Company: JUSHF
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001628280-25-023749
Chunk: 34

Company: Jushi Holdings Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-08
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 34
---
 use, strict enforcement of federal law regarding cannabis would likely result in the Company’s inability to proceed with the Company’s business plans. A change in administration due to the recent United States presidential election presents a risk of a change in federal policy. In addition, the Company’s assets, including real property, cash and cash equivalents, equipment, inventory and other goods, could be subject to asset forfeiture because cannabis is still federally illegal.Refer to Note 14 - Income Taxes for certain tax-related contingencies.Claims and LitigationFrom time to time, the Company may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of operations in the normal course of business. As of March 31, 2025, except as set forth below, there were no pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial results. There are also no proceedings 

19

Table of ContentsJUSHI HOLDINGS INC. Notes to the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements(Amounts Expressed in Thousands of U.S. dollars, Except Share and Per Share Amounts)

in which any of the Company’s directors, officers or affiliates is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to the Company’s interest.MJ’s Market MatterOn March 31, 2023, MJ’s Market, Inc. (“MJ’s”) filed a complaint in federal district court in Massachusetts adverse to Jushi Holdings Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including Jushi MA, Inc., Jushi Inc. and Nature’s Remedy of Massachusetts, as well as the former owners and affiliates of Nature’s Remedy of Massachusetts (the “Complaint”). The Complaint centrally claims that the structure of the Nature’s Remedy of Massachusetts transaction providing for increased purchase price consideration if there is no competing dispensary within 2,500 foot radius by certain time periods, and the Company’s filing with the Massachusetts Superior Court an appeal of the Town of Tyngsborough’s decision to approve MJ’s facility in contradiction of its own zoning bylaws are violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Massachusetts Antitrust Act, and Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, as well as interference with contractual relations and abuse of process. MJ is seeking legal and equitable remedies including compensatory and other damages. On February 5, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the parties to the Complaint are in discovery. The Company disputes such allegations, believes it has substantial defenses and is vigorously defending against the Complaint.Sammartino MatterOn February 28,