License agreements and sponsored research – The Company has entered into various license, sponsored research, collaboration, and other agreements (the “Agreements”) with various counter parties in connection with the Company’s plant biotechnology business relating to tobacco and hemp/cannabis. The schedule below summarizes the Company’s commitments, both financial and other, associated with each Agreement. Costs incurred under the Agreements are generally recorded as Research and development expenses on the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss.

Investment in Panacea - On December 3, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement to obtain a 15.8% ownership in Panacea. The Company paid Panacea $12,000 in cash and issued 1,297,017 shares of 22nd Century common stock with a fair value of $1,297. The agreement with Panacea also requires the Company to purchase 5,333,334 shares of puttable preferred stock at $1.875 when Panacea achieves a certain twelve-month sales target that is payable in $8,500 of cash and the remainder in common stock of the Company.

Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application (“MRTP Application”) – In connection with the Company’s MRTP Application for its Very Low Nicotine Content (“VLNC”) cigarettes with the FDA, the Company has entered in various contracts with third-party service providers to fulfill various requirements of the MRTP Application. Such contracts include services for clinical trials, perception studies, legal guidance, product testing, and consulting expertise. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2020, the Company incurred expenses relating to these contracts in the approximate amount of $4 and $154, respectively, and $313 and $1,524 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019, respectively. The Company will continue to incur consulting and legal expenses as the MRTP Application continues through the FDA review process. The Company cannot currently quantify the additional expenses that the Company will incur in the FDA review process because it will involve various factors that are within the discretion and control of the FDA.

Litigation - In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. When a loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency and record a corresponding amount of related expenses. The Company will then continue to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of any such accrued liability.

Class Action

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver, Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased shares of the Company’s common stock. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the Company’s common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553. The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased shares of the Company’s common stock. Mr. Fitch sues individually and seeks to bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the Company’s common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Fitch litigation filed a motion in both the Fitch and Bull actions: (1) proposing Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr. Fitch as purportedly representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to consolidate the Fitch litigation with the Bull litigation, and (3) seeking to be appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Bull litigation filed and then withdrew a comparable motion seeking to consolidate the cases and be appointed as lead counsel.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily dismissed that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull case issued an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties, the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal district court in the Western District of New York, where it remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285.

Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November 19, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs purchased shares of the Company's common stock and sues individually and to bring a class action for all persons or entities who acquired the Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and July 31, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges three counts: Count I sues the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the Company's quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other public statements and documents contained false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5(a) and (c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer for the allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 3, 2020, the Court reassigned the Bull case to Judge John L. Sinatra, also in the Western District of New York.

On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. We then filed our final reply brief on April 29, 2020. On July 31, 2020, the Court heard oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and we are awaiting their decision.

We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims.

Shareholder Derivative Cases

On February 6, 2019, Melvyn Klein, a resident of Nassau County New York, filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Melvyn Klein, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group v. Henry Sicignano, III, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, Nora B. Sullivan, James W. Cornell, John T. Brodfuehrer and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00748. Mr. Klein brings this action derivatively alleging that (i) the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties for allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements; (ii) the director defendants supposedly wasted corporate assets to defend this lawsuit and the other related lawsuits; (iii) the defendants allegedly violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly approving or allowing false statements regarding the Company to be made; and (iv) the director defendants allegedly violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder for allegedly approving or allowing false statements regarding the Company to be made in the Company’s proxy statement. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs. On April 11, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the Court ordered this litigation stayed and transferred the stayed action to the Western District of New York. On April 19, 2019, the case was opened in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Case No. 1-19-cv-0513. On August 15, 2019, the case was consolidated with the Mathew case identified below and stayed. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims.

