COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company does not have significant future annual commitments, other than related to leases and debt, which are disclosed in Notes 10 and 11, respectively. The Company has commercial relationships with license holders across the markets in which it operates with mutually beneficial purchasing and supply arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business. In April 2025, the Company entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which the Company proposes to exchange its Ohio cultivation license and facility and related assets (the “Ohio Cultivation Assets”) for an entity that anticipates obtaining an adult-use license in New Jersey and $1,000 of cash consideration. Pursuant to this definitive agreement, the Company also proposes to acquire an entity in Ohio that owns and operates a dispensary in Ohio in exchange for a conditional dispensary license that the Company expects to receive, plus an additional $1,000 of cash consideration. This transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. The Ohio Cultivation Assets were being contemplated for sale in this specific transaction with this specific buyer and the Company determined the Ohio Cultivation Assets do not meet the criteria to be classified as held-for-sale as of December 31, 2025. The total of the Ohio Cultivation Assets was approximately $8,500 as of December 31, 2025, including $3,700 of intangible assets, net, $3,000 of goodwill, $1,300 of inventory, and $300 of property and equipment, net. Through the acquisition of Story of PA CR, LLC (“Story of PA”) in April 2022, the Company is party to a research collaboration agreement with the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine (“Geisinger”), a Pennsylvania Department of Health-Certified Medical Marijuana Academic Clinical Research Center, pursuant to which the Company will help fund clinical research to benefit the patients of Pennsylvania. A total of up to $10,000 of additional funding may be provided pursuant to the research collaboration agreement and is expected to be funded over the course of the ten years following the transaction date based on a percentage of annual revenues associated with the underlying operations. A payment of $819 was remitted during 2025, which is included within “Payment of contingent consideration” on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and was included within “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2025, $2,945 is included within “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and $6,236 and $9,200 is included within “Other non-current liabilities” as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Indemnifications We are party to a variety of agreements under which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters. These agreements are primarily standard indemnification arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, we may agree to indemnify, defend, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified parties for losses incurred in connection with certain claims. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team pursuant to which the Company has agreed to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers of the Company. In some circumstances, these indemnification obligations may be subject to contractual limitations or exclusions and may be covered, in whole, or in part, by insurance. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is generally not determinable. The Company has not incurred any material costs or made any material payments pursuant to these indemnification obligations. Legal and Other Matters The Company’s operations are subject to a variety of local and state regulations. Failure to comply with one or more of those regulations could result in fines, restrictions on its operations, or losses of permits that could result in the Company ceasing operations. While management believes that the Company is in compliance with applicable local and state regulations as of December 31, 2025 in all material respects, cannabis regulations continue to evolve and are subject to differing interpretations, and accordingly, the Company may be subject to regulatory fines, penalties, or restrictions in the future. State laws that permit and regulate the production, distribution, and use of cannabis for adult-use or medical purposes are in direct conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811) (the “CSA”), which makes cannabis use and possession federally illegal. Although certain states and territories of the United States authorize medical and/or adult-use cannabis production and distribution by licensed or registered entities, under United States federal law, the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal and any such acts are criminal acts under federal law under the CSA. Although the Company’s activities are believed to be compliant with applicable state and local laws, strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to cannabis may neither absolve the Company of liability under United States federal law, nor may it provide a defense to any federal proceeding which may be brought against the Company. The Company may be, from time to time, subject to various administrative, regulatory, and other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Contingent liabilities associated with legal proceedings are recorded when a liability is probable and the contingent liability can be estimated. We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. At December 31, 2025 there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, other than as disclosed below. Green Thumb Industries Arbitration Matter On May 31, 2024, Green Thumb Industries Inc. and TWD18, LLC (collectively, “GTI”) initiated an arbitration proceeding before JAMS, a private alternative dispute resolution provider (“JAMS”), against the Company and Ascend Group Partners, LLC relating to a June 4, 2018 side letter agreement (the “Side Letter”). The arbitration concerned certain contractual obligations and payment terms under the Side Letter arising out of prior commercial arrangements between the parties. GTI asserted claims for breach of contract and related causes of action and sought monetary damages and related relief. The Company denied the allegations and asserted counterclaims against GTI. From December 8, 2025 through December 12, 2025, a five-day evidentiary hearing was conducted before the arbitrator. On February 5, 2026, the arbitrator issued an award (the “Award”) determining that GTI had established approximately $22,116 of damages on its breach-of-contract claim and that the Company had established approximately $2,363 of damages on one of its counterclaims, resulting in a net award in favor of GTI of approximately $19,753. Prior to issuance of the Award, management, in consultation with outside legal counsel and other expert external advisors and based on the advice, guidance, and analyses provided to management