other charges, and limit or prohibit certain collection practices and creditor remedies. We are required to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the states in which we do business. We actively monitor proposed changes to relevant legal and regulatory requirements in order to maintain our compliance.

Federal Laws Applicable to the Cannabis Industry

Cannabis (with the exception of hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight) is illegal under U.S. federal law. In those states in which the use of cannabis has been legalized, its use remains a violation of federal law pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (the “CSA”). The CSA classifies marijuana (cannabis) as a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such, both medical and adult use cannabis are illegal under U.S. federal law. Moreover, on two separate occasions the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CSA trumps state law. That means that the federal government may enforce U.S. drug laws against companies operating in accordance with state cannabis laws, creating a climate of legal uncertainty regarding the production and sale of cannabis. Unless and until Congress amends the CSA with respect to cannabis (and the President approves such amendment), there is a risk that the federal law enforcement authorities responsible for enforcing the CSA, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), may enforce current federal law. Because federal enforcement is currently left to the discretion of the DOJ, the federal government’s cannabis policy is dictated by the Attorney General and their directives. Federal marijuana enforcement policy, therefore, can change any time a new Attorney General is appointed. This has resulted in several changes in DOJ policy over the last decade, as discussed further below.

Under the Obama administration, the DOJ previously issued memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” on August 29, 2013, providing internal guidance to federal prosecutors concerning enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA. This guidance essentially characterized use of federal law enforcement resources to prosecute those complying with state laws allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of cannabis as an inefficient use of such federal resources where states have enacted laws legalizing cannabis in some form and have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, processing, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis. Conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations was not a priority for the DOJ. Instead, the Cole Memo identified a list of federal enforcement priorities, including preventing interstate diversion or distribution of cannabis to minors, to focus enforcement efforts against operations that implicated these priorities.

On January 4, 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a written memorandum rescinding the Cole Memo and related internal guidance issued by the DOJ regarding federal law enforcement priorities involving cannabis (the “Sessions Memo”). The Sessions Memo instructs federal prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutors when deciding whether to pursue prosecutions related to cannabis activities. As a result, federal prosecutors could, and still can, use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute actors compliant with their state laws. The Sessions Memo states that “these principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.” The Sessions Memo went on to state that given the DOJ’s well-established general principles, “previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective immediately.” Although there have not been any identified prosecutions of state law compliant cannabis entities, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in the future and it remains unclear what impact the Sessions Memo will have on the regulated cannabis industry, if any.

Jeff Sessions resigned as U.S. Attorney General on November 7, 2018. On February 14, 2019, William Barr was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General. However, in a written response to questions from U.S. Senator Cory Booker made as a nominee, Attorney General Barr stated “I do not intend to go after parties who have complied with state law in reliance on the Cole Memo.” The DOJ under Mr. Barr did not take a formal position on federal enforcement of laws relating to cannabis. Mr. Barr has stated publicly that his preference would be to have a uniform federal rule against cannabis, but, absent such a uniform rule, his preference would be to permit the existing federal approach of leaving it up to the states to make their own decisions. Attorney General Garland has indicated that he does not intend to prosecute state-legal marijuana programs, and testified to Congress in March of 2023 that the DOJ intended to release a new policy memorandum that would be similar in content to the Cole Memorandum. The new DOJ Memorandum, however, has not yet been released, and there can be no assurances that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce existing laws.

In August 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recommended to the DEA that cannabis be reclassified from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug under the CSA. HHS based this recommendation on a Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) review of cannabis’ classification pursuant to President Biden’s executive order in October 2022. The process for reclassification will require DEA approval and likely complex administrative rulemaking proceedings, and it remains unclear how long this process will take and the scope of any final decisions or rules.

