Company: CGC
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000950170-25-015839
Chunk: 120

Company: Canopy Growth Corp
Filing Date: 2025-02-07
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 4
Chunk 120
---
 notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On October 8, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the appeal with prejudice. On October 9, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an order dismissing the appeal.

On January 18, 2024, a follow-on derivative shareholder lawsuit, captioned Press v. Schmeling et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by ostensible shareholder Denise Press on behalf of Canopy Growth against the Company’s directors and certain of its officers alleging misstatements and omissions regarding revenue attributed to BioSteel Canada and the Company’s internal controls over accounting and financial reporting. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider trading, and seeks damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief. On November 25, 2024, the court issued an order discontinuing the case without prejudice pursuant to a voluntary discontinuance filed by the plaintiff on November 21, 2024.

On June 27, 2023, an ostensible shareholder commenced a putative class action (Dziedziejko v. Canopy Growth Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-23-00701769-00CP) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company, two of its officers, and the Company’s auditor on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities who acquired Canopy Growth’s securities in the secondary market between June 1, 2021 to June 22, 2023 and held some or all of those securities until the close of trading on May 10, 2023 or June 22, 2023.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company’s disclosures contained misrepresentations within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario), that certain officers authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the release of the impugned disclosures, that the Company and one of its officers acted in a manner that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to the proposed class members by failing to remedy alleged deficiencies in the Company’s internal controls, and that all of the defendants are liable for damages to the putative class. The action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, legal fees, and the costs of administering a plan of distribution of the recovery. The Company was also named in two other putative class proceedings that were commenced between May