Chicago Atlantic Real Estate Finance, Inc. - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number: 001-41123

CHICAGO ATLANTIC REAL ESTATE FINANCE, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (312) 809-7002

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company”, and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the Registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the Registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b). ☐  

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2022 was approximately $264.2 million based upon the closing price reported for such date by the Nasdaq Global Market.

As of March 8, 2023, there were 18,081,731 shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent described therein.

Table of Contents 

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains information that may constitute “forward-looking statements.” Generally, the words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “may,” “plan” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements, which generally are not historical in nature. However, the absence of these words or similar expressions does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. All statements that address operating performance, events or developments that we expect or anticipate will occur in the future-including statements relating to volume growth, share of sales and earnings per share growth, and statements expressing general views about future operating results-are forward-looking statements. Management believes that these forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made. However, caution should be taken not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements because such statements speak only as of the date when made. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. In addition, forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our historical experience and our present expectations or projections. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those described in Part I, “Item 1A. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report and those described from time to time in reports that we have filed or in the future may file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The forward-looking statements contained in this report involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including statements concerning:

PART 1

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

We are a commercial real estate finance company. Our primary investment objective is to provide attractive, risk-adjusted returns for stockholders over time primarily through consistent current income dividends and other distributions and secondarily through capital appreciation. We intend to achieve this objective by originating, structuring and investing in first mortgage loans and alternative structured financings secured by commercial real estate properties. Our current portfolio is comprised primarily of senior secured loans to state-licensed operators in the cannabis industry. We expect cannabis lending will continue to be a principal investment strategy for the foreseeable future; however, we expect to also lend to or invest in companies or properties that are not related to the cannabis industry if they provide return characteristics consistent with our investment objective. From time to time, we may also invest in mezzanine loans, preferred equity or other forms of joint venture equity to the extent consistent with our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) and maintaining our qualification as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”). We may enter into credit agreements with borrowers that permit them to incur debt that ranks equally with, or senior to, the loans we extend to such companies under such credit agreements. There is no assurance that we will achieve our investment objective. We commenced operations on March 30, 2021 and completed our initial public offering (“IPO”) in December 2021.

We believe that cannabis operators’ limited access to traditional bank and non-bank financing has provided attractive opportunities for us to make loans to companies that exhibit strong fundamentals but require more customized financing structures and loan products than regulated financial institutions can provide in the current regulatory environment. We believe that continued state-level legalization of cannabis for medical and adult use creates an increased loan demand by companies operating in the cannabis industry and property owners leasing to cannabis tenants. Furthermore, we believe we are differentiated from our competitors because we seek to target operators and facilities that exhibit lower-risk characteristics on a relative basis, which we believe include generally limiting exposure to ground-up construction, lending to cannabis operators with operational and/or profitable facilities, diversification of geographies and distribution channels, among other factors.

We are externally managed by Chicago Atlantic REIT Manager, LLC (our “Manager”). Our Manager and its affiliates seek to originate real estate loans between $5 million and $200 million, generally with one- to five-year terms and amortization when terms exceed three years. We generally act as co-lenders in such transactions and intend to hold up to $50 million of the aggregate loan amount, with the remainder to be held by affiliates or third party co-investors. We may revise such concentration limits from time to time as our loan portfolio grows. Other investment vehicles managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager may co-invest with us or hold positions in a loan where we have also invested, including by means of allocating commitments, participating in loans or other means of syndicating loans. We will not engage in a co-investment transaction with an affiliate where the affiliate has a senior position to the loan held by us. To the extent that an affiliate provides financing to one of our borrowers, such loans will be working capital loans or loans that are subordinate to our loans. We may also serve as co-lenders in loans originated by third parties and, in the future, we may also acquire loans or loan participations.  

Our loans are generally secured by real estate and, when lending to owner-operators in the cannabis industry, also other collateral, such as equipment, receivables, intellectual property, licenses or other assets of the borrowers to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations governing such borrowers.

As of December 31, 2022, our portfolio is comprised primarily of first mortgages to established multi-state or single-state cannabis operators or property owners. We consider cannabis operators to be established if they are state-licensed and are deemed to be operational by the applicable state regulator. We do not own any warrants or other forms of equity in any of our portfolio companies that are involved in the cannabis industry, and we will not take warrants or equity in such issuers until permitted by applicable laws and regulations, including U.S. federal laws and regulations.

We impose strict loan covenants and seek personal or corporate guarantees for additional protection. As of December 31, 2022, 13.6% of the loans held in our portfolio are backed by personal or corporate guarantees. We aim to maintain a diversified portfolio across jurisdictions and across verticals, including cultivators, processors, dispensaries, and other businesses ancillary thereto. In addition, we may invest in borrowers that have equity securities that are publicly traded on the Canadian Stock Exchange (“CSE”) in Canada and/or over-the-counter in the United States.

We are an externally managed Maryland corporation that elected to be taxed as a REIT under Section 856 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2021. We believe that we have qualified as a REIT and that our method of operations will enable us to continue to qualify as a REIT. However, no assurances can be given that our beliefs or expectations will be fulfilled, since qualification as a REIT depends on us continuing to satisfy numerous asset, income and distribution tests described under “—U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations — Taxation,”, which in turn depend, in part, on our operating results. We also intend to operate our business in a manner that will permit us and our subsidiaries to maintain one or more exclusions or exemptions from registration under the Investment Company Act.

Our Manager

We are externally managed by our Manager pursuant to our Management Agreement. Our senior management team is provided by our Manager and includes John Mazarakis, our Executive Chairman, Anthony Cappell, our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Andreas Bodmeier, our Co-President and Chief Investment Officer, and Peter Sack, our Co-President. Our Manager is supported by additional investment professionals with significant expertise in executing our investment strategy and accounting, operational, and legal professionals.

Our Manager’s Investment Committee, which is comprised of John Mazarakis, Anthony Cappell, Dr. Andreas Bodmeier, and Peter Sack, advises and consults with our Manager and its investment professionals with respect to our investment strategy, portfolio construction, financing, investment guidelines, and risk management, and approves all of our investments. The investment professionals of our Manager have over 100 years of combined experience in private credit, real estate lending, retail, real estate acquisitions and development, investment advice, risk management, and consulting. Collectively, the investment professionals have originated, underwritten, structured, documented, managed, or syndicated over $8.0 billion in credit and real estate transactions, which includes loans to cannabis operators, loans to companies engaged in activities unrelated to cannabis, as well as commercial real estate loans. The depth and breadth of the management and investment team allows our Manager to address all facets of our operations.

Pursuant to our Management Agreement with our Manager, our Manager manages our loan portfolio and our day-to-day operations, subject at all times to the further terms and conditions set forth in our Management Agreement and such further limitations or parameters as may be imposed from time to time by our board of directors (our “Board”). Under our Management Agreement, our Manager has contractual responsibilities to us, including to provide us with a management team (whether our Manager’s own employees or individuals for which our Manager has contracted with other parties to provide services to its clients), who will be our executive officers, and the Manager’s Investment Committee. Our Manager will use its commercially reasonable efforts to perform its duties under our Management Agreement.

The initial term of our Management Agreement is for three years and shall continue until May 1, 2024. After the initial term, our Management Agreement shall automatically renew every year for an additional one-year period, unless we or our Manager elect not to renew. Our Management Agreement may be terminated by us or our Manager under certain specified circumstances.

The following table summarizes the compensation, fees and expense reimbursements that we pay to our Manager under our Management Agreement. A portion or all of the fees may be paid in shares of our common stock, at the sole discretion of our Manager.

Summary Compensation Table

Our Competitive Strengths

We expect demand for financing in the cannabis market to continue to rise due to recent and future state legalization of cannabis for recreational and medical use, while federal prohibition on cannabis use and commercialization hampers certain commercial and financial activities. We believe we are well positioned to maintain and expand our position as a credible source of financing for cannabis industry operators and other property owners with the goal of becoming the lender of choice to leading cannabis industry operators, due to the following factors:

Leading Cannabis Lending Platform. Chicago Atlantic Group, LLC (our “Sponsor”) and its affiliates have originated and closed 52 loans totaling approximately $1.8 billion to companies operating in the cannabis industry, making their first loan to a cannabis operator in April 2019. We believe we are a leading capital provider in the cannabis ecosystem with the requisite domain expertise, deep relationships, nimble execution capabilities, stringent underwriting standards, and strong risk analytics to become the lender of choice in the industry. We believe our broad network of deep relationships allows us to originate a substantial number of loans that are not broadly marketed. We believe we are differentiated from our competitors because we seek to target operators and facilities that exhibit lower-risk characteristics on a relative basis, which we believe include generally limiting exposure to ground-up construction, lending to cannabis operators with operational and profitable facilities, diversification of geographies and distribution channels, among other factors.