One legislative safeguard for the medical cannabis industry, appended to federal appropriations legislation, remains in place. Commonly referred to as the “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer” or “Rohrabacher-Farr” Amendment, this so-called “rider” provision has been appended to the Consolidated Appropriations Acts since 2015. Under the terms of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer rider, the federal government is prohibited from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. On December 27, 2020, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that again included the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, extending its application until September 30, 2021. The amendment was renewed through September 2023 as a rider to the 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and has been extended through a series of short-term spending bills. There is no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition on DOJ spending in the appropriations bills for future years. In United States v. McIntosh, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who “strictly” comply with such laws. However, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which only applies in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii and Idaho, also held that persons who do not strictly comply with all state laws and regulations regarding the distribution, possession and cultivation of medical-use cannabis have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and in such instances the DOJ may prosecute those individuals. Similarly, the United States Circuit Court for the First Circuit also considered the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment in United States v. Bilodeau and likewise concluded that the Amendment does not prohibit federal prosecution of persons and entities engaged in medical cannabis operations that violate state law. In that same opinion, however, the Court concluded that “strict” compliance with the law is not necessary, such that technical noncompliance could not lead to prosecution. The key question, per the First Circuit, is whether a federal prosecution would limit the state’s ability to implement its laws.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where our borrowers operate will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis production, processing or distribution. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operators, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where our borrowers operate, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investments, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities.

State Laws Applicable to the Cannabis Industry

In most states that have legalized cannabis in some form, the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis generally requires that the operator obtain one or more licenses in accordance with applicable state requirements. In addition, many states regulate various aspects of the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis. Local governments in some cases also impose rules and regulations on the manner of operating cannabis businesses. As a result, applicable state and local laws and regulations vary widely, including, but not limited to, product testing, the level of enforcement by state and local authorities on non-licensed cannabis operators, state and local taxation of regulated cannabis products, local municipality bans on operations and operator licensing processes and renewals.

There is no guarantee that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed, amended or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. Unless and until the United States Congress amends or repeals the CSA with respect to medical and/or adult-use cannabis (and as to the timing or scope of any such potential amendment or repeal there can be no assurance), there is a risk that federal authorities may enforce current federal law. If the federal government begins to enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Laws Applicable to Financial Services for Cannabis Industry

All banks are subject to federal law, whether the bank is a national bank or state-chartered bank. At a minimum, all banks maintain federal deposit insurance which requires adherence to federal law. Violation of federal law could subject a bank to loss of its charter. Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statutes and the Bank Secrecy Act. For example, under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks must report to the federal government any suspected illegal activity, which would include any transaction associated with a cannabis-related business. These reports must be filed even though the business is operating in compliance with applicable state and local laws. Therefore, financial institutions that conduct transactions with money generated by cannabis-related conduct could face criminal liability under the Bank Secrecy Act for, among other things, failing to identify or report financial transactions that involve the proceeds of cannabis-related violations of the CSA.

Despite these laws, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a memorandum on February 14, 2014 (the “FinCEN Memorandum”) outlining the pathways for financial institutions to bank state-sanctioned cannabis businesses in compliance with federal enforcement priorities. Concurrently with the FinCEN Memorandum, the DOJ issued supplemental guidance directing federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo with respect to federal money laundering, unlicensed money transmitter and Bank Secrecy Act offenses based on cannabis-related violations of the CSA. The FinCEN Memorandum sets forth extensive requirements for financial institutions to meet if they want to offer bank accounts to cannabis-related businesses and echoed the enforcement priorities of the Cole Memo. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) in connection with all cannabis-related banking activities by any client of such financial institution, in accordance with federal money laundering laws. These cannabis-related SARs are divided into three categories – cannabis limited, cannabis priority, and cannabis terminated – based on the financial institution’s belief that the business in question follows state law, is operating outside of compliance with state law, or where the banking relationship has been terminated, respectively. This is a level of scrutiny that is far beyond what is expected of any normal banking relationship.

As a result, many banks are hesitant to offer any banking services to cannabis-related businesses, including opening bank accounts. While we currently maintain banking relationships, our inability to maintain those accounts or the lack of access to bank accounts or other banking services in the future, would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges. Similarly, if our borrowers are unable to access banking services, they will not be able to enter into loan agreements with us, as our agreements require interest payments to be made by check or wire transfer.

The rescission of the Cole Memo has not yet affected the status of the FinCEN Memorandum, nor has the Department of the Treasury given any indication that it intends to rescind the FinCEN Memorandum itself. Although the FinCEN Memorandum remains intact, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the guidelines of the FinCEN Memorandum. The DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state including states that have in some form legalized the sale of cannabis. Further, the conduct of the DOJ’s enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ’s priorities could result in the DOJ’s prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that were not previously prosecuted.

The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry.