at the time, evaluated the arbitration matter in accordance with applicable accounting guidance for loss contingencies. Based on that assessment, management concluded that a loss was not probable and that an estimate of potential loss was not reasonably determinable, and further believed based on that assessment that it was more probable than not that the matter would result in a net award to the Company. Accordingly, no accrual was recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements prior to December 31, 2025. On February 11, 2026, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with GTI (the “Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to which the parties agreed to resolve the arbitration and satisfy the Award in exchange for a negotiated payment amount of $17,000. The Company paid the agreed settlement amount on February 12, 2026, and the arbitration award has been fully satisfied. The Settlement Agreement resolves all claims asserted in the arbitration proceeding and does not affect the Company’s other commercial relationships with GTI. The Company does not expect the Settlement Agreement to result in a material disruption to its ongoing operations. The Company recognized a settlement expense of $17,000, which is reflected within “Settlement expense” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for 2025 and is included within “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2025. State of Ohio Complaint On February 6, 2026, the Attorney General of the State of Ohio filed a complaint against the Company and eight other multi-state operators (“MSOs”) in the cannabis industry with operations in Ohio, alleging anticompetitive collusion among the MSOs to exclude single state operators based in Ohio from the cannabis market. The Company denies the claims with respect to the Company and plans to vigorously contest the case. MedMen NY Litigation On February 25, 2021, the Company entered into a definitive investment agreement (the “Investment Agreement”) with subsidiaries of MedMen Enterprises Inc. (“MedMen”), under which we would have, subject to regulatory approval, completed an investment (the “Investment”) of approximately $73,000 in MedMen NY, Inc. (“MMNY”), a licensed medical cannabis operator in the state of New York. Following the completion of the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, we were expected to hold all the outstanding equity of MMNY. The Company contends that, in December 2021, the parties to the Investment Agreement received the required approvals from the State of New York to close the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, but MedMen has disputed the adequacy of the approvals provided by the State of New York. The Company delivered notice to MedMen in December 2021 that it wished to close the transactions as required by the Investment Agreement. Nevertheless, MedMen, on January 2, 2022, gave notice to the Company that MedMen purported to terminate the Investment Agreement. Following receipt of such notice, on January 13, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against MedMen and others in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Court”), requesting specific performance that the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement must move forward, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Company simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the “Motion”) requiring MedMen to operate its New York business in the ordinary course of business and to refrain from any activities or transactions that might impair, encumber, or dissipate MedMen’s New York assets. The parties resolved the Motion via a “Stipulation and Order” entered by the Court on January 21, 2022 that required that MMNY operate only in compliance with the law and in a manner consistent with its ordinary course of business that preserved all assets of MMNY. It further required MMNY to not take certain actions, including any actions that would have a material adverse effect on MedMen’s New York business. On March 27, 2023, the parties entered a further stipulation that modified the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order by lifting the Court’s prohibition against a sale or transfer of MMNY or its assets, without waiver of any claims that the Company might have in the event of such a transaction. That further stipulation modifying the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order was entered by the Court on August 1, 2023. On January 24, 2022, MedMen filed counterclaims against the Company, alleging that Ascend had breached the Investment Agreement, and seeking declaratory relief that MedMen had properly terminated the Investment Agreement. On February 14, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s counterclaims and filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) that included additional claims against MedMen for breach of contract. The First Amended Complaint contained several causes of action, including for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint sought damages in addition to continuing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 7, 2022, MedMen filed amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. On April 20, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the time for MedMen to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss until May 5, 2022. In addition, the parties agreed to stay all discovery, including both party and non-party discovery. On May 5, 2022, the parties filed another stipulation order with the Court adjourning until further notice from the Court MedMen’s time to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. The parties again stipulated that all discovery remains stayed pending further order from the Court. On May 10, 2022, the Company and MedMen signed a term sheet (the “Term Sheet”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to use best efforts to enter into a settlement agreement and enter into new or amended transactional documents. The amended transaction terms contemplated in the Term Sheet also would have required MedMen to provide a representation and warranty that the status of the MMNY assets had not materially changed since December 31, 2021 and an acknowledgement that the representations and warranties from the Investment Agreement would survive for three months after the closing of the contemplated transactions. However, after the Company determined that MedMen could not make or provide the representations and warranties that MedMen would have been required to make as part of the contemplated transactions, the Company determined that it no longer intended to consummate the contemplated transactions. On September 30, 2022, the Company sought leave from the Court to file a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint contains breach of contract claims against MedMen, as well as a claim for the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for anticipatory breach of contract. In