Sizable Portfolio with Compelling Risk-Adjusted Returns That is Secured by Different Types of Collateral. We believe our current portfolio investments have attractive risk-adjusted returns. As of December 31, 2022, the yield to maturity (“YTM”) IRR on our loans is 19.7% on a weighted average basis and ranges from 14.2% to 25.9% through coupons, OID, unused fees, and exit fees. Our loans are primarily secured by real property and certain personal property, including licenses, equipment, and other assets to the extent permitted by applicable laws and the regulations governing our borrowers.

Disciplined, “Credit-First” Underwriting Process. We have developed a systematic underwriting process that applies a consistent approach to credit review and approval, with a focus on evaluating credit first and then appropriately assessing the risk-reward profile of each loan. We subject all of our potential loans and operators to rigorous underwriting criteria. Our assessment of credit is paramount, as we seek to minimize potential credit losses through effective due diligence, structuring, and covenant design. We seek to customize each transaction structure and financial and operational covenants to reflect risks identified through the underwriting and due diligence process with the goal of maximizing risk-adjusted returns. Our Manager’s investment professionals have extensive experience with and the ability to execute on innovative financing solutions that meet the needs of cannabis operators. We also seek to actively supplement our origination and credit underwriting activities through site visits and consistent dialogue with operators and outside capital partners, if any.

Our Team’s Track Record in Identifying Market Inefficiencies. Members of our Manager’s Investment Committee have had successful careers in private credit, real estate lending, acquisitions, and development, consumer retail, investments, risk management, and consulting. We believe that our willingness and ability to invest and lend in market niches encumbered by regulatory uncertainty, where constrained or less nimble market participants are absent, offers us a distinct advantage. We believe our focus on identifying opportunities in such markets provides for commensurate returns relative to risk. Our relentless pursuit of all relevant information in connection with each transaction is a discrete focus of our investment team. We believe by carefully assessing specific challenges and because we possess the ability to understand and quantify the risks involved, we are able to effectively capitalize on market inefficiencies. We believe these types of assets provide an attractive, and often overlooked, investment opportunity.

Nimble Execution. We believe we have nimble execution capabilities, with the ability to redeploy capital more quickly than the typical REIT land ownership models because we offer shorter terms on our loans than typical equity REITs. Our current portfolio as of February 28, 2023 has an average maturity of 2.0 years with significant prepayment protections, whereas we believe that certain competitors with typical equity REIT land ownership models have long-term leases averaging approximately 16 years. The duration of our loans, as compared to the length of leases usually employed by equity REITs, allows us to redeploy our capital with more flexibility as market changes occur instead of being locked in for longer periods of time. This model also allows our borrowers to retain control of their real estate assets, which is important to their businesses and allows for more flexibility regarding their capital structure.

Our Growth Strategy

Objective

Our primary investment objective is to provide attractive, risk-adjusted returns for stockholders over time, primarily through consistent current income dividends and other distributions and secondarily through capital appreciation. We intend to achieve this objective by originating, structuring and investing in a diversified portfolio of income-producing first mortgage loans and alternative structured financings secured by commercial real estate properties. Our current portfolio is comprised primarily of senior loans to state-licensed operators in the cannabis industry, secured by real estate, equipment, receivables, licenses or other assets of the borrowers to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations governing such borrowers. We intend to grow the size of our portfolio by continuing the track record of our business by making loans to leading operators and property owners in the cannabis industry.

Key elements of our strategy include:

We intend to continue providing financing to state-licensed cannabis cultivators, processors, distributors, retailers, vertically-integrated cannabis firms, non-plant touching manufacturers, suppliers, and service providers to such industries, and other businesses ancillary thereto, located in the U.S. and Canada. We will continue to focus on operators with strong collateral, in the form of real estate, equipment and receivables owned by the borrower, and may opportunistically invest in “all asset lien” cash flow loans, to the extent that allows us to maintain our qualification as a REIT, with a strict focus on adhering to conservative underwriting criteria. Our Manager will regularly evaluate loans and intends to retain an independent third-party valuation firm to provide input on the valuation of unquoted assets, which our Manager considers along with various other subjective and objective factors when making any such evaluation. The collateral underlying our loans is located in states in the U.S. that we believe have attractive regulatory environments for companies operating in the cannabis industry, economic conditions and commercial real estate fundamentals.

An evaluation of the real estate and other collateral is an important part of our Manager’s underwriting process, but we may be limited in our ability to foreclose on certain collateral. If we expect that exercising rights and remedies available to us would lead to a lower recovery, we may instead seek to sell a defaulted loan to a third party or force the sale of collateral underlying the loan as permitted in our standard loan agreements. There may be no readily available market for our loans, so we can provide no assurances that a third party would buy such loans or that the sales price of such loans would be sufficient to recover our outstanding principal balance. For more information, see “Risk Factors — Certain assets of our borrowers may not be used as collateral or transferred to us due to applicable state laws and regulations governing the cannabis industry, and such restrictions could negatively impact our profitability.”

We may diversify our portfolio by also lending or investing in properties that are not related to the cannabis industry if they provide return characteristics consistent with our investment objective. From time to time, we may invest in mezzanine loans, preferred equity or other forms of joint venture equity.

We draw upon our Manager’s expertise in sourcing, underwriting, structuring and funding capabilities to implement our growth strategy. We believe that our current growth strategy provides significant potential opportunities to our stockholders for attractive risk-adjusted returns over time. However, to capitalize on the appropriate loan opportunities at different points in the economic and real estate investment cycle, we may modify or expand our growth strategy from time to time.

Manager’s Investment Committee

The Manager’s Investment Committee overseeing the loan portfolio and the loan origination process for us is focused on managing our credit risk through a comprehensive investment review process. As part of the investment process, the Manager’s Investment Committee must approve each loan before commitment papers are issued.

In addition, the Audit Committee of our Board may assist our Board in its oversight of the determination of the fair value of assets that are not publicly traded or for which current market values are not readily available by evaluating various subjective and objective factors, including input provided by an independent valuation firm that we currently retain to provide input on the valuation of such assets.

Our Portfolio

Overview

As of February 28, 2023, loans to 24 different borrowers comprise our portfolio, totaling approximately $364.1 million in total principal amount, with approximately $14.9 million in potential future fundings to such borrowers. As of February 28, 2023, our loan portfolio had a weighted-average yield-to-maturity internal rate of return (“YTM IRR”) of 19.1% and was secured by real estate and, with respect to certain of our loans, substantially all assets in the borrowers and certain of their subsidiaries, including equipment, receivables, and licenses. The YTM IRR on our loans is designed to present the total annualized return anticipated on the loans if such loans are held until they mature, which is consistent with our operating strategy. YTM IRR summarizes various components of such return, such as cash interest, paid-in-kind interest, original issue discount, and exit fees, in one measure that is comparable across loans. YTM IRR is calculated using various inputs, including (i) cash and paid-in-kind (“PIK”) interest, which is capitalized and added to the outstanding principal balance of the applicable loan, (ii) original issue discount (“OID”), (iii) amortization, (iv) unused fees, and (v) exit fees. Certain of our loans have extension fees, which are not included in our YTM IRR calculations, but may increase YTM IRR if such extension options are exercised by borrowers.

As of February 28, 2023, approximately 83.9% of our portfolio was comprised of floating rate loans, and 16.1% of our portfolio was comprised of fixed rate loans. As of such date, all of our loans had prepayment penalties.

The table below summarizes our loan portfolio as of February 28, 2023.

Collateral Overview

Our loans to cannabis operators are secured by various types of assets of our borrowers, including real property and certain personal property, including licenses, equipment, receivables, and other assets to the extent permitted by applicable laws and the regulations governing our borrowers. As such, we do not have liens on cannabis inventory and cannot foreclose on liens on state licenses as they are generally not transferable. See “Risk Factors — Certain assets of our borrowers may not be used as collateral or transferred to us due to applicable state laws and regulations governing the cannabis industry, and such restrictions could negatively impact our profitability.”

The table below represents the real estate collateral securing our loans as of December 31, 2022. The real estate collateral values in the table below were measured at the time of underwriting and based on various sources of data available at such time. In addition, the real estate that secures our loans is appraised by a third party at least once a year, or more frequently as needed.