Seasonality

Our business has not been, and we do not expect it to become subject to, material seasonal fluctuations.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations

We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code, commencing with our taxable period ended December 31, 2021. We believe that we have qualified as a REIT and that our method of operation will enable us to continue to qualify as a REIT.

So long as we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we generally are not subject to U.S. federal income tax on the portion of our taxable income or capital gain that is distributed to stockholders annually. This treatment substantially eliminates the “double taxation” (i.e., at both the corporate and stockholder levels) that typically results from investment in a corporation.

Notwithstanding our qualification as a REIT, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax as follows:

•

we will be taxed at normal corporate rates on any undistributed net income (including undistributed net capital gains);

•

if we fail to satisfy either the 75% or the 95% gross income tests (discussed below), but nonetheless maintain our qualification as a REIT because other requirements are met, we will be subject to a 100% tax on the greater of (1) the amount by which we fail the 75% test and (2) the amount by which we fail the 95% test, in either case, multiplied by a fraction intended to reflect our profitability;

•

if we should fail to satisfy the asset tests or other requirements applicable to REITs, as described below, yet nonetheless maintain our qualification as a REIT because there is reasonable cause for the failure and other applicable requirements are met, we may be subject to an excise tax;

•

we will be subject to a tax of 100% on net income from any “prohibited transaction”;

•

we will be subject to tax, at the highest corporate rate, on net income from (1) the sale or other disposition of “foreclosure property” (generally, property acquired by us through foreclosure or after a default on a loan secured by the property or a lease of the property and for which an election is in effect) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business or (2) other non-qualifying income from foreclosure property;

•

if we fail to distribute during each calendar year at least the sum of (1) 85% of our REIT ordinary income for the year, (2) 95% of our REIT capital gain income for the year and (3) any undistributed taxable income from prior years, we will be subject to a 4% excise tax on the excess of the Required Distribution over the sum of (a) the amounts actually distributed plus (b) the amounts with respect to which certain taxes are imposed on us;

•

if we acquire any asset from a “C corporation” (that is, a corporation generally subject to the full corporate level tax) in a transaction in which the basis of the asset in our hands is determined by reference to the basis of the asset in the hands of the C corporation, and we recognize gain on the disposition of the asset during a five-year period beginning on the date that we acquired the asset, then the asset’s “built-in” gain generally will be subject to tax at the highest regular corporate rate;

•

if we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT because we failed to distribute by the end of the relevant year any earnings and profits we inherited from a taxable C corporation during the year (e.g., by tax-free merger or tax-free liquidation), and the failure is not due to fraud with intent to evade tax, we generally may retain our REIT status by paying a special distribution, but we will be required to pay an interest charge on 50% of the amount of undistributed non-REIT earnings and profits;

•

a 100% tax may be imposed on certain transactions between us and our taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRSs”) that do not reflect arm’s length terms;

•

we may be required to pay monetary penalties to the IRS in certain circumstances, including if we fail to satisfy the record keeping requirements intended to monitor our compliance with rules relating to the ownership of our common stock;

•

certain of our subsidiaries, if any, may be C corporations, the earnings of which could be subject to federal corporate income tax; and

•

we and our subsidiaries, if any, may be subject to a variety of taxes, including state and local income taxes, property taxes and other taxes on our assets and operations and could also be subject to tax in situations and on transactions not presently contemplated.

We will use the calendar year both for U.S. federal income tax purposes and for financial reporting purposes.

Requirements for Qualification. To qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must elect to be treated as a REIT and must meet various (a) organizational requirements, (b) gross income tests, (c) asset tests and (d) annual distribution requirements.

Organizational Requirements. A REIT must be organized as a corporation, trust or association:

(1)

that is managed by one or more trustees or directors;

(2)

the beneficial ownership of which is evidenced by transferable shares, or by transferable certificates of beneficial interest;

(3)

that would be taxable as a domestic corporation, but for Sections 856 through 860 of the Code;

(4)

that is neither a financial institution nor an insurance company subject to specified provisions of the Code;

(5)

the beneficial ownership of which is held by 100 or more persons;

(6)

at all times during the last half of each taxable year, after the first taxable year, not more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, or by application of certain constructive ownership rules, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include some entities that would not ordinarily be considered “individuals”); and

(7)

that meets other tests, described below, regarding the nature of its income and assets.