connection with those claims, the Company is no longer seeking injunctive or declaratory relief; however, the Company continues to seek damages from MedMen, including, but not limited to, the return of the $4,000 deposit, approximately $2,400 of advances pursuant to a working capital loan agreement, and other capital expenditure advances paid to MMNY by the Company. On November 21, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby MedMen agreed to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, which is now the Company’s operative pleading in the litigation. In addition, in the stipulation, the Company agreed that it would not contest MedMen’s filing of second amended counterclaims against the Company while reserving all rights with respect to any such counterclaims. Because the parties agreed to the filing of each side’s amended pleadings, on November 28, 2022, the Court determined that Ascend’s March 2022 motion to dismiss was moot. On December 21, 2022, MedMen filed its second amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint. In addition to the allegations in MedMen’s earlier pleadings, MedMen now also alleged that the Company breached the Term Sheet. On January 20, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s second amended counterclaims. On August 18, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order on the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing seven of MedMen’s ten counterclaims, including each of the counterclaims brought by MedMen relating to the Term Sheet. On September 26, 2023, MedMen filed a motion seeking leave to file its third amended counterclaims, in which MedMen seeks to revive its previously dismissed counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On October 24, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to that motion for leave. As further discussed below, the Court denied that motion on February 2, 2024. In addition, on October 18, 2023, MedMen filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s August 18, 2023 Decision and Order with respect to the dismissal of MedMen’s three counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On November 1, 2023 the Company filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with respect to the Court’s determination that the Company’s motion to dismiss was not subject to New York’s anti-SLAPP statute. Both parties have yet to perfect the appeals. On February 2, 2024, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying MedMen’s motion for leave to file its third amended counterclaims. On February 21, 2024, the current counsel-of-record for MedMen filed an order to show cause with the Court seeking leave to withdraw as counsel and stay proceedings for thirty days to permit MedMen time to obtain new counsel. On March 20, 2024, the Court granted such withdrawal motion and designated April 25, 2024 as the deadline for MedMen to obtain new counsel, which did not occur. On April 26, 2024, MedMen announced that it made an assignment into bankruptcy pursuant to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act on April 24, 2024 and B. Riley Farber Inc. was appointed as its bankruptcy trustee. In addition, MedMen announced that MedMen’s wholly owned subsidiary, MM CAN USA, Inc., a California corporation, was placed into receivership in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Division on April 23, 2024 to effectuate an orderly dissolution and liquidation of its California-based assets. MedMen further announced that it intends to initiate additional receivership proceedings in those U.S. states where MM CAN USA, Inc. controls or owns assets, through which the operations and assets of MedMen’s subsidiaries will be dissolved or liquidated pursuant to applicable laws in the United States. On May 21, 2024, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued an order confirming the appointment of a receiver for MM CAN USA, Inc. The receiver has submitted monthly reports to the Los Angeles Superior Court estimating that the liabilities of MedMen’s subsidiaries likely significantly exceed the estimated liquidated value of MedMen's subsidiaries and their respective assets, and such reports indicate that efforts to dissolve, liquidate, or abandon such assets are ongoing. On August 6, 2025, the Company filed a motion for a default judgment against MedMen seeking $10,300 for the prior deposit and working capital advances. MedMen did not oppose. On September 5, 2025, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Ascend, awarding $10,300 to Ascend for its deposit and working capital advance. The Company is considering its options to collect on this unsecured judgment. Following the Company’s decision to no longer consummate the contemplated transactions during 2022, the Company expensed certain capitalized expenditures and deposits incurred for certain locations and established an estimated reserve of $3,700 related to amounts that it had been actively pursuing collecting. During 2024, the Company increased the estimated reserve by $5,447, which is included within “General and administrative expenses” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and within “Other” on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The total reserve as of each December 31, 2025 and 2024 is reflective of all outstanding balances and, of which, $2,422 is included within “Notes receivable” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, $6,695 is included within “Other current assets,” and the remainder is included within “Other non-current assets.” Previous Matters Property Settlement In April 2021, the Company, through a subsidiary, entered into a settlement agreement regarding a dispute related to a purchase agreement for the Company’s potential acquisition of certain real estate properties in Michigan. As part of that settlement, the Company issued historical equity units to the settlement parties, to be held in the name of an escrow agent (the “Escrow Units”). The Escrow units were fully issued and outstanding as of the settlement date and were to remain in the escrow account until such time as the settlement parties exercised an option to hold the Escrow Units directly (the “Put Option”), which could be exercised for three years. In February 2024, the TVP Parties notified the Company that they were exercising the Put Option and the transfer was completed in May 2024, at which time the Escrow Units were released to the settlement parties and the settlement parties transferred to the Company the equity interests of the entities that hold the three real estate properties. The underlying properties were determined to have a total fair value of $5,400 as of the settlement date, which was included within “Other non-current assets” and was reclassified to “Property and equipment, net” as of the transfer date. Prior to the completion of the transfer, the Company operated dispensaries at these locations pursuant to lease agreements, which operations continue at the now-owned properties.

