Commitments and contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and contingencies
Commitments and contingencies	Note 20 – Commitments and contingencies Indemnification agreements In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such indemnification agreements. The Company does not believe that the outcome of any claims under indemnification arrangements will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in its financial statements. Litigation The Company is involved in claims or lawsuits that arise in the ordinary course of business. Accruals for claims or lawsuits are provided to the extent that losses are deemed both probable and estimable. Although the ultimate outcome of these claims or lawsuits cannot be ascertained, on the basis of present information and advice received from counsel, it is management’s opinion that the disposition or ultimate determination of such claims or lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. Among other legal disputes, the Company is currently, or was, involved in the following proceedings related to material disputes: Eagle Valley Holdings, LLC. On January 4, 2023, a Curaleaf subsidiary that purchased the Bloom assets in Arizona, filed suit against Eagle Valley Holdings, LLC, Q Business Consulting, LLC, LBSF, LLC, the sellers of the Bloom assets, and Edmond Vartughian, their designated representative, in Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County, alleging breach of the contractual representations and warranties and fraudulent inducement of Curaleaf’s acquisition of the Bloom assets. The parties resolved the claims on March 21, 2023 and dismissed the suit. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to reduce the future principal payments of the Bloom Notes (as hereinafter defined) by $10 million. The purchase price for Bloom was paid $69 million in cash on closing of the transaction, net of working capital adjustments, with the remaining approximately $160 million to be paid through the issuance of three promissory notes of $50 million, $50 million and $60 million due, respectively, on the first, second and third anniversary of closing of the transaction. Curaleaf has settled in full the $50 million note due January 2023 for $44 million and the principal of the $50 million note due January 2024 has been reduced by $4 million. Sentia Wellness. On January 6, 2022, Measure 8 Ventures, LP, and other purchasers of debentures from Sentia Wellness, Inc. (“Sentia”), filed suit against Nitin Khanna and six other former officers, directors, and/or advisors of Sentia in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County alleging violations of Oregon securities law by making false and misleading statements and omissions to induce the plaintiffs to purchase over $74 million of debentures in Sentia. On May 16, 2022, the defendants filed their answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint along with affirmative defenses and various counter-claims against the plaintiffs as well as claims against third-parties Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., Cura Partners, Inc., and other individuals. The third-party claims include claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference in connection with Curaleaf’s acquisition of Cura Partners, Inc. The third-party complaint also alleges claims against Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Cura Partners, Inc. for indemnification as well as reimbursement and advancement of attorneys’ fees and expenses under Oregon law and Cura Partners, Inc.’s bylaws. Nitin Khanna and the third-party plaintiffs seek actual damages in an amount of $515 million and other relief. However, Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Cura Partners, Inc. were not targeted by all of the third-party plaintiffs claims. On October 25, 2022, Nitin Khanna and the third-party plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal which was subsequently signed by the judge and which dismissed without prejudice all of their claims against Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Cura Partners, Inc. Mr. Clateman and Mr. Martinez have moved to dismiss all claims against them; the court has not yet scheduled argument on that motion. Connecticut Arbitration. Pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Doubling Road Holdings, LLC, the holders (the “Holders”) of a majority of the Series A-2 Units of Doubling Road Holdings had the right (the “Put Right”) to require that PalliaTech CT, LLC or any of its affiliates purchase all of the Series A-2 Units in exchange for shares of PalliaTech, Inc. (now Curaleaf, Inc.), the parent of PalliaTech CT, pursuant to a defined “Buy-Out Exchange Ratio.” On October 25, 2018, the Holders, the Company, and others entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in order to resolve a dispute with respect to the applicable Buy-Out Exchange Ratio for the Put Right. The Stipulation of Settlement provided, among other things, that PalliaTech CT purchased the Holders’ interests in exchange for (1) a payment of $40.1 million; (2) 4,755,548 SVS; and (3) the potential for additional equity in the Company depending on the results of a “Settlement Second Appraisal.” Pursuant to the Settlement Second Appraisal, dated December 12, 2019, and the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Holders received 2,016,859 additional SVS. On January 23, 2020, the Holders filed claims in arbitration including for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, relating primarily to a lock-up agreement that the Holders signed in connection with the Stipulation of Settlement. The hearing of the case took place in April 2022 and on September 6, 2022, the arbitrator issued a Final Partial Award dismissing all of the DRH plaintiffs’ claims and awarding costs of the arbitration to Curaleaf. The arbitrator issued a final award of the costs to be paid by the DRH plaintiffs to Curaleaf, and the immaterial reimbursement was received in the fourth quarter of 2022. Securities Class Action. On August 5, 2019, a purported class action was filed against the Company, Joseph Lusardi, Neil Davidson, and Jonathan Faucher (“Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company from November 21, 2018 to July 22, 2019. On January 6, 2020, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed against the Defendants. The Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s CBD products based on a July 22, 2019 letter received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA Letter”). According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the FDA Letter states that several of the CBD products sold on the Company’s website were “misbranded drugs” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims (1) against all Defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and (2) against Lusardi, Davidson, and Faucher for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Amended Class Action Complaint failed to allege (1) any false or misleading statement or omission, (2) scienter, (3) any domestic transactions, or (4) control person liability. On February 15, 2021, the Company’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.

