INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES INC

Previous wording

Single tenants currently occupy our properties generally, and we expect that single tenants will occupy our properties that we acquire in the future. Therefore, the success of our investments will be materially dependent on the financial stability of these tenants. We rely on our management team to perform due diligence investigations of our potential tenants, related guarantors and their properties, operations and prospects, of which there is generally little or no publicly available operating and financial information. We may not learn all of the material information we need to know regarding these businesses through our investigations, and these businesses are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to regulatory risks and the rapidly evolving market dynamics of each state’s regulated cannabis program. As a result, it is possible that we could enter into a sale-leaseback arrangement with tenants or otherwise lease properties to tenants that ultimately are unable to pay rent to us, which could adversely impact our cash available for distributions.

Current wording

potential tenants, related guarantors and their properties, operations and prospects, of which there is generally little or no publicly available operating and financial information. We may not learn all of the material information we need to know regarding these businesses through our investigations, and these businesses are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to regulatory risks and the rapidly evolving market dynamics of each state’s regulated cannabis program. As a result, it is possible that we could enter into a sale-leaseback arrangement with tenants or otherwise lease properties to tenants that ultimately are unable to pay rent to us, which could adversely impact our cash available for distributions.

Previous wording

In November 2022, Green Peak defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Michigan. In March 2023, a receiver was appointed over substantially all of Green Peak’s assets, and we subsequently regained possession of one property that was under redevelopment as a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility and three retail properties in Michigan. We also expect to regain possession of the remaining regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility still occupied by the receiver on March 1, 2024.

Current wording

In November 2022, Green Peak Industries, Inc. (“Green Peak”) defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Michigan. During 2023, a receiver was appointed over substantially all of Green Peak’s assets and we regained possession of one property that was under redevelopment as a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility and three retail properties in Michigan. In February 2024, we regained possession of the remaining regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility that was leased to Green Peak.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2023, we owned 108 properties. Five of our tenants, PharmaCann (at eleven of our properties), Ascend (at four of our properties), Green Thumb (at three of our properties), Parallel (at four of our properties, two of which we regained possession in 2023 as a result of Parallel’s defaults under those leases) and Curaleaf (at eight of our properties), represented approximately 15%, 10%, 8%, 7% and 7%, respectively, of our rental revenues (including tenant reimbursements) for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. Lease payment defaults by any of our tenants or a significant decline in the value of any single property would materially adversely affect our business, financial position and results of operations, including our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Our lack of diversification also increases the potential that a single underperforming investment or tenant could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and the price we could realize from the sale of our properties. Any adverse change in the financial condition of any of our tenants, including but not limited to the state cannabis markets not developing and growing in ways that we or our tenants projected, or any adverse change in the political climate regarding cannabis where our properties are located, would subject us to a significant risk of loss.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2024, we owned 109 properties. As of such date, five of our tenants, PharmaCann (at eleven of our properties), Ascend (at four of our properties), Green Thumb (at three of our properties), Holistic (at five of our properties) and Curaleaf (at eight of our properties), represented 17%, 11%, 8%, 7% and 7%, respectively, of our rental revenues (including tenant reimbursements) for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024. Lease payment defaults by any of our tenants or a significant decline in the value of any single property would materially adversely affect our business, financial position and results of operations, including our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Our lack of diversification also increases the potential that a single underperforming investment or tenant could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and the price we could realize from the sale of our properties. Any adverse change in the financial condition of any of our tenants, including but not limited to the state cannabis markets not developing and growing in ways that we or our tenants projected, or any adverse change in the political climate regarding cannabis where our properties are located, would subject us to a significant risk of loss.

Previous wording

we will be able to re-lease that property for the rent we currently receive, or at all, or that a lease termination would not result in our having to sell the property at a loss. The result of any of the foregoing risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Current wording

In addition, failure by any of our tenants to comply with the terms of its lease agreement with us could require us to find another lessee for the applicable property. We may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing that property. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that we will be able to re-lease that property for the rent we currently receive, or at all, or that a lease termination would not result in our having to sell the property at a loss. The result of any of the foregoing risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Previous wording

Because our portfolio of properties primarily consists of industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated cannabis industry, we are subject to risks inherent in investments in a single industry. A decrease in the demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities would have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio. Demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities has been and could be adversely affected by changes in current favorable state or local laws relating to cultivation and production of cannabis or any change in the federal government’s current enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, among others, including but not limited to changes to local zoning and other laws that no longer allow a facility to be utilized for regulated cannabis activities. To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to affect demand and market rents for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities, which could cause a decrease in our rental revenue. Any such decrease could impair our ability to make distributions to you. Other than with respect to three properties (one located in San Bernardino, California and two located in Palm Springs, California) where we are evaluating alternative non-cannabis uses as of December 31, 2023, we do not currently and do not expect in the future to invest in other real estate or businesses to hedge against the risk that industry trends might decrease the profitability of our facilities leased for cannabis operations.

