Innovative Industrial Properties (IIPR) Risk Analysis

To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders, on an annual basis, at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In addition, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income (including net capital gain) and will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to distribute our net income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. However, we can provide no assurances that we will have sufficient cash or other liquid assets to meet these requirements. Difficulties in meeting the distribution requirements might arise due to competing demands for available funds or timing differences between tax reporting and cash receipts. In addition, if the Service were to disallow certain of our deductions, such as employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense, by alleging that we, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed medical cannabis tenants, are primarily or vicariously liable for "trafficking" a Schedule I substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or otherwise, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements and would fail to qualify as a REIT. Likewise, if any governmental entity were to impose fines on us for our business involvement in state-licensed cannabis, such fines would not be deductible and the inability to deduct such fines could also cause us to be unable to satisfy the distribution requirement. We may also generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. In such event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt or liquidate assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable or, to the extent possible, make a taxable distribution of our stock in order to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year. Under certain circumstances, we may be able to rectify a failure to meet the distribution requirement for a year by paying "deficiency dividends" to stockholders in a later year, which may be included in our deduction for dividends paid for the earlier year. Thus, we may be able to avoid being taxed on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends; however, we will be required to pay penalties and interest based upon the amount of any deduction taken for deficiency dividends. If we do not have sufficient cash to distribute, we may incur U.S. federal income tax, U.S. federal excise tax and/or our REIT status may be jeopardized.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or Treasury Regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be changed, possibly with retroactive effect, and may adversely affect us and our stockholders. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective or whether any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively. It remains unclear what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo may have on our ability to qualify as a REIT. If rescission of the Cole Memo is followed by strict enforcement of federal prohibitions regarding cannabis, the Service could seek to apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company. Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year "in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted." Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E of the Code by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of cannabis products. If the Service were to take the position that, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed cannabis tenants, we are primarily or vicariously liable under federal law for "trafficking" a Schedule I substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or for any other violations of the CSA, the Service may apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company and disallow certain tax deductions, including for employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense. If such tax deductions are disallowed, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, which could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and fail to qualify as a REIT. In addition, tax legislation originally introduced as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and signed into law in December 2017 (the "TCJA") makes numerous changes to the tax rules that do not affect the REIT qualification rules directly, but may otherwise affect us or our stockholders. Among the changes made by the TCJA are permanently reducing the generally applicable corporate tax rate, generally reducing the tax rate applicable to individuals and other non-corporate taxpayers for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, eliminating or modifying certain previously allowed deductions (including substantially limiting interest deductibility and, for individuals, the deduction for non-business state and local taxes), and, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, providing for preferential rates of taxation through a deduction of up to 20% (subject to certain limitations) on most ordinary REIT dividends and certain trade or business income of non-corporate taxpayers. The TCJA also imposes new limitations on the deduction of net operating losses, which may result in us having to make additional taxable distributions to our stockholders in order to comply with REIT distribution requirements or avoid taxes on retained income and gains. The effect of the significant changes made by the TCJA is highly uncertain, and administrative guidance will be required in order to fully evaluate the effect of many provisions. The effect of any technical corrections with respect to the TCJA could have an adverse effect on us or our stockholders.

We purchase many properties and lease them back to the sellers of such properties. While we will use our best efforts to structure any such sale-leaseback transaction so that the lease will be characterized as a "true lease," thereby allowing us to be treated as the owner of the property for federal income tax purposes, the Service could challenge such characterization. In the event that any sale-leaseback transaction is challenged and re-characterized as a financing transaction or loan for federal income tax purposes, deductions for depreciation and cost recovery relating to such property would be disallowed. If a sale-leaseback transaction were so re-characterized, we might fail to satisfy the REIT qualification "asset tests" or the "income tests" and, consequently, lose our REIT status effective with the year of re-characterization. Alternatively, the amount of our REIT taxable income could be recalculated which might also cause us to fail to meet the distribution requirement for a taxable year.