The Code provides that conditions (1) through (4) must be met during our entire taxable year, and that condition (5) must be met during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months, or during a proportionate part of a taxable year of less than 12 months. The Charter provides for restrictions regarding transfer of our capital stock, in order to assist us in continuing to satisfy the share ownership requirements described in (5) and (6) above.

We will be treated as having satisfied condition (6) above if we comply with the regulatory requirements to request information from our stockholders regarding their actual ownership of our common stock, and we do not know, or in exercising reasonable diligence would not have known, that we failed to satisfy this condition. If we fail to comply with these regulatory requirements for any taxable year we will be subject to a penalty of $25,000, or $50,000 if such failure was intentional. However, if our failure to comply was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, no penalties will be imposed.

Gross Income Tests. We must satisfy the following two separate gross income tests each year:

•

75% Gross Income Test. At least 75% of our gross income (excluding gross income from prohibited transactions, income from certain hedging transactions and certain foreign currency gains) must consist of income derived directly or indirectly from investments relating to real property or mortgages on real property (generally including rents from real property, dividends from other REITs, and interest on obligations secured by mortgages on real property or on interests in real property), or some types of temporary investment income.

•

95% Gross Income Test. At least 95% of our gross income (excluding gross income from prohibited transactions, income from certain hedging transactions and certain foreign currency gains) must consist of items that satisfy the 75% gross income test and certain other items, including dividends, interest and gain from the sale or disposition of stock or securities (or from any combination of these types of income).

Interest income that we receive will satisfy the 75% gross income test (as described above) to the extent that it is derived from a loan that is adequately secured by a mortgage on real property or on interests in real property (including, in the case of a loan secured by both real property and personal property, such personal property if it does not exceed 15% of the total fair market value of all of the property securing the loan). If a loan is secured by both real property and other property (and such other property is not treated as real property as described above), and the highest principal amount of the loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan, determined as of (a) the date we agreed to acquire or originate the loan or (b) in the event of a “significant modification,” the date we modified the loan, then a part of the interest income from such loan equal to the percentage amount by which the loan exceeds the value of the real property will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but may be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test.

From time to time, we may invest in mezzanine loans. The IRS has provided a safe harbor with respect to the treatment of a mezzanine loan as a loan and therefore as a qualifying asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, but not rules of substantive law. Pursuant to the safe harbor, if a mezzanine loan meets certain requirements, it will be treated by the IRS as a qualifying real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from the mezzanine loan will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% income test. However, structuring a mezzanine loan to meet the requirements of the safe harbor may not always be practical. To the extent that any of our mezzanine loans do not meet all of the requirements for reliance on the safe harbor, such loans might not be properly treated as qualifying loans for REIT purposes.

If we receive contingent interest that is based on the cash proceeds realized upon the sale of the property securing the loan, then the income attributable to the participation feature will be treated as gain from the sale of the underlying real property and will satisfy both the 75% and 95% gross income tests provided that the property is not held by the borrower as inventory or dealer property. Interest income that we receive from a loan in which all or a portion of the interest income payable is contingent on the gross receipts or sales of the borrower will generally be qualifying income for purposes of both the 75% and 95% gross income tests.

We may receive fee income in a number of circumstances, including from loans that we originate. Fee income, including prepayment penalties, loan assumption fees and late payment charges that are not compensation for services, generally will be qualifying income for purposes of both the 75% and 95% gross income tests if it is received in consideration for us entering or having entered into an agreement to make a loan secured by real property or an interest in real property and the fees are not determined by income or profits of the borrower. Other fees generally are not qualifying income for purposes of either gross income test. Fees earned by any TRSs are not included in computing the 75% and 95% gross income tests, and thus neither assist nor hinder our compliance with these tests.

Prohibited Transactions. Net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. The term “prohibited transaction” generally includes a sale or other disposition of property (other than foreclosure property) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. Whether property is held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business” depends on the specific facts and circumstances. The Code provides a safe harbor pursuant to which sales of assets held for at least two years and meeting certain additional requirements will not be treated as prohibited transactions, but compliance with the safe harbor may not always be practical. We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that no asset that we own (or are treated as owning) will be treated as, or as having been, held as inventory or for sale to customers and that a sale of any such asset will not be treated as having been in the ordinary course of our business.