In the event that a borrower defaults on its loan, we have a number of potential remedies that we may pursue, depending on the nature of the default, the size of the loan, the value of the underlying collateral and the financial condition of the borrower. We may seek to sell the loan to a third party, provide consent to allow the borrower to sell the real estate to a third party, institute a foreclosure proceeding to have the real estate sold or evict the tenant, have the cannabis operations removed from the property and take title to the underlying real estate. We believe the appraised value of the real estate underlying our loans impacts the amount of the recovery we would receive in each such scenario. However, the amount of any such recovery will likely be less than the appraised value of the real estate and may not be sufficient to pay off the remaining balance on the defaulted loan.

We may pursue a sale of a defaulted loan if we believe that such sale would yield higher proceeds or that the sale could be accomplished more quickly than through a foreclosure proceeding while yielding proceeds comparable to what would be expected from a foreclosure sale. To the extent that we determine that the proceeds are more likely to be maximized through instituting a foreclosure sale or through taking title to the underlying property, we will be subject to the rules and regulations under state law that govern foreclosure sales and NASDAQ listing standards that do not permit us to take title to real estate while it is being used to conduct cannabis-related activities. If we foreclose on properties securing our loans, we may have difficulty selling such properties and may be forced to sell a property to a lower quality operator or to a party outside of the cannabis industry. Therefore, appraisal-based real estate collateral values shown in the table below may not equal the value of such real estate if it were to be sold to a third party in a foreclosure or similar proceeding. We may seek to sell a defaulted loan prior to commencing a foreclosure proceeding or during a foreclosure proceeding to a purchaser that is not required to comply with NASDAQ listing standards. We believe a third-party purchaser that is not subject to NASDAQ listing standards may be able to realize greater value from real estate and other collateral securing our loans. However, we can provide no assurances that a third party would buy such loans or that the sales price of such loans would be sufficient to recover the outstanding principal balance, accrued interest, and fees. See “Risk Factors — We will not own real estate as long as it is used in cannabis-related operations due to current statutory prohibitions and exchange listing standards, which may delay or limit our remedies in the event that any of our borrowers default under the terms of their mortgage loans with us.”

Further, the value may also be determined using the income approach, based on market lease rates for comparable properties, whether dispensaries or cultivation facilities. It indicates the value to a third-party owner that leases to a dispensary or cultivation facility.

Finally, the appraisal contains a value based on the cost for another operator to construct a similar facility, which we refer to as the “cost approach.” We believe the cost approach provides an indication of what another state-licensed operator would pay for a separate facility instead of constructing it itself.

The appraisal’s opinion of value reflects current conditions and the likely actions of market participants as of the date of appraisal. It is based on the available information gathered and provided to the appraiser and does not predict future performance. Changing market or property conditions can and likely will have an effect on the subject’s value.

Revolving Credit Facility

In May 2021, in connection with the Company’s acquisition of its wholly-owned financing subsidiary, Chicago Atlantic Lincoln, LLC (“CAL”), the Company was assigned a secured revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Loan”). The Revolving Loan had an original aggregate borrowing base of up to $10,000,000 and bore interest, payable in cash in arrears, at a per annum rate equal to the greater of (x) Prime Rate plus 1.00% and (y) 4.75%. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $100,000 related to the origination of the Revolving Loan, which were capitalized and are subsequently being amortized through maturity. The maturity date of the Revolving Loan was the earlier of (i) February 12, 2023 and (ii) the date on which the Revolving Loan is terminated pursuant to terms in the Revolving Loan Agreement.

On December 16, 2021, CAL entered into an amended and restated Revolving Loan agreement (the “First Amendment and Restatement”). The First Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $10,000,000 to $45,000,000 and decreased the interest rate, from the greater of the (1) Prime Rate plus 1.00% and (2) 4.75% to the greater of (1) the Prime Rate plus the applicable margin and (2) 3.25%. The applicable margin is derived from a floating rate grid based upon the ratio of debt to equity of CAL and increases from 0% at a ratio of 0.25 to 1 to 1.25% at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. The First Amendment and Restatement also extended the maturity date from February 12, 2023 to the earlier of (i) December 16, 2023 and (ii) the date on which the Revolving Loan is terminated pursuant to the terms of the Revolving Loan agreement. The Company has the option to extend the initial term for an additional one-year term, provided no events of default exist and the Company provides the required notice of the extension pursuant to the First Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $859,500 related to the First Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently being amortized through maturity.

On May 12, 2022, CAL entered into a second amended and restated Revolving Loan agreement (the “Second Amendment and Restatement”). The Second Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $45,000,000 to $65,000,000. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Second Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $177,261 related to the Second Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently amortized through maturity.

On November 7, 2022, CAL entered into a third amended and restated Revolving Loan agreement (the “Third Amendment and Restatement”). The Third Amendment and Restatement increased the loan commitment from $65,000,000 to $92,500,000. No other material terms of the Revolving Loan were modified as a result of the execution of the Third Amendment and Restatement. The Company incurred debt issuance costs of $323,779 related to the Third Amendment and Restatement, which were capitalized and are subsequently amortized through maturity. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, unamortized debt issuance costs related to the Revolving Loan and the First, Second and Third Amendments and Restatements of $805,596 and $868,022, respectively, are recorded in other receivables and assets, net on the consolidated balance sheets.

The Revolving Loan incurs unused fees at a rate of 0.25% per annum which began on July 1, 2022 pursuant to the Second Amendment and Restatement. Additionally, during the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company borrowed $58.0 million against the Revolving Loan, which incurred an effective interest rate of 7.75% including the unused fee rate of 0.25%, and $34.5 million available under the Revolving Loan.

The Third Amendment and Restatement provides for certain affirmative covenants, including requiring us to deliver financial information and any notices of default, and conducting business in the normal course. Additionally, the Company must comply with certain financial covenants including: (1) maximum capital expenditures of $150,000, (2) maintaining a debt service coverage ratio greater than 1.35 to 1, and (3) maintaining a leverage ratio less than 1.50 to 1. As of December 31, 2022, we were in compliance with all financial covenants with respect to the Revolving Loan.

On February 27, 2023, CAL entered into the First Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement. This amendment extended the contractual maturity date of the Revolving Loan until December 16, 2024. The Company retained its option to extend the initial term for an additional one-year period, provided no events of default exist and the Company provides 365 days’ notice of the extension pursuant to this amendment.

As of December 31, 2022, we had an outstanding balance of $58.0 million and $34.5 million available under the Revolving Loan.

Government Regulation

Our operations are subject to regulation, supervision, and licensing under various United States, state, provincial, and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. In general, lending is a highly regulated industry in the United States and we are required to comply with, among other statutes and regulations, certain provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the USA Patriot Act, regulations promulgated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, and U.S. federal and state securities laws and regulations. In addition, certain states have adopted laws or regulations that may, among other requirements, require licensing of lenders and financiers, prescribe disclosures of certain contractual terms, impose limitations on interest rates and other charges, and limit or prohibit certain collection practices and creditor remedies. We are required to comply with the applicable laws and regulations in the states in which we do business. We actively monitor proposed changes to relevant legal and regulatory requirements in order to maintain our compliance.

Federal Laws Applicable to the Cannabis Industry 

Cannabis (with the exception of hemp containing no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight) is illegal under U.S. federal law. In those states in which the use of cannabis has been legalized, its use remains a violation of federal law pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (the “CSA”). The CSA classifies marijuana (cannabis) as a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such, both medical and adult use cannabis are illegal under U.S. federal law. Moreover, on two separate occasions the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CSA trumps state law. That means that the federal government may enforce U.S. drug laws against companies operating in accordance with state cannabis laws, creating a climate of legal uncertainty regarding the production and sale of cannabis. Unless and until Congress amends the CSA with respect to cannabis (and the President approves such amendment), there is a risk that the federal law enforcement authorities responsible for enforcing the CSA, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), may enforce current federal law.

Under the Obama administration, the DOJ previously issued memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” on August 29, 2013, providing internal guidance to federal prosecutors concerning enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA. This guidance essentially characterized use of federal law enforcement resources to prosecute those complying with state laws allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of cannabis as an inefficient use of such federal resources where states have enacted laws legalizing cannabis in some form and have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, processing, distribution, sale and possession of cannabis. Conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations was not a priority for the DOJ. Instead, the Cole Memo identified a list of federal enforcement priorities, including preventing interstate diversion or distribution of cannabis to minors, to focus enforcement efforts against operations that implicated these priorities.