The REIT provisions of the Code may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities. Any income from a hedging transaction we enter into to manage risk of interest rate changes, price changes or currency fluctuations with respect to borrowings made or to be made to acquire or carry real estate assets, if properly identified under applicable Treasury Regulations, does not constitute "gross income" for purposes of the 75% or 95% gross income tests. To the extent that we enter into other types of hedging transactions, the income from those transactions will likely be treated as non-qualifying income for purposes of both of the gross income tests. As a result of these rules, we may need to limit our use of advantageous hedging techniques or implement those hedges through a TRS. This could increase the cost of our hedging activities because our TRSs would be subject to tax on gains or expose us to greater risks associated with changes in interest rates than we would otherwise want to bear. In addition, losses in a TRS generally will not provide any tax benefit, except for being carried forward against future taxable income of such TRS, provided, however, losses in a TRS arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 may only be deducted against 80% of future taxable income in the TRS.

We engage primarily in the business of investing in real estate and we have not and do not intend to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If our primary business were to change in a manner that would require us register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would have to comply with substantial regulation under the Investment Company Act which could restrict the manner in which we operate and finance our business and could materially and adversely affect our business operations and results.

Most states where we own properties issue licenses for cannabis operations for a limited period. We rely on our tenants to renew or otherwise maintain the requisite state and local cannabis licenses and other authorizations on a continuous basis. If one or more of our tenants are unable to renew or otherwise maintain its licenses or other state and local authorizations necessary to continue its cannabis operations, such tenants may default on their lease payments to us. Any such noncompliance by our tenants of state and local laws, rules and regulations may also subject us, as the owner of such properties, to potential penalties, fines or other liabilities. Any lease payment defaults by a tenant or additional liability on us could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders. In the event of a default by a tenant, we may also experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing our property as operators of cannabis cultivation and production facilities are generally subject to extensive state licensing requirements, including required state and local authorizations for a new tenant to take over operations at a facility. In July 2022, Kings Garden, a prior tenant of ours at six properties that we own in southern California, defaulted on its obligations to pay rent. As previously disclosed, for one property in San Bernardino, California, we are evaluating alternative non-cannabis uses for the property, due in part to changes in the zoning of the property that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing. In September 2023, we regained possession of the remaining four properties that Kings Garden previously occupied. Of those four properties, we are evaluating non-cannabis uses for two properties representing less than 1% of our invested capital at December 31, 2023, also due in part to changes in the zoning of the property that no longer allow for regulated cannabis cultivation and processing. In November 2022, a subsidiary of Parallel defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Pennsylvania, and we regained possession of the property in October 2023. The Pennsylvania regulated cannabis program issued a limited number of operator licenses, and as a result, we may encounter longer delays and other challenges in finding a suitable tenant, versus in states with more licensed operators. In February 2023, Parallel also defaulted on its obligations to pay rent at one of our properties in Texas, and we regained possession of that property in March 2023. The Texas regulated cannabis program is a restricted medical cannabis program with a limited number of operator licenses, and as a result, we may encounter longer delays and other challenges in development and finding a suitable tenant, versus in states with more licensed operators and a more open regulated cannabis program. See Note 11 "Commitments and Contingencies - Litigation" to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden and Parallel.

Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year "in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any state in which such trade or business is conducted." Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of cannabis products. Our tenants are engaged in the cultivation, processing and sale of cannabis and cannabis-related products, and therefore may be subject to Section 280E. Application of the provisions of Section 280E to our tenants would result in the disallowance of certain tax deductions, including for depreciation or interest expense, which could have an adverse impact on their respective financial condition and ability to make lease payments to us. Any lease payment defaults by a tenant could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows, and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to our stockholders.

Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. Even in those jurisdictions in which cannabis has been legalized at the state level, the possession, distribution, cultivation, manufacture and use of cannabis all remain violations of federal law that are punishable by imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Moreover, individuals and entities may violate federal law if they intentionally aid and abet another in violating these federal controlled substance laws, or conspire with another to violate them. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. and Gonzales v. Raich that it is the federal government that has the right to regulate and criminalize the sale, possession and use of cannabis, even for medical purposes. We would likely be unable to execute our business plan if the federal government were to strictly enforce federal law regarding cannabis. In January 2018, the DOJ rescinded certain memoranda, including the so-called "Cole Memo" issued on August 29, 2013 under the Obama Administration, which had characterized enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA to prosecute those complying with state regulatory systems allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of medical cannabis as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources when state regulatory and enforcement efforts are effective with respect to enumerated federal enforcement priorities under the CSA. In rescinding the Cole Memo, DOJ instructed its prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions when deciding whether to pursue prosecutions related to cannabis activities. As a result, federal prosecutors could, and still can, use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute actors compliant with their state laws. Although there have not been any identified prosecutions of state law compliant cannabis entities, there can be no assurance that the federal government will not enforce federal laws against the regulated cannabis industry generally, including our tenants and us. Current Attorney General Merrick Garland has not provided a clear policy directive for the United States as it pertains to state-legal cannabis-related activities, and there can be no assurance that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce existing laws. Congress previously enacted an omnibus spending bill that includes the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment prohibiting the DOJ (which includes the DEA) from using funds appropriated by that bill to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. This provision will expire on March 8, 2024. There can be no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition in future appropriations bills to prevent DOJ from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. In USA vs. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. However, the Ninth Circuit's opinion, which only applies to the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Idaho, also held that persons who do not strictly comply with all state laws and regulations regarding the distribution, possession and cultivation of medical-use cannabis have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and in such instances the DOJ may prosecute those individuals. Furthermore, while we target the acquisition of medical-use cannabis facilities, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located. Consequently, certain of our tenants currently (and additional tenants may in the future) cultivate adult-use cannabis in our medical-use cannabis facilities, as permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to facilities where cannabis is cultivated exclusively for medical use, including not providing protection under the Congressional spending bill provision described above. Additionally, financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statutes and the Bank Secrecy Act. The penalties for violation of these laws include imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Prior to the DOJ's rescission of the Cole Memo, supplemental guidance from the DOJ issued under the Obama administration directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. This supplemental guidance was followed by the February 14, 2014 FinCEN Memorandum outlining the pathways for financial institutions to bank state-sanctioned cannabis businesses in compliance with federal enforcement priorities. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a SAR in connection with all cannabis-related banking activities by any client of such financial institution, in accordance with federal money laundering laws. These cannabis-related SARs are divided into three categories - cannabis limited, cannabis priority, and cannabis terminated - based on the financial institution's belief that the business in question follows state law, is operating outside of compliance with state law, or where the banking relationship has been terminated, respectively. The FinCEN Memorandum states that in some circumstances, it is permissible for banks to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking prosecution for violation of federal money laundering laws. Although the Cole Memo has been rescinded, the FinCEN Memorandum technically remains intact; however, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the FinCEN Memorandum. The DOJ continues to have the right and power to prosecute crimes committed by banks and financial institutions, such as money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, that occur in any state including states that have in some form legalized the sale of cannabis. Further, the conduct of the DOJ's enforcement priorities could change for any number of reasons. A change in the DOJ's priorities could result in the DOJ's prosecuting banks and financial institutions for crimes that were not previously prosecuted. Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis operations. Any change in the federal government's enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operations, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investment in cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities. Furthermore, following any such change in the federal government's enforcement position, we could be subject to criminal prosecution, which could lead to imprisonment and/or the imposition of penalties, fines, or forfeiture.

Our properties are and other properties that we expect to acquire will be subject to various laws and regulatory requirements. For example, local property regulations, including restrictive covenants of record, may restrict the use of properties we acquire and may require us to obtain approval from local authorities with respect to the properties that we expect to acquire, including prior to acquiring a property or when developing or undertaking renovations. Among other things, these restrictions may relate to cultivation, processing or dispensing of cannabis, the use of water and the discharge of waste water, fire and safety, seismic conditions, asbestos-cleanup or hazardous material abatement requirements. Our failure to obtain such regulatory approvals could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that the regulatory requirements and statutory prohibitions relating to properties used in cannabis operations will not materially and adversely affect us or the timing or cost of any future acquisitions, developments or renovations, or that additional regulations will not be adopted that would increase such delays or result in additional prohibition or costs.

As of February 27, 2024, we owned properties in 19 states, and we expect that the properties that we acquire will be geographically concentrated in these states and other states that have established cannabis programs. See "Geographic Concentration" under Item 1, "Business" for a table of properties owned by us and organized by state as of December 31, 2023. Circumstances and developments related to operations in these markets that could negatively affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations include, but are not limited to, the following factors: - the state regulated cannabis market fails to develop and grow in ways that we or our tenants projected;- the responsibility of complying with multiple and, in some respects, conflicting state and federal laws in the United States, including with respect to cultivation and distribution of cannabis, licensing, banking and insurance;- access to capital may be more restricted, or unavailable on favorable terms or at all in certain locations;- difficulties and costs of staffing and managing operations;- unexpected changes in regulatory requirements and other laws;- the impact of national, regional or state specific business cycles and economic instability; and - potentially adverse tax consequences.