Current wording

Because our portfolio of properties primarily consists of industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated cannabis industry, we are subject to risks inherent in investments in a single industry. A decrease in the demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities would have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio. Demand for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities has been and could be adversely affected by changes in current favorable state or local laws relating to cultivation and production of cannabis or any change in the federal government’s current enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, among others, including but not limited to changes to local zoning and other laws that no longer allow a facility to be utilized for regulated cannabis activities. To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to affect demand and market rents for cannabis cultivation and processing facilities, which could cause a decrease in our rental revenue. Any such decrease could impair our ability to make distributions to investors. Other than with respect to one property located in San Bernardino, California and one property located in Palm Springs, California, where we are evaluating alternative non-cannabis uses as of December 31, 2024, we do not currently have any material investments in other real estate or businesses to hedge against the risk that industry trends might decrease the profitability of our facilities leased for cannabis operations.

Previous wording

or at all. As our properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, a shift in property preferences by regulated cannabis operators, including but not limited to changing preferences regarding location and types of improvements, could have a significant negative impact on the desirability of our properties to prospective tenants when we need to re-lease them, in addition to other challenges, such as obtaining the necessary state and local authorizations for a new tenant to commence operations at the property. These and other limitations may affect our ability to sell or re-lease properties, which may adversely affect returns to our stockholders. Certain regulated cannabis operators have recently announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

Current wording

In addition, in the event we are forced to sell or re-lease the property, we may have difficulty finding qualified purchasers who are willing to buy the property or tenants who are willing to lease the property at our current rental rates, or at all. As our properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, a shift in property preferences by regulated cannabis operators, including but not limited to changing preferences regarding location and types of improvements, could have a significant negative impact on the desirability of our properties to prospective tenants when we need to re-lease them, in addition to other challenges, such as obtaining the necessary state and local authorizations for a new tenant to commence operations at the property. These and other limitations may affect our ability to sell or re-lease properties, which may adversely affect returns to our stockholders. Certain regulated cannabis operators have consolidated operations or shuttered certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

Previous wording

The realization of any of the risks above or other delays in development and redevelopment activities at a property may also materially adversely impact our tenant’s ability to commence, continue or expand its operations, which may result in that tenant defaulting on its rent obligations to us. As of December 31, 2023, we had properties consisting of an aggregate of approximately 1.4 million rentable square feet under development or redevelopment, and we had committed to fund improvements at our properties in the future totaling up to approximately $40.1 million.

Current wording

result in that tenant defaulting on its rent obligations to us. As of December 31, 2024, we had properties consisting of an aggregate of 666,000 rentable square feet under development or redevelopment, and we had committed to fund improvements at our properties in the future totaling up to $38.3 million.

Previous wording

A purported securities class action lawsuit has been filed against us and certain of our executive officers alleging that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding its business. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. Derivative lawsuits also have been filed against us and certain of our officers and directors asserting putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against our directors and certain of our officers. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief, direction to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. See Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies” for a full description of these actions.

Current wording

Purported securities class action lawsuits have been filed against us and certain of our executive officers alleging that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding its business. Derivative lawsuits also have been filed against us and certain of our officers and directors asserting putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against our directors and certain of our officers. See Note 11 “Commitments and Contingencies” for a full description of these actions.

Previous wording

substantial inflationary pressures and increased costs may have an adverse impact on our tenants if increases in their operating expenses exceed increases in their revenues, which may adversely affect our tenants’ ability to pay rent. Substantial inflation in the cost of construction materials and labor may also adversely impact our and our tenants’ ability to complete building projects on budget and on time, which may also materially adversely impact our tenants’ ability to commence operations of facilities and consequently our tenants’ ability to pay rent.

