Note 18 - Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Nov. 30, 2022

Notes to Financial Statements

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 18. Commitments and contingencies

Purchase and other commitments

The Company has payments on long-term debt, refer to Note 11 (Long-term debt), convertible notes, refer to Note 12 (Convertible debentures payable), material purchase commitments and construction commitments as follows:

	Total		2023		2024		2025		2026		Thereafter
Long-term debt repayment	$	173,981	$	20,681	$	70,106	$	40,234	$	4,743	$	36,405
Convertible notes		449,070		189,830		259,240		—		—		—
Material purchase obligations		26,878		19,946		5,515		840		239		338
Construction commitments		5,433		5,433		—		—		—		—
Total	$	655,362	$	235,890	$	334,861	$	41,074	$	4,982	$	36,743

The following table presents the future undiscounted payment associated with lease liabilities as of November 30, 2022:

	Operating
	leases
2023	$	4,086
2024		2,971
2025		3,148
2026		3,038
Thereafter		5,369
Total minimum lease payments	$	18,612
Imputed interest		(2,637	)
Obligations recognized	$	15,975

Legal proceedings

There have been no material changes from the legal proceedings since our fiscal year ended May 31, 2022, except with respect to certain aspects of the legal proceedings disclosed below:

Class Action Suits and Stockholder Derivative Suits – U.S. and Canada

Settlement of Tilray Brands, Inc. Reorganization Litigation (Delaware, New York) – Special Litigation Committee

On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM. On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM.

On March 4, 2020, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint. The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, and Privateer Evolution, LLC (the “Privateer Defendants”) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their alleged capacities as Tilray’s controlling stockholders and against Kennedy, Maryscott Greenwood, and Michael Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the prior merger of Privateer Holdings, Inc. with and into a wholly owned subsidiary (the “Downstream Merger”). The complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream Merger and Tilray’s Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger. Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh’s control over Tilray.

In August 2021, the Company’s Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) of independent directors to re-assert director control and investigate the derivative claims in this litigation matter. The SLC has appointed the law firm Wilson Sonsini to assist the SLC with an ongoing investigation of the underlying claim and determine whether continued prosecution of such claims is in the best interests of the Company. The SLC has successfully moved to have the Plaintiff’s discovery stayed during their investigation.

On May 27, 2022, the SLC informed the Court that it had completed its investigation; determined not to seek dismissal of the Action; and confirmed its determination that the Company had suffered significant damages and that the SLC would pursue claims to recover appropriate amounts for the Company's benefit. Thereafter, the SLC, all of the Defendants, and certain non-parties participated in two mediation sessions before former Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery Andre G. Bouchard on June 27 and July 14, 2022.

On July 15, 2022, the SLC reached an agreement in principle with the Defendants and certain of the non-parties, and their respective insurers, to resolve the claims asserted in the Action in exchange for an aggregate amount of $26.9 million to be paid to Tilray plus mutual releases. The SLC subsequently reached a further agreement with an additional non-party and plaintiffs to settle the entire Action. On December 20, 2022, the parties submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release ("Settlement Stipulation") which provides for, among other things, an aggregate cash amount of $39.9 million to be paid to Tilray and mutual releases. The Settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, which has scheduled a hearing for February 27, 2023. Tilray stockholders will not receive any direct payment from the Settlement Stipulation.

Authentic Brands Group Related Class Action (New York, United States)

On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Kasilingam litigation”). The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants overstated the anticipated advantages of the Company’s revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group (“ABG”), announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when Tilray’s stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020. On August 6, 2020, SDNY entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations that Tilray’s reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins in its financial reports during the class period were false and misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable “trim” as inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products.

On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an Opinion & Order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims against Tilray and Brendan Kennedy. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 2, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 12, 2022, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration and/or interlocutory appeal of this Court decision. The Company still believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

Aphria Inc. Securities Litigation (New York, United States)

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities class action was commenced in SDNY against a number of defendants including Aphria and certain current and former officers and directors. The action claims that the defendants misrepresented the value of three cannabis-producing properties Aphria acquired in Jamaica, Colombia, and Argentina (the “LATAM Assets”). On December 3, 2018, two notorious short-sellers issued a report about the acquisitions, claiming the LATAM Assets were non-functional or non-existent, which allegedly caused Aphria’s stock price to fall. On April 15, 2019, Aphria took impairment charges on the LATAM Assets, which also allegedly caused Aphria’s stock price to decline. The putative class action claims that Aphria artificially inflated the price of its publicly-traded stock by making false statements about the LATAM Assets, and when the purported truth was revealed by a short-seller report and write-down, the stock price declined, harming investors.