We target regulated cannabis facilities for acquisition and leasing to licensed operators under triple-net lease agreements. In light of the current regulatory landscape regarding regulated cannabis, including but not limited to, the rigorous state licensing processes, limits on the number of licenses granted in certain states and in counties within such states, zoning regulations related to regulated cannabis facilities, the inability of potential tenants to open bank accounts necessary to pay rent and other expenses and the ever-changing federal and state regulatory landscape, we may have only a limited number of regulated cannabis facilities available to purchase that are operated by licensees that we believe would be suitable tenants. These tenants may also have increased access to alternative equity and debt financing sources over time, which may limit our ability to negotiate leasing arrangements that meet our investment criteria. Our inability to locate suitable investment properties and tenants would have a material adverse effect on our ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders.

Insurance that is otherwise readily available, such as workers' compensation, general liability and directors' and officers' insurance, is more difficult for us to find and more expensive, because we lease our properties to companies in the regulated cannabis industry. There are no guarantees that we will be able to find such insurance in the future, or that the cost will be affordable to us. If we are forced to go without such insurance or with less insurance than we would prefer, it may prevent us from entering into certain business sectors, may inhibit our growth, and may expose us to additional risk and financial liabilities.

Should the federal government legalize cannabis, it is possible that the FDA would seek to regulate it under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 or under the Public Health Service Act. Additionally, the FDA may issue rules, regulations, or guidance including certified good manufacturing practices, related to the growth, cultivation, harvesting and processing of medical cannabis. If regulated by the FDA as a drug, clinical trials may be needed to verify efficacy and safety. It is also possible that the FDA would require that facilities where cannabis is grown register with the FDA and comply with certain federally prescribed regulations. In the event that some or all of these regulations or enforcement actions are imposed, we do not know what the impact this would have on the cannabis industry, including what costs, requirements and possible prohibitions may be enforced. If we or our tenants are unable to comply with the regulations or registration as prescribed by the FDA, we and or our tenants may be unable to continue to operate their and our business in its current form or at all.

We have acquired and are targeting for acquisition properties that are owned by state-licensed cannabis operators. Relevant state or local laws may be amended or repealed, or new laws may be enacted in the future to eliminate existing laws permitting cannabis operations. If our tenants were forced to close their operations, we would need to replace those tenants with tenants who are not engaged in the cannabis industry, who most likely pay significantly lower rents. Moreover, any changes in state or local laws that reduce or eliminate the ability to conduct cannabis operations would likely result in a high vacancy rate for the kinds of properties that we seek to acquire, which would depress our lease rates and property values. In addition, we would realize an economic loss on any and all improvements made to properties that were specific to the cannabis industry. For example, in connection with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifying cases of vaping-related lung injuries, certain state and local governments had instituted temporary bans. In addition to litigation and reputational risks surrounding vaping-related lung injuries, bans or heightened regulations could have a material adverse impact on our tenants' operations in those states and localities where such a ban or other restrictive regulation has been implemented.

Continued development of the cannabis industry depends upon continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level. The status quo of, or progress in, the regulated cannabis industry is not assured and any number of factors could slow or halt further progress in this area. While there may be ample public support for legislative action permitting the cannabis operations, numerous factors impact the legislative process. For example, many states that voted to legalize medical and/or adult-use cannabis have seen significant delays in the drafting and implementation of industry regulations and issuance of licenses. In addition, burdensome regulation at the state level could slow or stop further development of the cannabis industry, such as limiting the medical conditions for which medical cannabis can be recommended by physicians for treatment, not strictly enforcing regulations for non-licensed cannabis operators, restricting the form in which medical cannabis can be consumed, imposing significant registration requirements on physicians and patients or imposing significant taxes on the growth, processing and/or retail sales of cannabis, which could have the impact of dampening growth of the cannabis industry and making it difficult for cannabis businesses, including our tenants, to operate profitably in those states. Any one of these factors could slow or halt additional legislative authorization of cannabis, which could harm our business prospects. For example, we believe that California's taxation of regulated cannabis at local and state governmental levels and ineffective enforcement policy with respect to illicit cannabis sales have significantly limited the growth and profitability of operators in that state. According to Global Go Analytics, the illicit market for cannabis remains a much larger portion of overall sales in the state, and state and local authorities have assessed significant taxes on regulated cannabis products, both of which have had the impact of significantly limiting the growth and profitability for operators in the state's regulated cannabis market. Recently, many states have also experienced significant declines in unit pricing for regulated cannabis products, with that decline more pronounced in certain states than in others. As a result, certain regulated cannabis operators have announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators' demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants.