Effect of Subsidiary Entities. A TRS is a corporation in which we directly or indirectly own stock and that jointly with us elects to be treated as our TRS under Section 856(l) of the Code. A TRS is subject to U.S. federal income tax and state and local income tax, where applicable, as a regular C corporation. Generally, a TRS can engage in activities that, if conducted by us other than through a TRS, could result in the receipt of non-qualified income or the ownership of non-qualified assets. However, several provisions regarding the arrangements between a REIT and its TRSs ensure that a TRS will be subject to an appropriate level of U.S. federal income taxation. For example, we will be obligated to pay a 100% penalty tax on some payments that we receive or certain other amounts or on certain expenses deducted by the TRS if the economic arrangements among us, our borrowers and/or the TRS are not comparable to similar arrangements among unrelated parties.

We may own interests in one or more TRSs that may receive management fee income and/or hold assets or generate income that could cause us to fail the REIT income or asset tests or subject it to the 100% tax on prohibited transactions. Our TRSs may incur significant amounts of U.S. federal, state and local income taxes and, if doing business or owning property outside of the United States, significant non-U.S. taxes.

Relief Provisions for Failing the 75% or the 95% Gross Income Tests. If we fail to satisfy one or both of the 75% or 95% gross income tests for any taxable year, we may nevertheless qualify as a REIT for that year if we are entitled to relief under provisions of the Code. Relief provisions are generally available if:

•

following our identification of the failure to meet the 75% or 95% gross income tests for any taxable year, we file a schedule with the IRS setting forth each item of our gross income for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests for such taxable year; and

•

our failure to meet these tests was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

However, it is not possible to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to the benefit of these relief provisions. As discussed above, even if the relief provisions apply, a tax will be imposed with respect to some or all of our excess nonqualifying gross income, reduced by approximated expenses.

Asset Tests. We must satisfy the following tests relating to the nature of our assets at the close of each quarter of our taxable year:

•

at least 75% of the value of our total assets must be represented by real estate assets (including (1) our allocable share of real estate assets held by partnerships in which we own an interest, (2) stock or debt instruments held for not more than one year purchased with the proceeds of our stock offering or long-term (at least five years) debt offering, cash and government securities, (3) stock in other REITs and (4) certain mortgage-backed securities and loans);

•

not more than 25% of our total assets may be represented by securities other than those in the 75% asset class;

•

of the investments included in the 25% asset class, the value of any one issuer’s securities owned by us may not exceed 5% of the value of our total assets (unless the issuer is a TRS), and we may not own more than 10% of the vote or value of any one issuer’s outstanding securities (unless the issuer is a TRS or we can avail ourselves of the rules relating to certain securities and “straight debt” summarized below);

•

not more than 20% of the value of our total assets may be represented by securities of one or more TRS; and

•

not more than 25% of the value of our total assets may be represented by debt instruments of publicly offered REITs that are not secured by mortgages on real property or interests in real property.

The term “securities” generally includes debt securities issued by a partnership or another REIT. However, “straight debt” securities and certain other obligations, including loans to individuals or estates, certain specified loans to partnerships, certain specified rental agreements and securities issued by REITs are not treated as “securities” for purposes of the “10% value” asset test. “Straight debt” means a written unconditional promise to pay on demand or on a specified date a sum certain in cash if (i) the debt is not convertible, directly or indirectly, into stock, (ii) the interest rate and interest payment dates are not contingent on profits, the borrower’s discretion, or similar factors (subject to certain specified exceptions), and (iii) the issuer is either not a corporation or partnership, or the only securities of the issuer held by us, and certain of our TRSs, subject to a de minimis exception, are straight debt and other specified assets.