The Company does not have significant future annual commitments, other than related to leases and debt, which are disclosed in Notes 10 and 11, respectively. The Company has commercial relationships with license holders across the markets in which it operates with mutually beneficial purchasing and supply arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business.

In April 2025, the Company entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which the Company proposes to exchange its Ohio cultivation license and facility and related assets (the “Ohio Cultivation Assets”) for an entity that anticipates obtaining an adult-use license in New Jersey and $1,000 of cash consideration. Pursuant to this definitive agreement, the Company also proposes to acquire an entity in Ohio that owns and operates a dispensary in Ohio in exchange for a conditional dispensary license that the Company expects to receive, plus an additional $1,000 of cash consideration. This transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. The Ohio Cultivation Assets were being contemplated for sale in this specific transaction with this specific buyer and the Company determined the Ohio Cultivation Assets do not meet the criteria to be classified as held-for-sale as of December 31, 2025. The total of the Ohio Cultivation Assets was approximately $8,500 as of December 31, 2025, including $3,700 of intangible assets, net, $3,000 of goodwill, $1,300 of inventory, and $300 of property and equipment, net.

Through the acquisition of Story of PA CR, LLC (“Story of PA”) in April 2022, the Company is party to a research collaboration agreement with the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine (“Geisinger”), a Pennsylvania Department of Health-Certified Medical Marijuana Academic Clinical Research Center, pursuant to which the Company will help fund clinical research to benefit the patients of Pennsylvania. A total of up to $10,000 of additional funding may be provided pursuant to the research collaboration agreement and is expected to be funded over the course of the ten years following the transaction date based on a percentage of annual revenues associated with the underlying operations. A payment of $819 was remitted during 2025, which is included within “Payment of contingent consideration” on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and was included within “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2025, $2,945 is included within “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and $6,236 and $9,200 is included within “Other non-current liabilities” as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

We are party to a variety of agreements under which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters. These agreements are primarily standard indemnification arrangements entered into in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, we may agree to indemnify, defend, hold harmless, and reimburse the indemnified parties for losses incurred in connection with certain claims. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team pursuant to which the Company has agreed to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers of the Company. In some circumstances, these indemnification obligations may be subject to contractual limitations or exclusions and may be covered, in whole, or in part, by insurance. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is generally not determinable. The Company has not incurred any material costs or made any material payments pursuant to these indemnification obligations.