Current wording

Increased inflation could have a more pronounced negative impact on any variable rate debt we incur in the future and on our results of operations. We also enter into leases that generally provide for fixed increases in rent. During times when inflation is greater than increases in rent as provided for in our leases, rent increases may not keep up with the rate of inflation. Likewise, even though net leases reduce our exposure to rising property expenses due to inflation, substantial inflationary pressures and increased costs may have an adverse impact on our tenants if increases in their operating expenses exceed increases in their revenues, which may adversely affect our tenants’ ability to pay rent. Substantial inflation in the cost of construction materials and labor may also adversely impact our and our tenants’ ability to complete building projects on budget and on time, which may also materially adversely impact our tenants’ ability to commence operations of facilities and consequently our tenants’ ability to pay rent.

Previous wording

Our growth strategy is focused on the acquisition of specialized industrial real estate assets on favorable terms as opportunities arise. Our ability to acquire these real estate assets on favorable terms is subject to the following risks:

Current wording

Our growth strategy is focused on primarily the acquisition of specialized industrial real estate assets on favorable terms as opportunities arise. Our ability to acquire these real estate assets on favorable terms is subject to the following risks:

Previous wording

Most states where we own properties issue licenses for cannabis operations for a limited period. We rely on our tenants to renew or otherwise maintain the requisite state and local cannabis licenses and other authorizations on a continuous basis. If one or more of our tenants are unable to renew or otherwise maintain its licenses or other state and local authorizations necessary to continue its cannabis operations, such tenants may default on their lease payments to us.

Current wording

Most states where we own properties issue licenses for cannabis operations for a limited period. We rely on our tenants to renew or otherwise maintain the requisite state and local cannabis licenses and other authorizations on a continuous basis. If one or more of our tenants are unable to renew or otherwise maintain its licenses or other state and

Previous wording

its obligations to pay rent. As previously disclosed, for one property in San Bernardino, California, we are evaluating alternative non-cannabis uses for the property, due in part to changes in the zoning of the property that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing. In September 2023, we regained possession of the remaining four properties that Kings Garden previously occupied. Of those four properties, we are evaluating non-cannabis uses for two properties representing less than 1% of our invested capital at December 31, 2023, also due in part to changes in the zoning of the property that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing.

Current wording

In July 2022, Kings Garden, a prior tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent. As previously disclosed, for two of our properties (one located in San Bernardino, California and one located in Palm Springs, California), we continue to evaluate alternative non-cannabis uses for the properties, due in part to changes in the zoning of the properties that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing. In September 2023, we regained possession of the remaining four properties that Kings Garden previously occupied.

Previous wording

As of February 27, 2024, we owned properties in 19 states, and we expect that the properties that we acquire will be geographically concentrated in these states and other states that have established cannabis programs. See “Geographic Concentration” under Item 1, “Business” for a table of properties owned by us and organized by state as of December 31, 2023. Circumstances and developments related to operations in these markets that could negatively affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations include, but are not limited to, the following factors:

Current wording

As of February 21, 2025, we owned properties in 19 states, and we expect that the properties that we acquire will be geographically concentrated in these states and other states that have established cannabis programs. See “Geographic Concentration” under Item 1, “Business” for a table of properties owned by us and organized by state as of

Previous wording

In addition to the risk of tenants being unable to make regular rent payments, certain of our tenants may depend on debt, which could make them especially susceptible to bankruptcy in the event that their cash flows are insufficient to satisfy their debt. Because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, there is no assurance that federal bankruptcy courts will provide relief for parties who engage in cannabis-related businesses. Recent bankruptcy court rulings have denied bankruptcy relief for certain cannabis businesses on the basis that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for such activity and on the basis that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of, and distribute cannabis assets, as such action would violate the CSA. Any inability of our tenants to seek bankruptcy protection may impact their ability to secure financing for their operations and prevent our tenants from utilizing the benefits of reorganization of their businesses under bankruptcy protection to operate in a financially sustainable way, thereby reducing the probability that such a tenant would be able to honor its lease obligations with us.

Current wording

In addition to the risk of tenants being unable to make regular rent payments, certain of our tenants may depend on debt, which could make them especially susceptible to bankruptcy in the event that their cash flows are insufficient to satisfy their debt. Because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, there is no assurance that federal bankruptcy courts will provide relief for parties who engage in cannabis-related businesses. A number of recent bankruptcy court rulings have denied bankruptcy relief for certain cannabis businesses on the basis that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for such activity and on the basis that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of, and distribute cannabis assets, as such action would violate the CSA. Any inability of our tenants to seek bankruptcy protection may impact their ability to secure financing for their operations and prevent our tenants from utilizing the benefits of reorganization of their businesses under bankruptcy protection to operate in a financially sustainable way, thereby reducing the probability that such a tenant would be able to honor its lease obligations with us.