On September 30, 2020, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as to Aphria, Vic Neufeld, and Carl Merton, and granted the motion as to Cole Cacciavillani, John Cervini, Andrew DeFrancesco, and SOL Global Investments. On October 1, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing DeFrancesco and SOL or, in the alternative, to amend their complaint. On October 14, 2020, Aphria, Neufeld, and Merton moved for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss.

On September 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court issued an Order that (i) permitted the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit to revive the claims against Andy DeFrancecso; and (ii) declined to revisit his decision that claims could proceed against Aphria/Tilray, Vic Neufeld, and Carl Merton. Plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint, however, and so the action is proceeding solely against Aphria/Tilray, Neufeld, and Merton. On December 5, 2022, the parties engaged in a mediation session with an independent mediator. However, no settlement agreement was reached.

It is too early to determine any potential damages from this proceeding. The Company and the individual defendants believe the claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

LATAM and Nuuvera Class Actions and Individual Actions (Canada)

On January 29, 2018, Aphria announced the acquisition of Nuuvera Inc. On July 17, 2018, Aphria announced a planned expansion into Latin America and the Caribbean with the acquisition of LATAM Holdings Inc. The following class actions and four individual proceedings have been commenced in Canada against Aphria and several current or former officers relating to the Nuuvera and LATAM transactions:

(i) a proposed class action (the "Vecchio Action") commenced in the Ontario Superior Court in February 2019, and amended thereafter, alleging statutory and common law misrepresentations and oppression relating to the Nuuvera and LATAM transactions. The Vecchio Action names Aphria, Merton, Neufeld, Cacciavillani and 5 underwriters as defendants;

(ii) four individual actions (the "Individual Actions") commenced by Wan, Bergerson, Landry, and Profinsys in the Ontario Superior Court alleging statutory and common law misrepresentations relating to the LATAM and Nuuvera transactions. The Individual Actions name Aphria, Merton, Neufeld, and Cacciavillani as defendants.

In the Vecchio Action a motion for certification and leave was heard. For Reasons for Decision released August 6, 2021, and with the consent of Aphria and the individually named Defendants, the Court granted leave to proceed with the secondary market statutory cause of action, and certified the Action on behalf of a defined class of purchasers. Also, on consent, the Court dismissed the claims of oppression and common law misrepresentation against Aphria and the individual defendants, as well as all claims against Carl Merton. The Court granted certification of the primary market statutory cause of action against all remaining Defendants but made it conditional on a successful motion by the Plaintiff to have the Court appoint a second Plaintiff for that aspect of the Claim. The defendant underwriters are appealing one term of that final aspect of the Court's decision. We continue to believe that these claims are without merit and plan to vigorously defend against this action.

Docklight Litigation

On November 5, 2021 Docklight Brands, Inc. (“Docklight”) filed a complaint against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, High Park Holdings, Ltd. (“High Park”) in Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. Docklight claimed breach of contract against High Park arising from a 2018 license agreement pursuant to which Docklight licensed certain Bob Marley-related brands to High Park (as amended in 2020 and 2021, the “High Park License”). In addition, Docklight brought a negligent misrepresentation claim against Tilray, alleging that certain individuals at Tilray or Aphria had made false statements to Docklight in order to induce Docklight to waive Docklight’s alleged right to terminate the High Park License for change-of-control on the basis of the 2021 Tilray-Aphria Arrangement Agreement. Docklight seeks injunctive relief as well as unspecified damages. On December 17, 2021, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court, Federal District of Washington.  Defendants’ answer to the complaint was timely filed by January 21, 2022, and discovery in this litigation matter is ongoing. Tilray and High Park continue to believe that the claims are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend the Docklight suit.