The Company and certain of its officers, C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth, are defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Securities Class Action”). Brought by lead plaintiff Royce Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman, the Securities Class Action purports to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the Company’s operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the Company’s leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables. The initial complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S District Court, but the dismissal was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2020. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in August 2020. In November 2020, the Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 28, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss insofar as it requested dismissal of the entire action on grounds of loss causation, and granting it insofar as it sought dismissal of any claims arising out of defendants’ statements in February 2017. Because the dismissed claims were the basis for defendants’ efforts to begin the alleged class period in February 2017, the decision means that the alleged class period runs from May 3, 2017 to October 31, 2017.

Certain derivative actions have also been brought against the officers named in the Securities Class Action, and certain current and former directors of the Company, alleging claims relating to the matters at issue in the Securities Class Action. These derivative actions are currently stayed pending certain developments in the Securities Class Action.

In 2018, Stourbridge Investments LLC, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a derivative action purportedly on behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and state-law claims including breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named defendants are responsible for the Company’s failure to disclose the financial condition of Orianna Health Systems, the alleged non-disclosures that are also the subject of the Securities Class Action described above. The plaintiff did not make a demand on the Company to bring the action prior to filing it, but rather alleges that demand would have been futile. The case has been stayed pending the entry of judgment or a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the Securities Class Action.

In 2019, purported stockholder Phillip Swan by his counsel, and stockholders Tom Bradley and Sarah Smith by their counsel, filed derivative actions in the Baltimore City Circuit Court of Maryland, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment against the named defendants. Those actions have been consolidated and stayed in the Maryland court pending completion of fact discovery in the Securities Class Action. Prior to filing suit, each of these stockholders had made demands on the Board of Directors in 2018 that the Company bring such lawsuits. After an investigation and due consideration, and in the exercise of its business judgment, the Board of Directors determined that it is not in the best interests of the Company to commence litigation against any current or former officers or directors based on the matters raised in the demands.

In addition, in late 2020, Robert Wojcik, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, purportedly on behalf of the Company, asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Wojcik also did not make a demand on the Company prior to filing suit. The case has been stayed pending the entry of judgment or a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the Securities Class Action.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

In August 2021, we filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County against the holders of certain Subordinated Debt associated with our Gulf Coast master lease agreement, following an assertion by the holders that our prior exercise of offset rights in connection with Gulf Coast’s non-payment of rent had resulted in defaults under the terms of the Subordinated Debt. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment to, among other items, declare that the aggregate amount of unpaid rent due from Gulf Coast under the master lease agreement exceeds all amounts which otherwise would be due and owing by Omega Obligor under the Subordinated Debt, and that all principal and interest due and owing under the Subordinated Debt may be (and was) offset in full as of December 31, 2021. In October 2021, the defendants in the case filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with a hearing scheduled on the motion for February 25, 2022. While Omega believes Omega Obligor is entitled to the enforcement of the offset rights sought in the action, the outcome of litigation is unpredictable, and Omega cannot predict the outcome of the declaratory judgment action. See Note 5 – Contractual Receivables and Other Receivables and Lease Inducements – Gulf Coast Health Care, LLC.

In September 2016, MedEquities received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which indicates that it is conducting an investigation regarding alleged violations of the False Claims Act, Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute in connection with claims that may have been submitted to Medicare and other federal payors for services rendered to patients at Lakeway Hospital or by providers with financial relationships with Lakeway Hospital. As a result of the acquisition of MedEquities, the Company owns a 51% interest in an unconsolidated partnership that owns Lakeway Hospital (the “Lakeway Realty, L.L.C.”). The CID requested certain documents and information related to the acquisition and ownership of Lakeway Hospital through Lakeway Realty, L.L.C. The Company has learned that the DOJ is investigating MedEquities’ conduct in connection with its investigation of financial relationships related to Lakeway Hospital, including allegations by the DOJ that these relationships violate and continue to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and, as a result, related claims submitted to federal payors violated and continue to violate the False Claims Act. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ in connection with the CID and has produced all of the information that has been requested to date.

On September 29, 2020 the DOJ announced it had reached a settlement of a False Claims Act case with respect to certain aspects of the investigation with Lakeway Regional Medical Center wherein Lakeway Regional Medical Center agreed to pay $1.1 million for inducing certain physicians to refer patients by offering a low risk and high return investment in the form of a joint venture to purchase and then lease back the hospital to Lakeway Regional Medical Center. A MedEquities subsidiary was a party to this transaction but was not included in settlement discussions, and we understand that the settlement did not fully resolve the investigation referenced in the CID. The documents relating to the settlement are not publicly available.

The Company believes that the acquisition, ownership and leasing of Lakeway Hospital through the Lakeway Partnership was and is in compliance with all applicable laws. However, due to the uncertainties surrounding this matter and its ultimate outcome, we are unable to determine whether it is probable that any loss has been incurred.

In addition, we are subject to various other legal proceedings, claims and other actions arising out of the normal course of business. While any legal proceeding or claim has an element of uncertainty, management believes that the outcome of each lawsuit, claim or legal proceeding that is pending or threatened, or all of them combined, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In connection with certain facility transitions, we have agreed to indemnify certain operators in certain events. As of December 31, 2021, our maximum funding commitment under these indemnification agreements was approximately $5.6 million. Claims under these indemnification agreements may be made within 18 months to 72 months of the transition date. These indemnification agreements were provided to certain operators in connection with facility transitions and generally would be applicable in the event that the prior operators do not perform under their transition agreements.

We have committed to fund the construction of new leased and mortgaged facilities, capital improvements and other commitments. We expect the funding of these commitments to be completed over the next several years. Our remaining commitments at December 31, 2021, are outlined in the table below (in thousands):

(1)	Includes our $177.7 million commitment relating to the redevelopment of the real estate property located in Washington, D.C. discussed in Note 3 – Real Estate Acquisitions.

(2)	Includes finance costs.

(3)	This amount excludes our remaining commitments to fund under our other investments of approximately $50.1 million.

Environmental Matters

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had identified conditional asset retirement obligations primarily related to the future removal and disposal of asbestos that is contained within certain of our real estate investment properties. The asbestos is appropriately contained, and we believe we are compliant with current environmental regulations. If these properties undergo major renovations or are demolished, certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the manner in which asbestos must be handled and disposed. We are required to record the fair value of these conditional liabilities if they can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, no liability for conditional asset retirement obligations was recorded on our accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.