Previous wording

We are exposed to potential physical risks from possible future changes in climate. Our properties may be exposed to catastrophic weather events, such as severe storms, hurricanes, fires, floods or droughts, in addition to changes in temperature and air quality. If the frequency of extreme weather events increases, our exposure to these events could increase. We may also be exposed to regulatory risks related to climate change, including regulations seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce water usage. We may also be adversely impacted by potential impacts to the supply chain or stricter energy efficiency standards or greenhouse gas regulations for commercial real estate. We cannot give any assurance that other such conditions do not exist or may not arise in the future. The potential impacts of future climate change on our properties could adversely affect our ability to lease or sell such properties or to borrow using such properties as collateral.

Current wording

We are exposed to potential physical risks from possible future changes in climate. Our properties may be exposed to catastrophic weather events, such as severe storms, hurricanes, fires, floods or droughts, in addition to changes in temperature and air quality. If the frequency of extreme weather events increases, our exposure to these events could increase. We may also be exposed to regulatory risks related to climate change, including regulations seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce water usage. We may also be adversely impacted by potential impacts to the supply chain or stricter energy efficiency standards or greenhouse gas regulations for commercial real estate. We cannot give any assurance that other such conditions do not exist or may not arise in the future. The potential impacts of future

Previous wording

In June 2021, we executed a construction loan agreement with a developer, pursuant to which we agreed to make available up to $18.5 million for the development of a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility in California. In January 2023, we amended our construction loan agreement to provide up to an additional $4.5 million for the development as a result of costs incurred by the developer that were in excess of the original budget, making our total potential investment in the project $23.0 million. We may invest in other such loans in the future. Construction loans involve an increased risk of loss and other risks that are different from owning and leasing properties, including the following risks:

Current wording

In June 2021, we executed a construction loan agreement with a developer, pursuant to which we agreed to make available up to $18.5 million for the development of a regulated cannabis cultivation and processing facility in California. In February 2023, we amended our construction loan agreement to provide up to an additional $4.5 million for the development as a result of costs incurred by the developer that were in excess of the original budget, making our

Previous wording

In January 2018, the DOJ rescinded certain memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” issued on August 29, 2013 under the Obama Administration, which had characterized enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA to prosecute those complying with state regulatory systems allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of medical cannabis as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources when state regulatory and enforcement efforts are effective with respect to enumerated federal enforcement priorities under the CSA. In rescinding the Cole Memo, DOJ instructed its prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions 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. Although there have not been any identified prosecutions of state law compliant

Current wording

In January 2018, the DOJ rescinded certain memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” issued on August 29, 2013 under the Obama Administration, which had characterized enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA to prosecute those complying with state regulatory systems allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of medical cannabis as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources when state regulatory and enforcement efforts are effective with respect to enumerated federal enforcement priorities under the CSA. In rescinding the Cole Memo, DOJ instructed its prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions 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. 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 against the regulated cannabis industry generally, including our tenants and us.

Previous wording

Current Attorney General Merrick Garland has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-legal cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurance that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce existing laws.

Current wording

Pamela Bondi was confirmed by the United States Senate as Attorney General of the United States on February 4, 2025. During her tenure as Attorney General in the State of Florida, Bondi routinely opposed the softening of anti-cannabis laws, including opposition to ballot initiatives to broaden access to medical cannabis, but she also generally faithfully enforced state cannabis laws to maintain a well-regulated medical cannabis market. Bondi has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-level cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurances that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce current U.S. federal laws. It is generally expected that Bondi will closely follow the Trump Administration’s enforcement priorities.

Previous wording

Congress previously enacted an omnibus spending bill that includes the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment prohibiting the DOJ (which includes the DEA) from using funds appropriated by that bill to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. This provision will expire on March 8, 2024. There can be no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition in future appropriations bills to prevent DOJ from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. InUSA vs. McIntosh, the U.S. 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 to 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. Furthermore, while we target the acquisition of medical-use cannabis facilities, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located. Consequently, certain of our tenants currently (and additional tenants may in the future) cultivate adult-use cannabis in our medical-use cannabis facilities, as permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to facilities where cannabis is cultivated exclusively for medical use, including not providing protection under the Congressional spending bill provision described above.