The Company’s operations are subject to a variety of local and state regulations. Failure to comply with one or more of those regulations could result in fines, restrictions on its operations, or losses of permits that could result in the Company ceasing operations. While management believes that the Company is in compliance with applicable local and state regulations as of December 31, 2025 in all material respects, cannabis regulations continue to evolve and are subject to differing interpretations, and accordingly, the Company may be subject to regulatory fines, penalties, or restrictions in the future.

State laws that permit and regulate the production, distribution, and use of cannabis for adult-use or medical purposes are in direct conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811) (the “CSA”), which makes cannabis use and possession federally illegal. Although certain states and territories of the United States authorize medical and/or adult-use cannabis production and distribution by licensed or registered entities, under United States federal law, the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal and any such acts are criminal acts under federal law under the CSA. Although the Company’s activities are believed to be compliant with applicable state and local laws, strict compliance with state and local laws with respect to cannabis may neither absolve the Company of liability under United States federal law, nor may it provide a defense to any federal proceeding which may be brought against the Company.

The Company may be, from time to time, subject to various administrative, regulatory, and other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Contingent liabilities associated with legal proceedings are recorded when a liability is probable and the contingent liability can be estimated. We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. At December 31, 2025 there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on our consolidated results of operations, other than as disclosed below.

On May 31, 2024, Green Thumb Industries Inc. and TWD18, LLC (collectively, “GTI”) initiated an arbitration proceeding before JAMS, a private alternative dispute resolution provider (“JAMS”), against the Company and Ascend Group Partners, LLC relating to a June 4, 2018 side letter agreement (the “Side Letter”). The arbitration concerned certain contractual obligations and payment terms under the Side Letter arising out of prior commercial arrangements between the parties. GTI asserted claims for breach of contract and related causes of action and sought monetary damages and related relief. The Company denied the allegations and asserted counterclaims against GTI.

From December 8, 2025 through December 12, 2025, a five-day evidentiary hearing was conducted before the arbitrator. On February 5, 2026, the arbitrator issued an award (the “Award”) determining that GTI had established approximately $22,116 of damages on its breach-of-contract claim and that the Company had established approximately $2,363 of damages on one of its counterclaims, resulting in a net award in favor of GTI of approximately $19,753.

Prior to issuance of the Award, management, in consultation with outside legal counsel and other expert external advisors and based on the advice, guidance, and analyses provided to management at the time, evaluated the arbitration matter in accordance with applicable accounting guidance for loss contingencies. Based on that assessment, management concluded that a loss was not probable and that an estimate of potential loss was not reasonably determinable, and further believed based on that assessment that it was more probable than not that the matter would result in a net award to the Company. Accordingly, no accrual was recorded in the Company’s consolidated financial statements prior to December 31, 2025.

On February 11, 2026, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with GTI (the “Settlement Agreement”) pursuant to which the parties agreed to resolve the arbitration and satisfy the Award in exchange for a negotiated payment amount of $17,000. The Company paid the agreed settlement amount on February 12, 2026, and the arbitration award has been fully satisfied. The Settlement Agreement resolves all claims asserted in the arbitration proceeding and does not affect the Company’s other commercial relationships with GTI. The Company does not expect the Settlement Agreement to result in a material disruption to its ongoing operations.

On February 6, 2026, the Attorney General of the State of Ohio filed a complaint against the Company and eight other multi-state operators (“MSOs”) in the cannabis industry with operations in Ohio, alleging anticompetitive collusion among the MSOs to exclude single state operators based in Ohio from the cannabis market. The Company denies the claims with respect to the Company and plans to vigorously contest the case.

On February 25, 2021, the Company entered into a definitive investment agreement (the “Investment Agreement”) with subsidiaries of MedMen Enterprises Inc. (“MedMen”), under which we would have, subject to regulatory approval, completed an investment (the “Investment”) of approximately $73,000 in MedMen NY, Inc. (“MMNY”), a licensed medical cannabis operator in the state of New York. Following the completion of the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, we were expected to hold all the outstanding equity of MMNY.