On January 4, 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a written memorandum rescinding the Cole Memo and related internal guidance issued by the DOJ regarding federal law enforcement priorities involving cannabis (the “Sessions Memo”). The Sessions Memo instructs federal prosecutors to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutors 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. The Sessions Memo states that “these principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.” The Sessions Memo went on to state that given the DOJ’s well-established general principles, “previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana is unnecessary and is rescinded, effective immediately.” 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 relating to cannabis in the future and it remains unclear what impact the Sessions Memo will have on the regulated cannabis industry, if any.

Jeff Sessions resigned as U.S. Attorney General on November 7, 2018. On February 14, 2019, William Barr was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General. However, in a written response to questions from U.S. Senator Cory Booker made as a nominee, Attorney General Barr stated “I do not intend to go after parties who have complied with state law in reliance on the Cole Memo.” The DOJ under Mr. Barr did not take a formal position on federal enforcement of laws relating to cannabis. Mr. Barr has stated publicly that his preference would be to have a uniform federal rule against cannabis, but, absent such a uniform rule, his preference would be to permit the existing federal approach of leaving it up to the states to make their own decisions. During Attorney General Merrick Garland’s confirmation process, after being nominated by President Biden, he stated “I do not think it is the best use of the Department’s limited resources to pursue prosecution of those who are complying with the law in states that have legalized and are effectively regulating marijuana.” While Attorney General Garland’s view aligns with the policies set forth in the Cole Memo, the Cole Memo has not been formally re-adopted or updated, and there can be no assurances that DOJ or other law enforcement authorities will not seek to vigorously enforce existing laws.

One legislative safeguard for the medical cannabis industry, appended to federal appropriations legislation, remains in place. Commonly referred to as the “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer” or “Rohrabacher-Farr” Amendment, this so-called “rider” provision has been appended to the Consolidated Appropriations Acts since 2015. Under the terms of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer rider, the federal government is prohibited from using congressionally appropriated funds to enforce federal cannabis laws against regulated medical cannabis actors operating in compliance with state and local law. On December 27, 2020, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill that again included the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, extending its application until September 30, 2021. The amendment was recently renewed through September 2023 as a rider to the 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act. There is no assurance that Congress will approve inclusion of a similar prohibition on DOJ spending in the appropriations bills for future years. In United States v. McIntosh, the United States Circuit 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 in 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. Similarly, the United States Circuit Court for the First Circuit also considered the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment in United States v. Bilodeau and likewise concluded that the Amendment does not prohibit federal prosecution of persons and entities engaged in medical cannabis operations that violate state law. In that same opinion, however, the Court concluded that “strict” compliance with the law is not necessary, such that technical noncompliance could not lead to prosecution.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where our borrowers operate will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis production, processing or distribution. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis operators, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where our borrowers operate, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investments, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities.

State Laws Applicable to the Cannabis Industry

In most states that have legalized cannabis in some form, the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis generally requires that the operator obtain one or more licenses in accordance with applicable state requirements. In addition, many states regulate various aspects of the growing, processing and/or dispensing of cannabis. Local governments in some cases also impose rules and regulations on the manner of operating cannabis businesses. As a result, applicable state and local laws and regulations vary widely, including, but not limited to, product testing, the level of enforcement by state and local authorities on non-licensed cannabis operators, state and local taxation of regulated cannabis products, local municipality bans on operations and operator licensing processes and renewals.

There is no guarantee that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed, amended or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions. Unless and until the United States Congress amends or repeals the CSA with respect to medical and/or adult-use cannabis (and as to the timing or scope of any such potential amendment or repeal there can be no assurance), there is a risk that federal authorities may enforce current federal law. If the federal government begins to enforce federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected.

Laws Applicable to Financial Services for Cannabis Industry

All banks are subject to federal law, whether the bank is a national bank or state-chartered bank. At a minimum, all banks maintain federal deposit insurance which requires adherence to federal law. Violation of federal law could subject a bank to loss of its charter. 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. For example, under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks must report to the federal government any suspected illegal activity, which would include any transaction associated with a cannabis-related business. These reports must be filed even though the business is operating in compliance with applicable state and local laws. Therefore, financial institutions that conduct transactions with money generated by cannabis-related conduct could face criminal liability under the Bank Secrecy Act for, among other things, failing to identify or report financial transactions that involve the proceeds of cannabis-related violations of the CSA.

Despite these laws, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a memorandum on February 14, 2014 (the “2014 FinCEN Memorandum”) outlining the pathways for financial institutions to bank state-sanctioned cannabis businesses in compliance with federal enforcement priorities. Concurrently with the FinCEN Memorandum, the DOJ issued supplemental guidance directing federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo with respect to federal money laundering, unlicensed money transmitter and Bank Secrecy Act offenses based on cannabis-related violations of the CSA. The FinCEN Memorandum sets forth extensive requirements for financial institutions to meet if they want to offer bank accounts to cannabis-related businesses and echoed the enforcement priorities of the Cole Memo. Under these guidelines, financial institutions must submit a Suspicious Activity Report (“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. This is a level of scrutiny that is far beyond what is expected of any normal banking relationship.

As a result, many banks are hesitant to offer any banking services to cannabis-related businesses, including opening bank accounts. While we currently maintain banking relationships, our inability to maintain those accounts or the lack of access to bank accounts or other banking services in the future, would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges. Similarly, if our borrowers are unable to access banking services, they will not be able to enter into loan agreements with us, as our agreements require interest payments to be made by check or wire transfer.

The rescission of the Cole Memo has not yet affected the status of the FinCEN Memorandum, nor has the Department of the Treasury given any indication that it intends to rescind the FinCEN Memorandum itself. Although the FinCEN Memorandum remains intact, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the guidelines of 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.

The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry.

Seasonality

Our business has not been, and we do not expect it to become subject to, material seasonal fluctuations.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations 

We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Code, commencing with our taxable period ended December 31, 2021. We believe that we have qualified as a REIT and that our method of operation will enable us to continue to qualify as a REIT.

So long as we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we generally are not subject to U.S. federal income tax on the portion of our taxable income or capital gain that is distributed to stockholders annually. This treatment substantially eliminates the “double taxation” (i.e., at both the corporate and stockholder levels) that typically results from investment in a corporation.

Notwithstanding our qualification as a REIT, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax as follows:

We will use the calendar year both for U.S. federal income tax purposes and for financial reporting purposes.

Requirements for Qualification. To qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must elect to be treated as a REIT and must meet various (a) organizational requirements, (b) gross income tests, (c) asset tests and (d) annual distribution requirements.

Organizational Requirements. A REIT must be organized as a corporation, trust or association:

The Code provides that conditions (1) through (4) must be met during our entire taxable year, and that condition (5) must be met during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months, or during a proportionate part of a taxable year of less than 12 months. The Charter provides for restrictions regarding transfer of our capital stock, in order to assist us in continuing to satisfy the share ownership requirements described in (5) and (6) above.

We will be treated as having satisfied condition (6) above if we comply with the regulatory requirements to request information from our stockholders regarding their actual ownership of our common stock, and we do not know, or in exercising reasonable diligence would not have known, that we failed to satisfy this condition. If we fail to comply with these regulatory requirements for any taxable year we will be subject to a penalty of $25,000, or $50,000 if such failure was intentional. However, if our failure to comply was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, no penalties will be imposed.

Gross Income Tests. We must satisfy the following two separate gross income tests each year:

Interest income that we receive will satisfy the 75% gross income test (as described above) to the extent that it is derived from a loan that is adequately secured by a mortgage on real property or on interests in real property (including, in the case of a loan secured by both real property and personal property, such personal property if it does not exceed 15% of the total fair market value of all of the property securing the loan). If a loan is secured by both real property and other property (and such other property is not treated as real property as described above), and the highest principal amount of the loan outstanding during a taxable year exceeds the fair market value of the real property securing the loan, determined as of (a) the date we agreed to acquire or originate the loan or (b) in the event of a “significant modification,” the date we modified the loan, then a part of the interest income from such loan equal to the percentage amount by which the loan exceeds the value of the real property will not be qualifying income for purposes of the 75% gross income test, but may be qualifying income for purposes of the 95% gross income test.

From time to time, we may invest in mezzanine loans. The IRS has provided a safe harbor with respect to the treatment of a mezzanine loan as a loan and therefore as a qualifying asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, but not rules of substantive law. Pursuant to the safe harbor, if a mezzanine loan meets certain requirements, it will be treated by the IRS as a qualifying real estate asset for purposes of the REIT asset tests, and interest derived from the mezzanine loan will be treated as qualifying mortgage interest for purposes of the REIT 75% income test. However, structuring a mezzanine loan to meet the requirements of the safe harbor may not always be practical. To the extent that any of our mezzanine loans do not meet all of the requirements for reliance on the safe harbor, such loans might not be properly treated as qualifying loans for REIT purposes.