Current wording

Congress previously enacted an omnibus spending bill that includes the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment prohibiting the DOJ (which includes the DEA) from using funds appropriated by that bill to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. This provision will expire on March 8, 2024. On December 20, 2024, Congress passed a continuing resolution to extend government funding, extending the application of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment until March 14, 2025. There can be no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition in future appropriations bills to prevent DOJ from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. InUSA vs. McIntosh, the U.S. 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 to 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. Furthermore, while we target the acquisition of medical-use cannabis facilities, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located. Consequently, certain of our tenants currently (and additional tenants may in the future) cultivate adult-use cannabis in our medical-use cannabis facilities, as permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to facilities where cannabis is cultivated exclusively for medical use, including not providing protection under the Congressional spending bill provision described above.

Previous wording

Additionally, 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. The penalties for violation of these laws include imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Prior to the DOJ’s rescission of the Cole Memo, supplemental guidance from the DOJ issued under the Obama administration directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. This supplemental guidance was followed by the February 14, 2014 FinCEN Memorandum outlining the pathways for financial institutions to bank state-sanctioned cannabis businesses in compliance with federal enforcement priorities. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a 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. The FinCEN Memorandum states that in some circumstances, it is permissible for banks to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking prosecution for violation of federal money laundering laws. Although the Cole Memo has been rescinded, the FinCEN Memorandum technically remains intact; however, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow 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.

Current wording

Additionally, 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. The penalties for violation of these laws include imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Prior to the DOJ’s rescission of the Cole Memo, supplemental guidance from the DOJ issued in the 2014 Cole Memorandum directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. This supplemental guidance was followed by the February 14, 2014 FinCEN Memorandum outlining the pathways for financial institutions to provide services to state-sanctioned cannabis businesses consistent with Bank Secrecy Act obligations and in alignment with federal enforcement priorities. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a 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

Previous wording

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis operations. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investment in cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our

Current wording

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis operations. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investment in cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities. Furthermore, following any such change in the federal government’s enforcement position, we could be subject to criminal prosecution, which could lead to imprisonment and/or the imposition of penalties, fines, or forfeiture.

Previous wording

For example, we believe that California’s taxation of regulated cannabis at local and state governmental levels and ineffective enforcement policy with respect to illicit cannabis sales have significantly limited the growth and profitability of operators in that state. According to Global Go Analytics, the illicit market for cannabis remains a much larger portion of overall sales in the state, and state and local authorities have assessed significant taxes on regulated cannabis products, both of which have had the impact of significantly limiting the growth and profitability for operators in the state’s regulated cannabis market.

Current wording

of operators in that state. According to Global Go Analytics, the illicit market for cannabis remains a much larger portion of overall sales in the state, and state and local authorities have assessed significant taxes on regulated cannabis products, both of which have had the impact of significantly limiting the growth and profitability for operators in the state’s regulated cannabis market. This also extends beyond California, with reports coming from states like Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York that buyers are turning to the illicit cannabis market to avoid state sales taxes. These states report difficulties in enforcement as well, allowing the illicit market to thrive, and limiting the growth and profitability for operators in the regulated markets of those states.

Previous wording

Recently, many states have also experienced significant declines in unit pricing for regulated cannabis products, with that decline more pronounced in certain states than in others. As a result, certain regulated cannabis operators have announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

Current wording

Recently, many states have also experienced significant declines in unit pricing for regulated cannabis products, with that decline more pronounced in certain states than in others. As a result, certain regulated cannabis operators have consolidated operations or shuttered certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators’ demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

Previous wording

laws permitting cannabis operations. If our tenants were forced to close their operations, we would need to replace those tenants with tenants who are not engaged in the cannabis industry, who most likely pay significantly lower rents. Moreover, any changes in state or local laws that reduce or eliminate the ability to conduct cannabis operations would likely result in a high vacancy rate for the kinds of properties that we seek to acquire, which would depress our lease rates and property values. In addition, we would realize an economic loss on any and all improvements made to properties that were specific to the cannabis industry.