On February 11, 2019, Stephen Mathew filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, entitled: Stephen Mathew, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. Henry Sicignano, III, John T. Brodfuehrer, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, James W. Cornell, Nora B. Sullivan and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Index No. 801786/2019. Mr. Mathew brings this action derivatively alleging that (i) the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements; (ii) the director defendants were allegedly unjustly enriched by allegedly benefitting from allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements; (iii) the defendants supposedly wasted corporate assets to defend this lawsuit and the other related lawsuits; (iv) the individual defendants allegedly abused their ability to control and influence the

Company; and (v) the individual defendants allegedly engaged in gross mismanagement. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs. On April 12, 2019, the parties jointly filed a Stipulated Notice of Removal in United States District Court for the Western District of New York. On April 23, 2019, the parties jointly filed an Amended Stipulated Notice of Removal in the Western District of New York. On May 3, 2019, pursuant to a stipulation from the parties, the Court ordered this litigation stayed. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims. On August 15, 2019, the Court consolidated the Mathew and Klein actions pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

On June 10, 2019, Judy Rowley filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company’s then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and each member of the Company’s Board of Directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, entitled: Judy Rowley, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. Henry Sicignano, III, Richard M. Sanders, Joseph Alexander Dunn, Nora B. Sullivan, James W. Cornell, John T. Brodfuehrer, and 22nd Century Group, Inc., Index No. 807214/2019. Ms. Rowley brings this action derivatively alleging that the director defendants supposedly breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, and attorney’s fees and costs. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims. On September 13, 2019, the Court ordered the litigation stayed pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties.

On January 15, 2020, Kevin Broccuto filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and certain members of the Company's prior Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Clark, entitled: Kevin Broccuto, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. James W. Cornell, Richard M. Sanders, Nora B. Sullivan, Henry Sicignano, III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. A-20-808599. Mr. Broccuto brings this action derivatively alleging three counts: Count I alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties; Count II alleges they committed corporate waste; and Count III that they were unjustly enriched, by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, disgorgement of alleged profits and imposition of constructive trusts, and attorney's fees and costs. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims.

On February 11, 2020, Jerry Wayne filed a shareholder derivative claim against the Company, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, and certain members of the Company's prior Board of Directors in the District Court of the State of Nevada, County of Clark, entitled: Jerry Wayne, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century Group, Inc. v. James W. Cornell, Richard M. Sanders, Nora B. Sullivan, Henry Sicignano, III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. A-20-808599. Mr. Wayne brings this action derivatively alleging three counts: Count I alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties; Count II alleges they committed corporate waste; and Count III that they were unjustly enriched, by allegedly allowing the Company to make false statements. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, corrective corporate governance actions, disgorgement of alleged profits and imposition of constructive trusts, and attorney's fees and costs. The Complaint also seeks to declare as unenforceable the Company's Bylaw requiring derivative lawsuits to be filed in Erie County, New York, where the Company is headquartered. We believe that the claims are frivolous, meritless and that the Company and the individual defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and the individual defendants against such claims.

On March 25, 2020, the Court ordered the Brocutto and Wayne cases consolidated and stayed pursuant to a joint stipulation from the parties.

Shareholder Derivative Demand

On February 19, 2019, the Company received a demand letter from attorneys representing Van McClendon, a shareholder of the Company, in which Mr. McClendon demanded that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to pursue certain purported causes of action on behalf of the Company to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by each of the members of the Company’s Board of Directors, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer. On February 28, 2019, the Board appointed a Special Committee of independent directors and instructed the Committee

to assess whether pursuing the claims detailed in the demand letter would be in the best interests of the Company. Subsequently, Mr. McClendon sold his shares and withdrew his demand. On May 7, 2019, after Mr. McClendon sold his shares, the Company received a similar demand letter from attorneys representing Jeremy Houck, a shareholder of the Company. Pursuant to the Board’s instruction, the Special Committee completed an investigation of the claims detailed in Mr. Houck’s demand letter. The Special Committee determined that pursuing such claims would not be in the best interest of the Company. On February 27, 2020, the Board of Directors adopted and approved the Special Committee’s determination.