The Company contends that, in December 2021, the parties to the Investment Agreement received the required approvals from the State of New York to close the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement, but MedMen has disputed the adequacy of the approvals provided by the State of New York. The Company delivered notice to MedMen in December 2021 that it wished to close the transactions as required by the Investment Agreement. Nevertheless, MedMen, on January 2, 2022, gave notice to the Company that MedMen purported to terminate the Investment Agreement.

Following receipt of such notice, on January 13, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against MedMen and others in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Court”), requesting specific performance that the transactions contemplated by the Investment Agreement must move forward, and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Company simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the “Motion”) requiring MedMen to operate its New York business in the ordinary course of business and to refrain from any activities or transactions that might impair, encumber, or dissipate MedMen’s New York assets. The parties resolved the Motion via a “Stipulation and Order” entered by the Court on January 21, 2022 that required that MMNY operate only in compliance with the law and in a manner consistent with its ordinary course of business that preserved all assets of MMNY. It further required MMNY to not take certain actions, including any actions that would have a material adverse effect on MedMen’s New York business. On March 27, 2023, the parties entered a further stipulation that modified the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order by lifting the Court’s prohibition against a sale or transfer of MMNY or its assets, without waiver of any claims that the Company might have in the event of such a transaction. That further stipulation modifying the January 21, 2022 Stipulation and Order was entered by the Court on August 1, 2023.

On January 24, 2022, MedMen filed counterclaims against the Company, alleging that Ascend had breached the Investment Agreement, and seeking declaratory relief that MedMen had properly terminated the Investment Agreement. On February 14, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s counterclaims and filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) that included additional claims against MedMen for breach of contract. The First Amended Complaint contained several causes of action, including for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint sought damages in addition to continuing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 7, 2022, MedMen filed amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the First Amended Complaint. On March 28, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. On April 20, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the time for MedMen to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss until May 5, 2022. In addition, the parties agreed to stay all discovery, including both party and non-party discovery. On May 5, 2022, the parties filed another stipulation order with the Court adjourning until further notice from the Court MedMen’s time to oppose the Company’s motion to dismiss MedMen’s amended counterclaims. The parties again stipulated that all discovery remains stayed pending further order from the Court.

On May 10, 2022, the Company and MedMen signed a term sheet (the “Term Sheet”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to use best efforts to enter into a settlement agreement and enter into new or amended transactional documents. The amended transaction terms contemplated in the Term Sheet also would have required MedMen to provide a representation and warranty that the status of the MMNY assets had not materially changed since December 31, 2021 and an acknowledgement that the representations and warranties from the Investment Agreement would survive for three months after the closing of the contemplated transactions. However, after the Company determined that MedMen could not make or provide the representations and warranties that MedMen would have been required to make as part of the contemplated transactions, the Company determined that it no longer intended to consummate the contemplated transactions.

On September 30, 2022, the Company sought leave from the Court to file a second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint contains breach of contract claims against MedMen, as well as a claim for the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim for anticipatory breach of contract. In connection with those claims, the Company is no longer seeking injunctive or declaratory relief; however, the Company continues to seek damages from MedMen, including, but not limited to, the return of the $4,000 deposit, approximately $2,400 of advances pursuant to a working capital loan agreement, and other capital expenditure advances paid to MMNY by the Company.

On November 21, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby MedMen agreed to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, which is now the Company’s operative pleading in the litigation. In addition, in the stipulation, the Company agreed that it would not contest MedMen’s filing of second amended counterclaims against the Company while reserving all rights with respect to any such counterclaims. Because the parties agreed to the filing of each side’s amended pleadings, on November 28, 2022, the Court determined that Ascend’s March 2022 motion to dismiss was moot.

On December 21, 2022, MedMen filed its second amended counterclaims, an answer, and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint. In addition to the allegations in MedMen’s earlier pleadings, MedMen now also alleged that the Company breached the Term Sheet. On January 20, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss MedMen’s second amended counterclaims.