Current wording

We have acquired and are targeting for acquisition properties that are owned by state-licensed cannabis operators. Relevant state or local laws may be amended or repealed, or new laws may be enacted in the future to eliminate existing laws permitting cannabis operations. If our tenants were forced to close their operations, we would need to replace those tenants with tenants who are not engaged in the cannabis industry, who most likely pay significantly lower rents. Moreover, any changes in state or local laws that reduce or eliminate the ability to conduct cannabis operations would likely result in a high vacancy rate for the kinds of properties that we seek to acquire, which would depress our lease rates and property values. In addition, we would realize an economic loss on any and all improvements made to properties that were specific to the cannabis industry.

Previous wording

Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statute and the Bank Secrecy Act. Previous guidance issued by FinCEN clarified how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis-related businesses consistent with their obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. However, this guidance does not provide any safe harbors or legal defenses from examination or regulatory or criminal enforcement actions by the DOJ, FinCEN or other federal regulators. Thus, most banks and other financial institutions in the United States do not appear to be comfortable providing banking services to cannabis-related businesses, or relying on this guidance, which can be amended or revoked at any time by the executive branch. In addition to the foregoing, banks may refuse to process debit card payments and credit card companies generally refuse to process credit card payments for cannabis-related businesses. Prior to the DOJ’s announcement in January 2018 of the rescission of the Cole Memo and related memoranda, supplemental guidance from the DOJ directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. It remains unclear what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo will have, but federal prosecutors may increase enforcement activities against institutions or individuals that are conducting financial transactions related to cannabis activities. The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry.

Current wording

involving cannabis proceeds does not require an underlying cannabis-related conviction under federal or state law. Thus, most banks and other financial institutions in the United States do not appear to be comfortable providing banking services to cannabis-related businesses, or relying on this guidance, which can be amended or revoked at any time by the executive branch. In addition to the foregoing, banks may refuse to process debit card payments and credit card companies generally refuse to process credit card payments for cannabis-related businesses. Prior to the DOJ’s announcement in January 2018 of the rescission of the Cole Memo and related memoranda, supplemental guidance from the DOJ directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. It remains unclear what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo will have, but federal prosecutors may increase enforcement activities against institutions or individuals that are conducting financial transactions related to cannabis activities. The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry.

Previous wording

Owners of properties located in close proximity to our properties may assert claims against us regarding the use of our properties for regulated cannabis cultivation, processing or dispensing, including assertions that the use of the property constitutes a nuisance that diminishes the market value of such owner’s nearby property. Such property owners may also attempt to assert such a claim in federal court as a civil matter under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. If a property owner were to assert such a claim against us, we may be required to devote significant resources and costs to defending ourselves against such a claim, and if a property owner were to be successful on such a claim, our tenants may be unable to continue to operate their business in its current form at the property, which could materially adversely impact the tenant’s business and the value of our property, our business and financial results and the trading price of our securities.

Current wording

Owners of properties located in close proximity to our properties may assert claims against us regarding the use of our properties for regulated cannabis cultivation, processing or dispensing, including assertions that the use of the property constitutes a nuisance that diminishes the market value of such owner’s nearby property. Such property owners may also attempt to assert such a claim in federal court as a civil matter under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. If a property owner were to assert such a claim against us, we may be required to devote significant

Previous wording

In August 2023, 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 an FDA review of cannabis’ classification pursuant to

Current wording

In August 2023, 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 an FDA review of cannabis’ classification pursuant to President Biden’s executive order in October 2022. On May 16, 2024, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which proposed to schedule cannabis as a Schedule III substance under the CSA. During the 60-day comment period that followed publication of the notice in the Federal Register, the majority of commenters favored either the proposed rescheduling or the complete removal of cannabis as a scheduled substance under the CSA.

Previous wording

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. Further, the impact of such decisions or rules, if any are promulgated, on existing state-regulated cannabis programs remains unclear, including but not limited to FDA and other federal regulatory agency involvement, the impact of such a decision on potential federal legislative reform such as proposals to de-schedule cannabis and provide greater access to capital markets for state-regulated cannabis operators, and the potential entry into the cannabis markets of large, well-capitalized companies as a result of any re-scheduling.

Current wording

The impact of such decisions or rules, if any are promulgated, on existing state-regulated cannabis programs remains unclear, including but not limited to FDA and other federal regulatory agency involvement, the impact of such a decision on potential federal legislative reform such as proposals to de-schedule cannabis and provide greater access to capital markets for state-regulated cannabis operators, and the potential entry into the cannabis markets of large, well-capitalized companies as a result of any re-scheduling.