The above asset tests must be satisfied not only on the date that we acquire securities in the applicable issuer, but also at the close of each quarter in which we acquire any security or other property. After initially meeting the asset tests at the beginning of any quarter, we will not lose our REIT status if we fail to satisfy the asset tests at the end of a later quarter solely by reason of changes in the relative values of our assets. If the failure to satisfy the asset tests results from the acquisition of securities or other property during a quarter, the failure can be cured by a disposition of sufficient non-qualifying assets or acquisition of sufficient qualifying assets within 30 days after the close of that quarter. Although we plan to take steps to ensure that we satisfy such steps for any quarter with respect to which retesting is to occur, there can be no assurance that such steps will always be successful, or will not require a reduction in our overall interest in an issuer. If we fail to cure the noncompliance with the asset tests within this 30-day period, we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

In certain cases, we may avoid disqualification for any taxable year if we fail to satisfy the asset tests after the 30-day cure period. We will be deemed to have met certain of the REIT asset tests if the value of our non-qualifying assets for such tests (i) does not exceed the lesser of (a) 1% of the total value of our assets at the end of the applicable quarter or (b) $10,000,000, and (ii) we dispose of the non-qualifying assets within six months after the last day of the quarter in which the failure to satisfy the asset tests is discovered. For violations due to reasonable cause rather than willful neglect that are in excess of the de minimis exception described above, we may avoid disqualification as a REIT, after the 30-day cure period, by taking steps including (i) the disposition of sufficient assets to meet the asset test within six months after the last day of the quarter in which the failure to satisfy the asset tests is discovered, (ii) paying a tax equal to the greater of (a) $50,000 or (b) the highest corporate tax rate multiplied by the net income generated by the non-qualifying assets, and (iii) disclosing certain information to the IRS. If we fail the asset test and cannot avail ourselves of these relief provisions, we may fail to qualify as a REIT.

Annual Distribution Requirements. We are required to distribute dividends (other than capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to (i) the sum of (a) 90% of our REIT taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain) and (b) 90% of the net income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (ii) the sum of specified items of noncash income. Dividends must be paid in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely file our tax return for that year and if paid on or before the first regular dividend payment after the declaration. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain or distribute at least 90%, but less than 100%, of our REIT taxable income, as adjusted, we will be subject to tax on the undistributed amount at regular ordinary and capital gains corporate tax rates, as applicable. We may designate all or a portion of our undistributed net capital gains as being includable in the income of our stockholders as gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. If so, the stockholders receive an increase in the basis of their stock in the amount of the income recognized. Stockholders are also to be treated as having paid their proportionate share of the capital gains tax imposed on us on the undistributed amounts and receive a corresponding decrease in the basis of their stock. Furthermore, if we should fail to distribute during each calendar year at least the sum of (1) 85% of our REIT ordinary income for that year, (2) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for that year and (3) any undistributed taxable income from prior periods, we would be subject to a 4% excise tax on the excess of the Required Distribution over the sum of (a) the amounts actually distributed and (b) the undistributed amounts on which certain taxes are imposed on us. We intend to make timely distributions sufficient to satisfy all annual distribution requirements.

From time to time, we may experience timing differences between (1) the actual receipt of income and actual payment of deductible expenses and (2) the inclusion of that income and deduction of those expenses in arriving at our taxable income. Further, from time to time, we may be allocated a share of net capital gain attributable to the sale of depreciated property that exceeds our allocable share of cash attributable to that sale. Additionally, we may incur cash expenditures that are not currently deductible for tax purposes. As such, we may have less cash available for distribution than is necessary to meet our annual 90% distribution requirement or to avoid tax with respect to capital gain or the excise tax imposed on specified undistributed income. To meet the 90% distribution requirement necessary to qualify as a REIT or to avoid tax with respect to capital gain or the excise tax imposed on specified undistributed income, we may find it appropriate to arrange for short-term (or possibly long-term) borrowings or to pay distributions in the form of taxable stock dividends (discussed immediately below) or engage in other potentially adverse transactions.

Under some circumstances, we may be able to rectify a failure to meet the distribution requirement for a year by paying “deficiency dividends” to stockholders in a later year, which may be included in our deduction for dividends paid for the earlier year. Thus, we may be able to avoid being disqualified as a REIT or taxed on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends. However, we will be required to pay interest based upon the amount of any deduction taken for deficiency dividends.

Record Keeping Requirements. To elect taxation as a REIT under applicable Treasury regulations, we must maintain records and request information from our stockholders designed to disclose the actual ownership of our stock. We intend to comply with these requirements.

Affiliated REITs. If any REIT in which we acquire an interest fails to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year, that failure could, depending on the circumstances, adversely affect our ability to satisfy the various asset and income requirements applicable to REITs, including the requirement that REITs generally may not own, directly or indirectly, more than 10% of the securities of another corporation that is not a REIT or a TRS, as further described above.

