Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is not currently subject to any known material contingencies arising from its business operations, nor to any material known or threatened litigation other than as discussed below.

In April 2015, the Company entered into a lease agreement for office space. The lease expires July 31, 2020. The lease commenced June 1, 2015 and had an initial monthly payment of $10,032, which increased to $10,200 in June 2016, $10,366 in June 2017, $10,534 in June 2018, and $10,701 in June 2019. Beginning in 2019, the Company recognized right of use assets and related lease liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company estimated the value of the lease liabilities using a discount rate equivalent to the rate we would pay on a secured borrowing with similar terms to the lease. Options to extend the lease in our minimum lease terms unless the option is reasonably certain to be exercised are excluded. Our total lease cost for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017 was $0.1 million, $0.1 million, and $0.1 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, the lease has a remaining term of seven months, and discount rate of 3.35%. Minimum annual rental payments under these operating leases, reconciled to the lease liability included in accrued liabilities and other in our consolidated balance sheets, are as follows (in thousands):


($ in thousands)	Future Rental
Year Ending December 31,	Payments
2020	$	75
2021		—
2022		—
2023		—
2024 and beyond		—
	$	75

Litigation

The Company may become party to legal proceedings that are considered to be either ordinary, routine litigation incidental to their business or not significant to the Company’s consolidated financial position or liquidity. Other than as described below, the Company does not believe that there is any other pending litigation that could have a significant adverse impact on its consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. (the Kachmar Action”), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our disclosure related to the FPI Loan Program was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the “Mariconda Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action. Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action. On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner (the “Turners”), as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action. On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Turner Action. On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk Capital Management’s dismissal from the case, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court’s determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29, 2020. These motions remain pending and discovery remains stayed pending decision on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. At this time, no class has been certified in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related expenses at this time.

On December 18, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company, Jack Winter, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (the “Winter Action”), purporting to assert breach of fiduciary duty claims derivatively on the Company’s behalf against the Company’s directors and certain of the Company’s officers. The Winter Action alleges, among other things, that the Company’s directors and certain of the Company’s officers breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by allowing the Company to make allegedly false and misleading disclosures related to the FPI Loan Program, as alleged in the Turner Action. On April 26, 2019, Winter voluntarily dismissed his complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland. On May 14, 2019, Winter re-filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Winter Action has been stayed pending further proceedings in the Turner Action.

On November 25, 2019, another purported shareholder, Shawn Luger, filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of the Company and against certain of our officers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Luger Action”). The Luger Action complaint makes similar claims to those in the Turner and Winter Actions. The parties to the Luger Action stipulated to a stay of the case pending further proceedings in the Turner Action and filed a joint motion to stay on February 7, 2020.

On November 26, 2019, another purported shareholder, Anna Barber, filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of the Company and against certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the “Barber Action”). The Barber Action complaint makes similar claims to those in the Turner, Winter, and Luger Actions. The Barber Action has been stayed pending further proceedings in the Turner Action.

On February 14, 2020, another purported shareholder, Brent Hustedde, filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of the Company and against certain of our officers in Maryland state court (the “Hustedde Action”). The Hustedde Action complaint makes similar claims to those in the Turner, Winter, Luger, and Barber Actions. None of the defendants have yet been served in the Hustedde Action.

The Company believes that costs associated with the Turner, Winter, Luger, Barber, and Hustedde Actions in excess of $0.35 million will be covered by insurance.

On July 24, 2018, we filed a lawsuit in the District Court, Denver County, Colorado, against “Rota Fortunae” (a pseudonym) and numerous co-conspirators (collectively, “Wheel of Fortune”) in response to an article posted on Seeking Alpha that makes numerous allegations about the Company that we believe to be false or materially misleading. We believe that as a consequence of Wheel of Fortune’s internet posting and related postings on social media, the trading price of our common stock declined by approximately 40%. We believe that Wheel of Fortune’s internet posting was made in connection with a “short and distort” scheme to profit from a decline in our stock price based on false and misleading information. The lawsuit that we filed alleges that Wheel of Fortune disseminated material false, misleading and defamatory information about us that has harmed us and our stockholders. The Company does not expect insurance proceeds to cover a substantial portion of the costs related to the lawsuit we filed against Wheel of Fortune. The case is currently in the discovery phase with numerous motions pending before the court.