If we receive contingent interest that is based on the cash proceeds realized upon the sale of the property securing the loan, then the income attributable to the participation feature will be treated as gain from the sale of the underlying real property and will satisfy both the 75% and 95% gross income tests provided that the property is not held by the borrower as inventory or dealer property. Interest income that we receive from a loan in which all or a portion of the interest income payable is contingent on the gross receipts or sales of the borrower will generally be qualifying income for purposes of both the 75% and 95% gross income tests.

We may receive fee income in a number of circumstances, including from loans that we originate. Fee income, including prepayment penalties, loan assumption fees and late payment charges that are not compensation for services, generally will be qualifying income for purposes of both the 75% and 95% gross income tests if it is received in consideration for us entering or having entered into an agreement to make a loan secured by real property or an interest in real property and the fees are not determined by income or profits of the borrower. Other fees generally are not qualifying income for purposes of either gross income test. Fees earned by any TRSs are not included in computing the 75% and 95% gross income tests, and thus neither assist nor hinder our compliance with these tests.

Prohibited Transactions. Net income from prohibited transactions is subject to a 100% tax. The term “prohibited transaction” generally includes a sale or other disposition of property (other than foreclosure property) that is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. Whether property is held “primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business” depends on the specific facts and circumstances. The Code provides a safe harbor pursuant to which sales of assets held for at least two years and meeting certain additional requirements will not be treated as prohibited transactions, but compliance with the safe harbor may not always be practical. We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that no asset that we own (or are treated as owning) will be treated as, or as having been, held as inventory or for sale to customers and that a sale of any such asset will not be treated as having been in the ordinary course of our business. 

Effect of Subsidiary Entities. A TRS is a corporation in which we directly or indirectly own stock and that jointly with us elects to be treated as our TRS under Section 856(l) of the Code. A TRS is subject to U.S. federal income tax and state and local income tax, where applicable, as a regular C corporation. Generally, a TRS can engage in activities that, if conducted by us other than through a TRS, could result in the receipt of non-qualified income or the ownership of non-qualified assets. However, several provisions regarding the arrangements between a REIT and its TRSs ensure that a TRS will be subject to an appropriate level of U.S. federal income taxation. For example, we will be obligated to pay a 100% penalty tax on some payments that we receive or certain other amounts or on certain expenses deducted by the TRS if the economic arrangements among us, our borrowers and/or the TRS are not comparable to similar arrangements among unrelated parties.

We may own interests in one or more TRSs that may receive management fee income and/or hold assets or generate income that could cause us to fail the REIT income or asset tests or subject it to the 100% tax on prohibited transactions. Our TRSs may incur significant amounts of U.S. federal, state and local income taxes and, if doing business or owning property outside of the United States, significant non-U.S. taxes.

Relief Provisions for Failing the 75% or the 95% Gross Income Tests. If we fail to satisfy one or both of the 75% or 95% gross income tests for any taxable year, we may nevertheless qualify as a REIT for that year if we are entitled to relief under provisions of the Code. Relief provisions are generally available if:

However, it is not possible to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to the benefit of these relief provisions. As discussed above, even if the relief provisions apply, a tax will be imposed with respect to some or all of our excess nonqualifying gross income, reduced by approximated expenses.

Asset Tests. We must satisfy the following tests relating to the nature of our assets at the close of each quarter of our taxable year:

The term “securities” generally includes debt securities issued by a partnership or another REIT. However, “straight debt” securities and certain other obligations, including loans to individuals or estates, certain specified loans to partnerships, certain specified rental agreements and securities issued by REITs are not treated as “securities” for purposes of the “10% value” asset test. “Straight debt” means a written unconditional promise to pay on demand or on a specified date a sum certain in cash if (i) the debt is not convertible, directly or indirectly, into stock, (ii) the interest rate and interest payment dates are not contingent on profits, the borrower’s discretion, or similar factors (subject to certain specified exceptions), and (iii) the issuer is either not a corporation or partnership, or the only securities of the issuer held by us, and certain of our TRSs, subject to a de minimis exception, are straight debt and other specified assets.

The above asset tests must be satisfied not only on the date that we acquire securities in the applicable issuer, but also at the close of each quarter in which we acquire any security or other property. After initially meeting the asset tests at the beginning of any quarter, we will not lose our REIT status if we fail to satisfy the asset tests at the end of a later quarter solely by reason of changes in the relative values of our assets. If the failure to satisfy the asset tests results from the acquisition of securities or other property during a quarter, the failure can be cured by a disposition of sufficient non-qualifying assets or acquisition of sufficient qualifying assets within 30 days after the close of that quarter. Although we plan to take steps to ensure that we satisfy such steps for any quarter with respect to which retesting is to occur, there can be no assurance that such steps will always be successful, or will not require a reduction in our overall interest in an issuer. If we fail to cure the noncompliance with the asset tests within this 30-day period, we could fail to qualify as a REIT.

In certain cases, we may avoid disqualification for any taxable year if we fail to satisfy the asset tests after the 30-day cure period. We will be deemed to have met certain of the REIT asset tests if the value of our non-qualifying assets for such tests (i) does not exceed the lesser of (a) 1% of the total value of our assets at the end of the applicable quarter or (b) $10,000,000, and (ii) we dispose of the non-qualifying assets within six months after the last day of the quarter in which the failure to satisfy the asset tests is discovered. For violations due to reasonable cause rather than willful neglect that are in excess of the de minimis exception described above, we may avoid disqualification as a REIT, after the 30-day cure period, by taking steps including (i) the disposition of sufficient assets to meet the asset test within six months after the last day of the quarter in which the failure to satisfy the asset tests is discovered, (ii) paying a tax equal to the greater of (a) $50,000 or (b) the highest corporate tax rate multiplied by the net income generated by the non-qualifying assets, and (iii) disclosing certain information to the IRS. If we fail the asset test and cannot avail ourselves of these relief provisions, we may fail to qualify as a REIT.

Annual Distribution Requirements. We are required to distribute dividends (other than capital gain dividends) to our stockholders in an amount at least equal to (i) the sum of (a) 90% of our REIT taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and our net capital gain) and (b) 90% of the net income (after tax), if any, from foreclosure property, minus (ii) the sum of specified items of noncash income. Dividends must be paid in the taxable year to which they relate, or in the following taxable year if declared before we timely file our tax return for that year and if paid on or before the first regular dividend payment after the declaration. To the extent that we do not distribute all of our net capital gain or distribute at least 90%, but less than 100%, of our REIT taxable income, as adjusted, we will be subject to tax on the undistributed amount at regular ordinary and capital gains corporate tax rates, as applicable. We may designate all or a portion of our undistributed net capital gains as being includable in the income of our stockholders as gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. If so, the stockholders receive an increase in the basis of their stock in the amount of the income recognized. Stockholders are also to be treated as having paid their proportionate share of the capital gains tax imposed on us on the undistributed amounts and receive a corresponding decrease in the basis of their stock. Furthermore, if we should fail to distribute during each calendar year at least the sum of (1) 85% of our REIT ordinary income for that year, (2) 95% of our REIT capital gain net income for that year and (3) any undistributed taxable income from prior periods, we would be subject to a 4% excise tax on the excess of the Required Distribution over the sum of (a) the amounts actually distributed and (b) the undistributed amounts on which certain taxes are imposed on us. We intend to make timely distributions sufficient to satisfy all annual distribution requirements.

From time to time, we may experience timing differences between (1) the actual receipt of income and actual payment of deductible expenses and (2) the inclusion of that income and deduction of those expenses in arriving at our taxable income. Further, from time to time, we may be allocated a share of net capital gain attributable to the sale of depreciated property that exceeds our allocable share of cash attributable to that sale. Additionally, we may incur cash expenditures that are not currently deductible for tax purposes. As such, we may have less cash available for distribution than is necessary to meet our annual 90% distribution requirement or to avoid tax with respect to capital gain or the excise tax imposed on specified undistributed income. To meet the 90% distribution requirement necessary to qualify as a REIT or to avoid tax with respect to capital gain or the excise tax imposed on specified undistributed income, we may find it appropriate to arrange for short-term (or possibly long-term) borrowings or to pay distributions in the form of taxable stock dividends (discussed immediately below) or engage in other potentially adverse transactions.