A purported securities class action lawsuit has been filed against us and certain of our executive officers alleging that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding its business. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. Derivative lawsuits also have been filed against us and certain of our officers and directors asserting putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against our directors and certain of our officers.  According to the filed complaint, the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief, direction to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. See Note 11 "Commitments and Contingencies" for a full description of these actions. We will continue to incur legal fees in connection with these pending cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of our officers and directors under indemnification obligations. The expense of continuing to defend such litigation may be significant. We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. If any of the lawsuits are adversely decided, we may be liable for significant damages directly or under our indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flows. Further, the amount of time that will be required to resolve these lawsuits is unpredictable and these actions may divert management's attention from the day-to-day operations of our business, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and cash flows. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits and we may be subject to other similar securities litigation in the future. Monitoring and defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, is time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In addition, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with litigation. Although we have insurance, coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. We are not currently able to estimate the possible cost to us from the currently pending lawsuits, and we cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these matters or the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to these or future lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests on these actions could result in the payment of substantial damages and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the uncertainty of the currently pending lawsuits could lead to volatility in our stock price. The ultimate outcome of litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business and the trading price for our securities.

We have made an election to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2017. We believe that we have been organized and operated in such a manner as to qualify for taxation as a REIT under the Code for such taxable year and all subsequent taxable years to date, and intend to continue to operate in such a manner in the future. We have not requested and do not intend to request a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") that we qualify as a REIT, and the statements in this report are not binding on the Service or any court. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Treasury Department thereunder ("Treasury Regulations") for which there are limited judicial and administrative interpretations. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that we will qualify or remain qualified as a REIT. To qualify as a REIT, we must meet, on an ongoing basis, various tests regarding the nature and diversification of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions to stockholders. Our ability to satisfy these asset tests depends upon the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to manage successfully the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, new legislation, court decisions or administrative guidance, in each case possibly with retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. Thus, while we intend to operate in a manner to qualify as a REIT, in view of the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, we cannot provide assurance that we will so qualify for any particular year. These considerations also might restrict the types of income we can realize, or assets that we can acquire in the future. If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax (for taxable years beginning before December 31, 2017), on our taxable income at regular corporate rates and possibly increased state and local taxes. We will not be able to deduct distributions to our stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify, nor will we be required to make distributions to our stockholders. In such a case, we might need to borrow money, sell assets, or reduce or even cease making distributions in order to pay our taxes. Our payment of income tax would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders, to the extent of current and accumulated earnings and profits, will be taxable to the stockholders as dividend income (which may be subject to tax at preferential rates) and corporate distributions may be eligible for the dividends received deduction if they satisfy the relevant provisions of the Code. Furthermore, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our net taxable income to our stockholders. In addition, unless we were eligible for certain statutory relief provisions, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify. We might not be entitled to the statutory relief described in this paragraph in all circumstances.

We are subject to a 100% tax on any income from a prohibited transaction. "Prohibited transactions" generally include sales or other dispositions of property (other than property treated as foreclosure property under the Code) that is held as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business by a REIT, either directly or indirectly through certain pass-through subsidiaries. Although we do not intend to hold a significant amount of assets as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of our business, the characterization of an asset sale as a prohibited transaction depends on the particular facts and circumstances. The Code provides a safe harbor that, if met, allows a REIT to avoid being treated as engaged in a prohibited transaction. It is likely that we may sell certain properties that have not met all of the requirements of such safe harbor if we believe the transaction would not be a prohibited transaction based on a facts and circumstances analysis. If the Service were to successfully argue that such a sale was in fact a prohibited transaction, we would be subject to a 100% penalty tax with respect to such sale.

The severance agreements that we entered into with our executive officers provide that, if their employment with us terminates under certain circumstances (including upon a change in our control), we may be required to pay them significant amounts of severance compensation, including accelerated vesting of equity awards, thereby making it costly to terminate their employment. Furthermore, these provisions could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in our control that might involve a premium paid for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.