Previous wording

As discussed above, cannabis is illegal under federal law. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that the federal bankruptcy courts cannot provide relief for parties who engage in the cannabis or cannabis related businesses. Recent bankruptcy rulings have denied bankruptcies for dispensaries upon the justification that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for the same activity and upon the justification that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of, and distribute cannabis assets as such action would violate the CSA. Therefore, we may not be able to seek the protection of the bankruptcy courts and this could materially affect our business or our ability to obtain credit.

Current wording

As discussed above, cannabis is illegal under federal law. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that the federal bankruptcy courts cannot provide relief for parties who engage in the cannabis or cannabis related businesses. Recent bankruptcy rulings have denied bankruptcies for dispensaries upon the justification that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for the same activity and upon the justification that courts cannot

Previous wording

There may be environmental conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware. If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. The presence of hazardous substances on a property may materially and adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs. In addition, although we may require in our leases that tenants operate in compliance with all applicable laws and indemnify us against any environmental liabilities arising from a tenant’s activities on the property, we could nonetheless be subject to liability by virtue of our ownership interest and we cannot

Current wording

There may be environmental conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware. If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. The presence of hazardous substances on a property may materially and adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs. In addition, although we may require in our leases that tenants operate in compliance with all applicable laws and indemnify us against any environmental liabilities arising from a tenant’s activities on the property, we could nonetheless be subject to liability by virtue of our ownership interest and we cannot be sure that our tenants would satisfy their indemnification obligations to us. Such environmental liability exposure associated with properties we acquire could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Previous wording

Our access to capital will depend upon a number of factors over which we have little or no control, including general market conditions, restrictions imposed on potential investors and other capital markets participants due to our tenants’ operations in the regulated cannabis industry, and the market’s perception of our current and potential future earnings. If general economic instability or downturn leads to an inability to borrow at attractive rates or at all, our ability to obtain capital to finance the purchase of real estate assets could be negatively impacted. In addition, banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us, particularly secured lending, because we intend to acquire properties used in the cultivation, production or dispensing of cannabis. If this source of funding is unavailable to us, our growth may be limited and our levered return on the properties we purchase may be lower.

Current wording

ability to obtain capital to finance the purchase of real estate assets could be negatively impacted. In addition, banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us, particularly secured lending, because we intend to acquire properties used in the cultivation, production or dispensing of cannabis. If this source of funding is unavailable to us, our growth may be limited and our levered return on the properties we purchase may be lower.

Previous wording

In recent months, general financial conditions have deteriorated significantly, which has also significantly reduced our access to capital. If sustained, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results ofoperations, including our ability to continue to make acquisitions of new properties and fund draws for future improvements at existing properties.

Current wording

In recent years, general financial conditions have deteriorated significantly, which has also significantly reduced our access to capital. If sustained, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results ofoperations, including our ability to continue to make acquisitions of new properties and fund draws for future improvements at existing properties.

Previous wording

As of February 27, 2024, we had outstanding $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of our Notes due 2026. Payments of principal and interest on our Notes due 2026 and borrowings that we may incur in the future, including pursuant to the Revolving Credit Facility, may leave us with insufficient cash resources to operate our properties or to

Current wording

As of December 31, 2024, we had outstanding $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of our Notes due 2026. Payments of principal and interest on our Notes due 2026 and borrowings that we may incur in the future, including pursuant to the Revolving Credit Facility, may leave us with insufficient cash resources to operate our properties or to pay the distributions currently contemplated or necessary to satisfy the requirements for REIT qualification. Our level of debt and the limitations imposed on us by these debt agreements could have significant material and adverse consequences, including the following:

Previous wording

Our senior management team has broad discretion over our investments, and our stockholders will have no opportunity to evaluate the terms of transactions or other economic or financial data concerning our investments that are not described in periodic filings with the SEC. We rely on the senior management team’s ability to execute acquisitions and dispositions of cannabis facilities, subject to the oversight and approval of our board of directors. Our senior management team is authorized to pursue acquisitions and dispositions of real estate investments in accordance with very broad investment guidelines, subject to approval of our board of directors.

Current wording

Our senior management team has broad discretion over our investments, and our stockholders will have no opportunity to evaluate the terms of transactions or other economic or financial data concerning our investments that are not described in periodic filings with the SEC. We rely on the senior management team’s ability to execute acquisitions and dispositions of properties, subject to the oversight and approval of our board of directors. Our senior management team is authorized to pursue acquisitions and dispositions of real estate investments in accordance with very broad investment guidelines, subject to approval of our board of directors.