Under some 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 disqualified as a REIT or taxed on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends. However, we will be required to pay interest based upon the amount of any deduction taken for deficiency dividends.

Record Keeping Requirements. To elect taxation as a REIT under applicable Treasury regulations, we must maintain records and request information from our stockholders designed to disclose the actual ownership of our stock. We intend to comply with these requirements.

Affiliated REITs.    If any REIT in which we acquire an interest fails to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year, that failure could, depending on the circumstances, adversely affect our ability to satisfy the various asset and income requirements applicable to REITs, including the requirement that REITs generally may not own, directly or indirectly, more than 10% of the securities of another corporation that is not a REIT or a TRS, as further described above.

Failure to Qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes in any taxable year and the relief provisions do not apply, we will be subject to tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. Distributions to stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify will not be deductible by us, nor will we be required to make those distributions. If we fail to so qualify and the relief provisions do not apply, to the extent of current and accumulated earnings and profits, all distributions to stockholders generally will be taxable at capital gain rates if certain minimum holding period requirements are met, and, subject to specified limitations of the Code, corporate distributees may be eligible for the dividends received deduction. Unless entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, we will also be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify as a REIT. It is not possible to state whether in all circumstances we would be entitled to statutory relief.

The Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act made significant structural reforms to the financial services industry. For example, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, various federal agencies have promulgated, or are in the process of promulgating, regulations with respect to various issues that may affect our Company. Certain regulations have already been adopted and others remain under consideration by various governmental agencies, in some cases past the deadlines set in the Dodd-Frank Act for adoption. It is possible that regulations that will be adopted in the future will apply to us or that existing regulations that are currently not applicable to us will begin to apply to us as our business evolves.

Investment Company Act

We have not been and are not currently required to be registered under the Investment Company Act pursuant to Section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act.

Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is or holds itself out as being engaged primarily in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities. Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act defines an investment company as any issuer that is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of the issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis, which we refer to as the 40% test. Real estate mortgages are excluded from the term “investment securities.”

We rely on the exception set forth in Section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act, which excludes from the definition of investment company “[a]ny person who is not engaged in the business of issuing redeemable securities, face-amount certificates of the installment type or periodic payment plan certificates, and who is primarily engaged in one or more of the following business . . . (C) purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The SEC generally requires that, for the exception provided by Section 3(c)(5) to be available, at least 55% of an entity’s assets be comprised of mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate, also known as “qualifying interests,” and at least another 25% of the entity’s assets must be comprised of additional qualifying interests or real estate-type interests (with no more than 20% of the entity’s assets comprised of miscellaneous assets). We believe we qualify for the exemption under this section and our current intention is to continue to focus on originating and investing in loans collateralized by real estate so that at least 55% of our assets are “qualifying interests” and no more than 20% of our assets are miscellaneous assets. However, if, in the future, we do acquire assets that do not meet this test, we may qualify as an “investment company” and be required to register as such under the Investment Company Act, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

The Investment Company Act provides certain protections and imposes certain restrictions on registered investment companies, none of which are currently applicable to us. Our governing documents do not permit any transfer of shares of our common stock that would result in us becoming subject to regulation as an investment company. If we were required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act, we would become subject to substantial regulation with respect to our capital structure (including our ability to use leverage), management, operations, transactions with affiliated persons (as defined in the Investment Company Act), portfolio composition, including restrictions with respect to diversification and industry concentration, and other matters.

Competition

We operate in a competitive market for the origination and acquisition of attractive lending opportunities. We compete with a variety of institutional investors, including other REITs, debt funds, specialty finance companies, savings and loan associations, banks, mortgage bankers, insurance companies, institutional investors, investment banking firms, financial institutions, private equity and hedge funds, and other entities. Some of our competitors are substantially larger and have considerably greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we do. Several of our competitors, including other REITs, have recently raised, or are expected to raise, significant amounts of capital and may have investment objectives that overlap with our investment objective, which may create additional competition for lending and other investment opportunities. Some of our competitors may have a lower cost of funds and access to funding sources that may not be available to us or are only available to us on substantially less attractive terms. Many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with REIT tax compliance or maintenance of an exclusion or exemption from the Investment Company Act. In addition, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more lending relationships than we do. Competition may result in realizing fewer investments, higher prices, acceptance of greater risk, greater defaults, lower yields or a narrower spread of yields over our borrowing costs. In addition, competition for attractive investments could delay the investment of our capital.

In the face of this competition, we have access to our Manager’s professionals and their financing industry expertise, which may provide us with a competitive advantage in competing effectively for attractive investment opportunities and help us assess risks and determine appropriate pricing for certain potential investments. Although we believe our Manager’s expertise and our flexible funding structure provide us with valuable competitive advantages, we may not be able to achieve our business goals or expectations due to the competitive risks that we face. For additional information concerning these competitive risks, see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Business and Growth Strategy.”

Human Capital

We are externally managed by our Manager pursuant to the Management Agreement between our Manager and us. Our officers also serve as officers or employees of our Manager and/or its affiliates. We do not have any employees.

Additional Information

We file with or submit to the SEC annual, quarterly, and current periodic reports, proxy statements and other information meeting the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). This information is available on our website at www.investors.refi.reit. The information on our website is not deemed incorporated by reference in this Annual Report. These documents also may be accessed through the SEC’s electronic data gathering, analysis and retrieval system via electronic means, including on the SEC’s homepage, which can be found at www.sec.gov.

Item 1A. Risk Factors 

An investment in our common stock involves a high degree of risk and should be considered highly speculative. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the following risk factors, which address the material risks concerning our business and an investment in our common stock. If any of the risks discussed below occur, our business, prospects, liquidity, funds from operations, internal rate of return, financial condition and results of operations, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected, in which case the value of our common stock could decline significantly and you could lose all or part of your investment. Some statements in the following risk factors constitute forward-looking statements.

Risk Factors Summary

The following is a summary of the principal risks and uncertainties that could adversely affect our business, cash flows, financial condition and/or results of operations, and these adverse impacts may be material. This summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the more detailed descriptions of the risks and uncertainties included in this Item 1A below and you should read this summary together with those more detailed descriptions. These principal risk and uncertainties relate to, among other things:

Risks Related to Our Business and Growth Strategy

Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry and Related Regulations

Risks Related to Sources of Financing Our Business

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Risks Related to Our Business and Growth Strategy

We were recently formed and have limited operating history, and may not be able to operate our business successfully or to generate sufficient revenue to make or sustain distributions to our stockholders.

We were formed on March 30, 2021 and have a limited operating history. As of December 31, 2022, our portfolio consisted of loans to 22 different borrowers. We are subject to all of the business risks and uncertainties associated with any new business, including the risk that we will not achieve our investment objective and that the value of your investment could decline substantially. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or profitably, or implement our operating policies. Our ability to provide attractive returns to our stockholders is dependent on our ability both to generate sufficient cash flow to pay our investors attractive distributions and to achieve capital appreciation, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to do either. There can be no assurance that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and make or sustain distributions to stockholders. Our limited resources may also materially and adversely impact our ability to successfully implement our business plan. The results of our operations and the implementation of our business plan depend on several factors, including the availability of opportunities to make loans, the availability of adequate equity and debt financing, the federal and state regulatory environment relating to the cannabis industry (which are described below under “— Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry and Related Regulations”), conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions.

Competition for the capital that we provide may reduce the return of our loans, which could adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We compete as an alternative financing provider of debt financing to companies in the cannabis industry. Several competitors have recently entered the marketplace, and these competitors may prevent us from making attractive loans on favorable terms. Our competitors may have greater resources than we do and may be able to compete more effectively as a capital provider. In particular, larger companies may enjoy significant competitive advantages that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital and enhanced operating efficiencies.

Additionally, some of our competitors may have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which could allow them to consider a wider variety of loans, deploy more aggressive pricing and establish more relationships than us. Our competitors may also adopt loan structures similar to ours, which would decrease our competitive advantage in offering flexible loan terms. In addition, due to a number of factors (including, but not limited to, potentially greater clarity and/or unification of the laws and regulations governing cannabis by states and the federal government, including through federal legislation or descheduling of cannabis, which may, in turn, encourage additional federally-chartered banks to provide their services to cannabis-related businesses), the number of entities and the amount of funds competing to provide suitable capital may increase, resulting in loans with terms less favorable to investors. Moreover, we strategically benefit from the cannabis industry’s currently constrained access to U.S. capital markets and if such access is broadened, including if the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) and/or the Nasdaq Stock Market were to permit the listing of plant-touching cannabis companies in the U.S., the demand among U.S. cannabis companies for private equity investments and debt financings, including our target loans, may materially decrease and could result in our competing with financial institutions that we otherwise would not. Any of the foregoing may lead to a decrease in our profitability, and you may experience a lower return on your investment. Increased competition in providing capital may also preclude us from making those loans that would generate attractive returns to us.

