Company: IIPR
Filing Date: 2025-11-04
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001677576-25-000005
Chunk: 82

Company: INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES INC
Filing Date: 2025-11-04
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 82
---
 to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above.On February 13, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  The case was named Joshua Albers, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00469-BAH, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, reform, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case. This derivative action also relates to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above.On August 14, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  The case was named Joann Crepaz, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, David Boyle, Mary Curran, Catherine Hastings, Gary Kreitzer, Ben Regin, Scott Shoemaker, David Smith, Paul Smithers, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number C-03-CV-25-003997, and was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, reform, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff and Defendants in this action filed a Joint Motion and Proposed Order of Consolidation on September 18, 2025, seeking to consolidate this case with the Ramos case (detailed below) and with this case, C-03-CV-25-003997, as the