Commitments and contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Note 20 – Commitments and contingencies

Indemnification agreements

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to vendors, lessors, business partners, and other parties with respect to certain matters including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with members of its board of directors and senior management team that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is, in many cases, unlimited. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such indemnification agreements. The Company does not believe that the outcome of any claims under indemnification arrangements will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows, and it has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in its financial statements.

Litigation

The Company is involved in claims or lawsuits that arise in the ordinary course of business. Accruals for claims or lawsuits are provided to the extent that losses are deemed both probable and estimable. Although the ultimate outcome of these claims or lawsuits cannot be ascertained, on the basis of present information and advice received from counsel, it is management’s opinion that the disposition or ultimate determination of such claims or lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Among other legal disputes, the Company is currently, or was, involved in the following proceedings related to material disputes:

Eagle Valley Holdings, LLC. On January 4, 2023, a Curaleaf subsidiary that purchased the Bloom assets in Arizona, filed suit against Eagle Valley Holdings, LLC, Q Business Consulting, LLC, LBSF, LLC, the sellers of the Bloom assets, and Edmond Vartughian, their designated representative, in Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County, alleging breach of the contractual representations and warranties and fraudulent inducement of Curaleaf’s acquisition of the Bloom assets. The parties resolved the claims on March 21, 2023 and dismissed the suit. As part of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to reduce the future principal payments of the Bloom Notes (as hereinafter defined) by $10 million. The purchase price for Bloom was paid $69 million in cash on closing of the transaction, net of working capital adjustments, with the remaining approximately $160 million to be paid through the issuance of three promissory notes of $50 million, $50 million and $60 million due, respectively, on the first, second and third anniversary of closing of the transaction. Curaleaf has settled in full the $50 million note due January 2023 for $44 million and the principal of the $50 million note due January 2024 has been reduced by $4 million.

Sentia Wellness. On January 6, 2022, Measure 8 Ventures, LP, and other purchasers of debentures from Sentia Wellness, Inc. (“Sentia”), filed suit against Nitin Khanna and six other former officers, directors, and/or advisors of Sentia in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County alleging violations of Oregon securities law by making false and misleading statements and omissions to induce the plaintiffs to purchase over $74 million of debentures in Sentia. On May 16, 2022, the defendants filed their answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint along with affirmative defenses and various counter-claims against the plaintiffs as well as claims against third-parties Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., Cura Partners, Inc., and other individuals. The third-party claims include claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference in connection with Curaleaf’s acquisition of Cura Partners, Inc. The third-party complaint also alleges claims against Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Cura Partners, Inc. for indemnification as well as reimbursement and advancement of attorneys’ fees and expenses under Oregon law and Cura Partners, Inc.’s bylaws. Nitin Khanna and the third-party plaintiffs seek actual damages in an amount of $515 million and other relief. However, Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Cura Partners, Inc. were not targeted by

all of the third-party plaintiffs claims. On October 25, 2022, Nitin Khanna and the third-party plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal which was subsequently signed by the judge and which dismissed without prejudice all of their claims against Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. and Cura Partners, Inc. Mr. Clateman and Mr. Martinez have moved to dismiss all claims against them; the court has not yet scheduled argument on that motion.

Connecticut Arbitration. Pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Doubling Road Holdings, LLC, the holders (the “Holders”) of a majority of the Series A-2 Units of Doubling Road Holdings had the right (the “Put Right”) to require that PalliaTech CT, LLC or any of its affiliates purchase all of the Series A-2 Units in exchange for shares of PalliaTech, Inc. (now Curaleaf, Inc.), the parent of PalliaTech CT, pursuant to a defined “Buy-Out Exchange Ratio.” On October 25, 2018, the Holders, the Company, and others entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in order to resolve a dispute with respect to the applicable Buy-Out Exchange Ratio for the Put Right. The Stipulation of Settlement provided, among other things, that PalliaTech CT purchased the Holders’ interests in exchange for (1) a payment of $40.1 million; (2) 4,755,548 SVS; and (3) the potential for additional equity in the Company depending on the results of a “Settlement Second Appraisal.” Pursuant to the Settlement Second Appraisal, dated December 12, 2019, and the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Holders received 2,016,859 additional SVS. On January 23, 2020, the Holders filed claims in arbitration including for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, relating primarily to a lock-up agreement that the Holders signed in connection with the Stipulation of Settlement. The hearing of the case took place in April 2022 and on September 6, 2022, the arbitrator issued a Final Partial Award dismissing all of the DRH plaintiffs’ claims and awarding costs of the arbitration to Curaleaf. The arbitrator issued a final award of the costs to be paid by the DRH plaintiffs to Curaleaf, and the immaterial reimbursement was received in the fourth quarter of 2022.

Securities Class Action. On August 5, 2019, a purported class action was filed against the Company, Joseph Lusardi, Neil Davidson, and Jonathan Faucher (“Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company from November 21, 2018 to July 22, 2019. On January 6, 2020, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed against the Defendants. The Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s CBD products based on a July 22, 2019 letter received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA Letter”). According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the FDA Letter states that several of the CBD products sold on the Company’s website were “misbranded drugs” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims (1) against all Defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and (2) against Lusardi, Davidson, and Faucher for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Amended Class Action Complaint failed to allege (1) any false or misleading statement or omission, (2) scienter, (3) any domestic transactions, or (4) control person liability. On February 15, 2021, the Company’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.