On August 18, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order on the Company’s motion to dismiss, dismissing seven of MedMen’s ten counterclaims, including each of the counterclaims brought by MedMen relating to the Term Sheet. On September 26, 2023, MedMen filed a motion seeking leave to file its third amended counterclaims, in which MedMen seeks to revive its previously dismissed counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On October 24, 2023, the Company filed an opposition to that motion for leave. As further discussed below, the Court denied that motion on February 2, 2024. In addition, on October 18, 2023, MedMen filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s August 18, 2023 Decision and Order with respect to the dismissal of MedMen’s three counterclaims relating to the Term Sheet. On November 1, 2023 the Company filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal with respect to the Court’s determination that the Company’s motion to dismiss was not subject to New York’s anti-SLAPP statute. Both parties have yet to perfect the appeals.

On February 2, 2024, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying MedMen’s motion for leave to file its third amended counterclaims. On February 21, 2024, the current counsel-of-record for MedMen filed an order to show cause with the Court seeking leave to withdraw as counsel and stay proceedings for thirty days to permit MedMen time to obtain new counsel. On March 20, 2024, the Court granted such withdrawal motion and designated April 25, 2024 as the deadline for MedMen to obtain new counsel, which did not occur.

On April 26, 2024, MedMen announced that it made an assignment into bankruptcy pursuant to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act on April 24, 2024 and B. Riley Farber Inc. was appointed as its bankruptcy trustee. In addition, MedMen announced that MedMen’s wholly owned subsidiary, MM CAN USA, Inc., a California corporation, was placed into receivership in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Division on April 23, 2024 to effectuate an orderly dissolution and liquidation of its California-based assets. MedMen further announced that it intends to initiate additional receivership proceedings in those U.S. states where MM CAN USA, Inc. controls or owns assets, through which the operations and assets of MedMen’s subsidiaries will be dissolved or liquidated pursuant to applicable laws in the United States. On May 21, 2024, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued an order confirming the appointment of a receiver for MM CAN USA, Inc. The receiver has submitted monthly reports to the Los Angeles Superior Court estimating that the liabilities of MedMen’s subsidiaries likely significantly exceed the estimated liquidated value of MedMen's subsidiaries and their respective assets, and such reports indicate that efforts to dissolve, liquidate, or abandon such assets are ongoing. On August 6, 2025, the Company filed a motion for a default judgment against MedMen seeking $10,300 for the prior deposit and working capital advances. MedMen did not oppose. On September 5, 2025, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Ascend, awarding $10,300 to Ascend for its deposit and working capital advance. The Company is considering its options to collect on this unsecured judgment.

Following the Company’s decision to no longer consummate the contemplated transactions during 2022, the Company expensed certain capitalized expenditures and deposits incurred for certain locations and established an estimated reserve of $3,700 related to amounts that it had been actively pursuing collecting. During 2024, the Company increased the estimated reserve by $5,447, which is included within “General and administrative expenses” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations and within “Other” on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. The total reserve as of each December 31, 2025 and 2024 is reflective of all outstanding balances and, of which, $2,422 is included within “Notes receivable” on the Consolidated Balance Sheet, $6,695 is included within “Other current assets,” and the remainder is included within “Other non-current assets.”

In April 2021, the Company, through a subsidiary, entered into a settlement agreement regarding a dispute related to a purchase agreement for the Company’s potential acquisition of certain real estate properties in Michigan. As part of that settlement, the Company issued historical equity units to the settlement parties, to be held in the name of an escrow agent (the “Escrow Units”). The Escrow units were fully issued and outstanding as of the settlement date and were to remain in the escrow account until such time as the settlement parties exercised an option to hold the Escrow Units directly (the “Put Option”), which could be exercised for three years. In February 2024, the TVP Parties notified the Company that they were exercising the Put Option and the transfer was completed in May 2024, at which time the Escrow Units were released to the settlement parties and the settlement parties transferred to the Company the equity interests of the entities that hold the three real estate properties. The underlying properties were determined to have a total fair value of $5,400 as of the settlement date, which was included within “Other non-current assets” and was reclassified to “Property and equipment, net” as of the transfer date. Prior to the completion of the transfer, the Company operated dispensaries at these locations pursuant to lease agreements, which operations continue at the now-owned properties.