Our loans’ lack of liquidity may adversely affect our business.

Our existing portfolio includes, and our future loans will likely include, loans for which no public market exists, which are less liquid than publicly traded debt securities and other securities. Certain of our target investments such as secured loans, mezzanine and other loans (including participations) and preferred equity, in particular, are also particularly illiquid due to a variety of factors, which may include a short life, potential unsuitability for securitization and greater difficulty of recovery in the event of a default or insolvency by the company to which we have provided a loan. The illiquidity of our loans may make it difficult for us to sell such loans if the need or desire arises. Further, applicable laws and regulations restricting the ownership and transferability of loans to regulated cannabis companies in conjunction with many parties not wishing to invest in cannabis businesses as a result of cannabis being federally illegal may make it difficult for us to sell or transfer such loans to third parties. In addition, many of the loans we make, to the extent they constitute securities, will not be registered under the relevant securities laws, resulting in a prohibition against their transfer, sale, pledge or disposition except in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of, or otherwise in accordance with, those laws. As a result, we may be unable to dispose of such loans in a timely manner or at all. If we are required and able to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we could realize significantly less value than that which we had previously recorded for our loans and we cannot assure you that we will be able to sell our assets at a profit in the future. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate a loan in a company to the extent that we or our Manager have or could be attributed as having material, non-public information regarding such company. Our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic, regulatory and other conditions or changes in our strategic plan may therefore be relatively limited, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our real estate investments are subject to risks particular to real property. These risks may result in a reduction or elimination of or return from an investment secured by a particular property.

Real estate investments are subject to various risks, including:

If any of these or similar events occurs, it may cause borrowers to default on their obligations to us and, thereby, reduce our return from an affected property or investment and reduce or eliminate our ability to pay dividends to stockholders.

All of our assets may be subject to recourse.

All of our assets, including any investments made by us and any funds held by us, may be available to satisfy all of our liabilities and other obligations. If we become subject to a liability, parties seeking to have the liability satisfied may have recourse to our assets generally and not be limited to any particular asset, such as the asset representing the investment giving rise to the liability.

Our existing portfolio is, and our future portfolio may be, concentrated in a limited number of loans, which subjects us to an increased risk of significant loss if any asset declines in value or if a particular borrower fails to perform as expected.

Our existing portfolio is, and our future loans may be, concentrated in a limited number of loans. If a significant loan to one or more companies fails to perform as expected, such a failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results, and the magnitude of such effect could be more significant than if we had further diversified our portfolio. A consequence of this limited number of loans is that the aggregate returns we realize may be significantly adversely affected if a small number of loans perform poorly, if we need to write down the value of any one loan, if a loan is repaid prior to maturity and we are not able to promptly redeploy the proceeds and/or if an issuer is unable to obtain and maintain commercial success. While we intend to diversify our portfolio of loans as we deem prudent, we do not have fixed guidelines for diversification. As a result, our portfolio could be concentrated in relatively few loans and in a limited number of borrowers.

Our portfolio of loans is concentrated in certain property types or in particular industries, such as cannabis, that are subject to higher risk of default, or secured by properties concentrated in a limited number of geographic locations, economic and business downturns relating generally to such region or type of asset which may result in defaults on a number of our loans within a short time period, which may reduce our net income and the value of our common stock and accordingly reduce our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. Further, since we focus on limited-license states, there may be fewer, if any, buyers for a distressed property. Accordingly, we may not be able to receive the full value of the collateral if we exercise our remedies under our loan in connection with a default.

We may lend to multiple borrowers that share a common sponsor. We do not have a limit on the amount of total gross offering proceeds that can be held by multiple borrowers that share the same sponsor. We may face greater credit risk to the extent a large portion of our portfolio is concentrated in loans to multiple borrowers that share the same sponsor.

Our existing portfolio contains loans to companies with operations that are geographically concentrated in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and we will be subject to social, political and economic risks of doing business in those states and any other state in which we in the future have lending exposure.

Our existing portfolio contains loans to companies with operations that are geographically concentrated in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. While our investment strategy includes a focus on providing loans to companies with operations in states that limit the number of cannabis license issuances in order to protect the value of our collateral, 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:

We will not own real estate as long as it is used in cannabis-related operations due to current statutory prohibitions and exchange listing standards, which may delay or limit our remedies in the event that any of our borrowers default under the terms of their mortgage loans with us.

Although we will have the contractual ability to foreclose on, and take title to, the properties securing our mortgage loans upon a default by the borrower, we will not take title to and own such real estate as long as it is used in cannabis-related operations due to current statutory prohibitions, including Section 856 of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (the “CSA”), which relates to, among other things, the management or control of properties that are used for the manufacturing, distributing or using of any controlled substances. Taking title to real estate used in cannabis-related activities or owning equity in cannabis-related businesses would also violate NASDAQ listing requirements. As a result, in the event of a borrower default, to the extent we determine that taking title to the underlying real estate is the optimal method of maximizing recovery on the defaulted loan, we will be forced to evict the borrower from the real estate and engage a third party to ensure all cannabis is removed from the subject property prior to taking possession. The regulatory requirements related to real property used in cannabis-related operations may cause significant delays or difficulties in transferring a property to another cannabis operator. In addition, any alternative uses of cannabis-related properties may be limited due to the specialized nature of the facilities or may be less profitable than the cannabis-related operations, which would adversely affect the value of the collateral securing our loans and could result in us selling the property at a loss. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

While we may instead pursue other remedies upon any defaults by our borrowers, including forcing a sale of the property to another cannabis operator, pursuing a judicial foreclosure and execution thereof through a sheriff’s sale without taking title to the property or using the property for non-cannabis related operations, there can be no assurances that such remedies will be as effective as us taking direct ownership of a property used in cannabis-related operations.

Loans to relatively new and/or small companies and companies operating in the cannabis industry generally involve significant risks.

We primarily provide loans to established companies operating in the cannabis industry, but because the cannabis industry is relatively new and rapidly evolving, some of these companies may be relatively new and/or small companies. Loans to relatively new and/or small companies operating in the cannabis industry generally involve a number of significant risks, including, but not limited to, the following:

While none of the loans in our portfolio have defaulted as of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, there can be no assurance that we will not experience defaults in the future.

If we are unable to successfully integrate new assets and manage our growth, our results of operations and financial condition may suffer.

We may in the future significantly increase the size and/or change the mix of our portfolio of assets. We may be unable to successfully and efficiently integrate new assets into our existing portfolio or otherwise effectively manage our assets or our growth effectively. In addition, increases in our portfolio of assets and/or changes in the mix of our assets may place significant demands on our Manager’s administrative, operational, asset management, financial and other resources. Any failure to manage increases in size effectively could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We may need to foreclose on loans that are in default, which could result in losses.

We may find it necessary to foreclose on loans that are in default. Foreclosure processes are often lengthy and expensive. Results of foreclosure processes may be uncertain, as claims may be asserted by the relevant borrower or by other creditors or investors in such borrower that interfere with enforcement of our rights, such as claims that challenge the validity or enforceability of our loan or the priority or perfection of our security interests. Our borrowers may resist foreclosure actions by asserting numerous claims, counterclaims and defenses against us, including, without limitation, lender liability claims and defenses, even when the assertions may have no merit, in an effort to prolong the foreclosure action and seek to force us into a modification or buy-out of our loan for less than we are owed. Additionally, the transfer of certain collateral to us may be limited or prohibited by applicable laws and regulations. See “We may make loans that are secured by properties that are, and will be, subject to extensive regulations, such that if such collateral was foreclosed upon those regulations may result in significant costs and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.”

For transferable collateral, foreclosure or other remedies available may be subject to certain laws and regulations, including the need for regulatory disclosure and/or approval of such transfer. If federal law were to change to permit companies in the cannabis industry to seek federal bankruptcy protection, the applicable borrower could file for bankruptcy, which would have the effect of staying the foreclosure actions and delaying the foreclosure processes and potentially result in reductions or discharges of debt owed to us. Foreclosure may create a negative public perception of the collateral property, resulting in a diminution of its value. Even if we are successful in foreclosing on collateral property securing our loan, the liquidation proceeds upon sale of the underlying real estate may not be sufficient to recover our loan. Any costs or delays involved in the foreclosure or a liquidation of the underlying property will reduce the net proceeds realized and, thus, increase the potential for loss.