While the terms of our leases with our tenants generally require property and casualty insurance, losses from disaster-type occurrences, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and weather-related disasters, and other types of insurance, such as landlord's rental loss insurance, may be either uninsurable or not insurable on economically viable terms, due in part to our properties' locations, construction types and concentration on the regulated cannabis industry. Should an uninsured loss occur, we could lose our capital investment or anticipated profits and cash flows from one or more properties.

While our business objectives consist of principally acquiring and deriving rental income from industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated cannabis industry, we expect that at times we will deem it appropriate or desirable to sell or otherwise dispose of certain properties we own. These types of properties are relatively illiquid compared to other types of real estate and financial assets. This illiquidity could limit our ability to quickly dispose of properties in response to changes in regulatory, economic or other conditions. Therefore, our ability at any time to sell assets may be restricted and this lack of liquidity may limit our ability to make changes to our portfolio promptly, which could materially and adversely affect our financial performance. We cannot predict the various market conditions affecting the properties that we expect to acquire that will exist in the future. Due to the uncertainty of regulatory and market conditions which may affect the future disposition of the real estate assets we expect to acquire, we cannot assure you that we will be able to sell these assets at a profit in the future. Accordingly, the extent to which we will realize potential appreciation (or depreciation) on the real estate investments we have acquired and expect to acquire will depend upon regulatory and other market conditions. In addition, in order to maintain our REIT status, we may not be able to sell properties when we would otherwise choose to do so, due to market conditions or changes in our strategic plan. Furthermore, we may be required to make expenditures to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold and we cannot assure you that we will have funds available to correct such defects or to make such improvements. With these kinds of properties, if the current lease is terminated or not renewed, we may be required to make expenditures and rent concessions in order to lease the property to another tenant. In addition, in the event we are forced to sell or re-lease the property, we may have difficulty finding qualified purchasers who are willing to buy the property or tenants who are willing to lease the property on terms that we expect,or at all. As our properties are concentrated in the regulated cannabis industry, a shift in property preferences by regulated cannabis operators, including but not limited to changing preferences regarding location and types of improvements, could have a significant negative impact on the desirability of our properties to prospective tenants when we need to re-lease them, in addition to other challenges, such as obtaining the necessary state and local authorizations for a new tenant to commence operations at the property. These and other limitations may affect our ability to sell or re-lease properties, which may adversely affect returns to our stockholders. Certain regulated cannabis operators have recently announced that they are consolidating operations or shuttering certain operations to reduce costs, which if prolonged, could have a material negative impact on operators' demand for regulated cannabis facilities, including our existing tenants. See Note 11 "Commitments and Contingencies - Litigation" to our consolidated financial statements for more information regarding Kings Garden, Parallel and Green Peak, which defaulted on their obligations under certain leases with us.

A ground lease agreement permits a tenant to develop and/or operate a land parcel (property) during the lease period, after which the land parcel and all improvements revert back to the property owner. Under a ground lease, property improvements are owned by the property owner unless an exception is created and all relevant taxes incurred during the lease period are paid for by the tenant. Ground leases typically have a long duration generally ranging from 50 to 99 years with additional extension options. As a lessee under a ground lease, we would be exposed to the possibility of losing the property upon termination, or an earlier breach by us, of the ground lease, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the trading price of our common stock.

Our existing leases at our properties do not, and we expect that leases that we enter into with future tenants at other properties we acquire will not, prohibit cannabis operations for adult-use that is permissible under state and local laws where our facilities are located and certain of our tenants are currently engaged in operations for the adult-use cannabis industry, which may subject our tenants, us and our properties to different and greater risks, including greater prosecution risk for aiding and abetting violation of the CSA and federal laws governing money laundering. For example, the prohibition in the current omnibus spending bill that prohibits the DOJ from using funds appropriated by Congress to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws does not extend to adult-use cannabis laws. In addition, while we may purchase properties in states that only permit medical-use cannabis at the time of acquisition, such states may in the future authorize by state legislation or popular vote the legalization of adult-use cannabis, thus permitting our tenants to engage in adult-use cannabis operations at our properties. For example, a number of states permit licensed adult-use cannabis operations, and our leases with tenants in those states allow for adult-use cannabis operations to be conducted at the properties in compliance with state and local laws.