Previous wording

The “control share” provisions of the MGCL provide that, subject to certain exceptions, a holder of “control shares” of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of issued and outstanding “control shares”) has no voting rights with respect to such shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, our officers and our personnel who are also our directors. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that such provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future by our board of directors.

Current wording

The “control share” provisions of the MGCL provide that, subject to certain exceptions, a holder of “control shares” of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the stockholder to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of ownership or control of issued and outstanding “control shares”) has no voting rights with respect to such shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding

Previous wording

increase the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have the authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a class or series of shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Current wording

Our charter permits our board of directors to authorize us to issue additional shares of our authorized but unissued common or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have the authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a class or series of shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Previous wording

We are a holding company with no business operations of our own. Our only significant asset is and will be the general and limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. We conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, all of our business operations through our Operating Partnership. Accordingly, our only source of cash to pay our obligations is distributions from our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries of their net earnings and cash flows. We cannot assure our stockholders that our Operating Partnership or its subsidiaries will be able to, or be permitted to, make distributions to us that will enable us to make distributions to our stockholders from cash flows from operations. Each of our Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries is or will be a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such entities. In addition, because we are a holding company, your claims as stockholders will be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, our assets and those of our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries will be able to satisfy your claims as stockholders only after all of our and our Operating Partnership’s and its subsidiaries’ liabilities and obligations have been paid in full. Furthermore, U.S. bankruptcy courts have generally refused to grant bankruptcy protections to cannabis businesses.

Current wording

We are a holding company with no business operations of our own. Our only significant asset is and will be the general and limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. We conduct, and intend to continue to conduct, all of our business operations through our Operating Partnership. Accordingly, our only source of cash to pay our obligations is distributions from our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries of their net earnings and cash flows. We cannot assure our stockholders that our Operating Partnership or its subsidiaries will be able to, or be permitted to, make distributions to us that will enable us to make distributions to our stockholders from cash flows from operations. Each of our Operating Partnership’s subsidiaries is or will be a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such entities. In addition, because we are a holding company, your claims as stockholders will be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and

Previous wording

If we issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership in exchange for property, the per unit value attributable to such interests will be determined based on negotiations with the property seller and, therefore, may not reflect the fair market value of such limited partnership interests if a public market for such limited partnership interests

Current wording

If we issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership in exchange for property, the per unit value attributable to such interests will be determined based on negotiations with the property seller and, therefore, may not reflect the fair market value of such limited partnership interests if a public market for such limited partnership interests existed. If the value of such limited partnership interests is greater than the value of the related property, your interest in us may be diluted.

Previous wording

In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, shares of our stock must be owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made) or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year. Also, not more than 50% of the value of the outstanding shares of our stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) during the last half of a taxable year (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made). In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, the relevant sections of our charter provide that, subject to certain exceptions, no person or entity may own, or be deemed to own, by virtue of the applicable constructive ownership provisions of the Code, more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of stock or more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of our outstanding common stock or any class or series of our outstanding preferred stock, including our 9.00% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). These ownership limits and other restrictions could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which

Current wording

In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, shares of our stock must be owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made) or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year. Also, not more than 50% of the value of the outstanding shares of our stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) during the last half of a taxable year (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made). In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, the relevant sections of our charter provide that, subject to certain exceptions, no person or entity may own, or be deemed to own, by virtue of the applicable constructive ownership provisions of the Code, more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of stock or more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of our outstanding common stock or any class or series of our outstanding preferred stock, including our 9.00% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). These ownership limits and other restrictions could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

Previous wording

Subject to applicable law, our board of directors, without stockholder approval, may authorize us to issue additional shares of our common stock or to raise capital through the issuance of preferred stock (including equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock), options, warrants and other rights, on terms and for consideration as our board of directors in its sole discretion may determine. Any such issuance could result in dilution of the equity of our stockholders. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Current wording

Subject to applicable law, our board of directors, without stockholder approval, may authorize us to issue additional shares of our common stock or to raise capital through the issuance of preferred stock (including equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock), options, warrants and other rights, on terms and for consideration as our board of directors in its sole discretion may determine. Any such issuance could result in dilution of the equity of our