Failure to Qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year and the relief provisions do not apply, we will be subject to tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. Distributions to stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify will not be deductible by us, nor will we be required to make those distributions. If we fail to so qualify and the relief provisions do not apply, to the extent of current and accumulated earnings and profits, all distributions to stockholders generally will be taxable at capital gain rates if certain minimum holding period requirements are met, and, subject to specified limitations of the Code, corporate distributees may be eligible for the dividends received deduction. Unless entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, we will also be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify as a REIT. It is not possible to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to statutory relief.

The Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act made significant structural reforms to the financial services industry. For example, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, various federal agencies have promulgated, or are in the process of promulgating, regulations with respect to various issues that may affect our Company. Certain regulations have already been adopted and others remain under consideration by various governmental agencies, in some cases past the deadlines set in the Dodd-Frank Act for adoption. It is possible that regulations that will be adopted in the future will apply to us or that existing regulations that are currently not applicable to us will begin to apply to us as our business evolves.

Investment Company Act

We have not been and are not currently required to be registered under the Investment Company Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act.

Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, which we refer to as the 40% test. Real estate mortgages are excluded from the term “investment securities.”

We rely on the exception set forth in Section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act, which excludes from the definition of investment company “[a]ny person who is not engaged in the business of issuing redeemable securities, face-amount certificates of the installment type or periodic payment plan certificates, and who is primarily engaged in one or more of the following business . . . (C) purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The SEC generally requires that, for the exception provided by Section 3(c)(5) to be available, at least 55% of an entity’s assets be comprised of mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate, also known as “qualifying interests,” and at least another 25% of the entity’s assets must be comprised of additional qualifying interests or real estate-type interests (with no more than 20% of the entity’s assets comprised of miscellaneous assets). We believe we qualify for the exemption under this section and our current intention is to continue to focus on originating and investing in loans collateralized by real estate so that at least 55% of our assets are “qualifying interests” and no more than 20% of our assets are miscellaneous assets. However, if, in the future, we do acquire assets that do not meet this test, we may qualify as an “investment company” and be required to register as such under the Investment Company Act, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

The Investment Company Act provides certain protections and imposes certain restrictions on registered investment companies, none of which are currently applicable to us. Our governing documents do not permit any transfer of shares of our common stock that would result in us becoming subject to regulation as an investment company. If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters.

Competition

We operate in a competitive market for the origination and acquisition of attractive lending opportunities. We compete with a variety of institutional investors, including other REITs, debt funds, specialty finance companies, savings and loan associations, banks, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, institutional investors, investment banking firms, financial institutions, private equity and hedge funds, and other entities. Some of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we do. Several of our competitors, including other REITs, have recently raised, or are expected to raise, significant amounts of capital and may have investment objectives that overlap with our investment objective, which may create additional competition for lending and other investment opportunities. Some of our competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that may not be available to us or are only available to us on substantially less attractive terms. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT tax compliance or maintenance of an exclusion or exemption from the Investment Company Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more lending relationships than we do. Competition may result in realizing fewer investments, higher prices, acceptance of greater risk, greater defaults, lower yields or a narrower spread of yields over our borrowing costs. In addition, competition for attractive investments could delay the investment of our capital.

In the face of this competition, we have access to our Manager’s professionals and their financing industry expertise, which may provide us with a competitive advantage in competing effectively for attractive investment opportunities and help us assess risks and determine appropriate pricing for certain potential investments. Although we believe our Manager’s expertise and our flexible funding structure provide us with valuable competitive advantages, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face. For additional information concerning these competitive risks, see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business and Growth Strategy.”

Human Capital

We are externally managed by our Manager pursuant to the Management Agreement between our Manager and us. Our officers also serve as officers or employees of our Manager and/or its affiliates. We do not have any employees.

Additional Information

We file with or submit to the SEC annual, quarterly, and current periodic reports, proxy statements and other information meeting the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). This information is available on our website atwww.refi.reit. The information on our website is not deemed incorporated by reference in this Annual Report. These documents also may be accessed through the SEC’s electronic data gathering, analysis and retrieval system via electronic means, including on the SEC’s homepage, which can be found atwww.sec.gov.