In the event a borrower defaults on any of its obligations to us and such debt obligations are equitized, we do not intend to directly hold such equity interests, which may result in additional losses on our loans in such entity.

The properties securing our loans may be subject to contingent or unknown liabilities that could adversely affect the value of these properties, and as a result, our loans.

Properties securing our loans may be subject to contingent, unknown or unquantifiable liabilities that may adversely affect the value of our loans. Such defects or deficiencies may include title defects, title disputes, liens or other encumbrances on properties securing our loans to borrowers. The discovery of such unknown defects, deficiencies and liabilities could affect the ability of our borrowers to make payments to us or could affect our ability to foreclose and sell the properties securing such loans, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Further, we, our executive officers, directors and our Manager may, in the ordinary course of business, be named as defendants in litigation arising from our loans.

We may in the future foreclose and acquire properties without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, against the prior property owner with respect to contingent or unknown liabilities. As a result, if a claim were asserted against us based on ownership of any of these properties, we may have to pay substantial amounts to defend or settle the claim. If the magnitude of such unknown liabilities is high, individually or in the aggregate, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

Commercial real estate-related investments that are secured, directly or indirectly, by real property are subject to delinquency, foreclosure and loss, which could result in losses to us.

Commercial real estate debt instruments that are secured by commercial property are subject to risks of delinquency and foreclosure and risks of loss that are greater than similar risks associated with loans made on the security of single-family residential property. The ability of a borrower to repay a loan secured by an income-producing property typically is dependent primarily upon the successful operation of the property rather than upon the existence of independent income or assets of the borrower. If the net operating income of the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Net operating income of an income-producing property can be affected by, among other things:

In addition, we are exposed to the risk of judicial proceedings with our borrowers and entities in which we invest, including bankruptcy or other litigation, as a strategy to avoid foreclosure or enforcement of other rights by us as a lender or investor. In the event that any of the properties or entities underlying or collateralizing our loans or investments experiences any of the foregoing events or occurrences, the value of, and return on, such investments could decline and could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

If our Manager overestimates the yields or incorrectly prices the risks of our loans, we may experience losses.

Our Manager values our potential loans based on yields and risks, taking into account estimated future losses and the collateral securing a potential loan, if any, and the estimated impact of these losses on expected future cash flows, returns and appreciation. Our Manager’s loss estimates and expectations of future cash flows, returns and appreciation may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates and expectations. If our Manager underestimates the asset-level losses or overestimates loan yields relative to the price we pay for a particular loan, we may experience losses with respect to such loan.

The due diligence process that our Manager undertakes in regard to investment opportunities may not reveal all facts that may be relevant in connection with an investment and if our Manager incorrectly evaluates the risks of our investments, we may experience losses.

Before making investments for us, our Manager conducts due diligence that it deems reasonable and appropriate based on the facts and circumstances relevant to each potential investment. When conducting diligence, our Manager may be required to evaluate important and complex business, financial, tax, accounting, environmental and legal issues. Outside consultants, legal advisors, accountants and investment banks may be involved in the due diligence process in varying degrees depending on the type of potential investment. Relying on the resources available to it, our Manager evaluates our potential investments based on criteria it deems appropriate for the relevant investment. Our Manager’s loss estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. If our Manager underestimates the asset-level losses relative to the price we pay for a particular investment, we may experience losses with respect to such investment.

In addition, it is difficult for real estate debt investors in certain circumstances to receive full transparency with respect to underlying investments because transactions are often effectuated on an indirect basis through pools or conduit vehicles rather than directly with the borrower. Loan structures or the terms of investments may make it difficult for us to monitor and evaluate investments. Therefore, we cannot assure you that our Manager will have knowledge of all information that may adversely affect such investment.

We are subject to additional risks associated with investments in the form of loan participation interests.

We may in the future invest in loan participation interests in which another lender or lenders share with us the rights, obligations and benefits of a commercial mortgage loan made by an originating lender to a borrower. Accordingly, we will not be in privity of contract with a borrower because the other lender or participant is the record holder of the loan and, therefore, we will not have any direct right to any underlying collateral for the loan. These loan participations may be senior, pari passu or junior to the interests of the other lender or lenders in respect of distributions from the commercial mortgage loan. Furthermore, we may not be able to control the pursuit of any rights or remedies under the commercial mortgage loan, including enforcement proceedings in the event of default thereunder. In certain cases, the original lender or another participant may be able to take actions in respect of the commercial mortgage loan that are not in our best interests. In addition, in the event that (1) the owner of the loan participation interest does not have the benefit of a perfected security interest in the lender’s rights to payments from the borrower under the commercial mortgage loan or (2) there are substantial differences between the terms of the commercial mortgage loan and those of the applicable loan participation interest, such loan participation interest could be recharacterized as an unsecured loan to a lender that is the record holder of the loan in such lender’s bankruptcy, and the assets of such lender may not be sufficient to satisfy the terms of such loan participation interest. Accordingly, we may face greater risks from loan participation interests than if we had made first mortgage loans directly to the owners of real estate collateral.

Declines in market prices and liquidity in the capital markets can result in significant net unrealized depreciation of our portfolio, which in turn would reduce our net asset value.

Volatility in the capital markets can adversely affect our loan valuations. Decreases in the market values or fair values of our loans are recorded as unrealized depreciation. The effect of all of these factors on our portfolio can reduce our net asset value (and, as a result our asset coverage calculation) by increasing net unrealized depreciation in our portfolio. Depending on market conditions, we could incur substantial realized and/or unrealized losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The loans and other assets we will obtain may be subject to impairment charges, and we may experience a decline in the fair value of our assets.

We will periodically evaluate the loans we obtain and other assets for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based upon factors such as market conditions, borrower performance and legal structure. If we determine that an impairment has occurred, we would be required to make an adjustment to the net carrying value of the asset which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the impairment charge is recorded.

Any credit ratings assigned to our loans will be subject to ongoing evaluations and revisions, and we cannot assure you that those ratings will not be downgraded.

Some of our loans may be rated by rating agencies such as Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, Standard & Poor’s, DBRS, Inc. or Realpoint LLC. Any credit ratings on our loans are subject to ongoing evaluation by credit rating agencies, and we cannot assure you that any such ratings will not be changed or withdrawn by a rating agency in the future if, in its judgment, circumstances warrant. If rating agencies assign a lower-than-expected rating or reduce or withdraw, or indicate that they may reduce or withdraw, their ratings of our loans in the future, the value of our loans could significantly decline, which would adversely affect the value of our loan portfolio and could result in losses upon disposition or, in the case of our loans, the failure of borrowers to satisfy their debt service obligations to us. As of December 31, 2022, none of our loans were rated by ratings agencies.

Mezzanine loans, B-Notes and other investments that are subordinated or otherwise junior in an issuer’s capital structure, such as preferred equity, and that involve privately negotiated structures will expose us to greater risk of loss.

We have in the past originated, and may in the future originate or acquire, mezzanine loans, B-Notes and other investments that are subordinated or otherwise junior in an issuer’s capital structure, such as preferred equity, and that involve privately negotiated structures. To the extent we invest in subordinated debt or mezzanine tranches of an entity’s capital structure or preferred equity, such investments and our remedies with respect thereto, including the ability to foreclose on any collateral securing such investments, will be subject to the rights of holders of more senior tranches in the issuer’s capital structure and, to the extent applicable, contractual intercreditor and/or participation agreement provisions, which will expose us to greater risk of loss.

As the terms of such loans and investments are subject to contractual relationships among lenders, co-lending agents and others, they can vary significantly in their structural characteristics and other risks. For example, the rights of holders of B-Notes to control the process following a borrower default may vary from transaction to transaction. Further, B-Notes typically are secured by a single property and accordingly reflect the risks associated with significant concentration. Like B-Notes, mezzanine loans are by their nature structurally subordinated to more senior property-level financings. If a borrower defaults on our mezzanine loan or on debt senior to our loan, or if the borrower is in bankruptcy, our mezzanine loan will be satisfied only after the property-level debt and other senior debt is paid in full. As a result, a partial loss in the value of the underlying collateral can result in a total loss of the value of the mezzanine loan. In addition, even if we are able to foreclose on the underlying collateral following a default on a mezzanine loan, we would be substituted for the defaulting borrower and, to the extent income generated on the underlying property is insufficient to meet outstanding debt obligations on the property, we may need to commit substantial additional capital and/or deliver a replacement guarantee by a creditworthy entity, which could include us, to stabilize the property and prevent additional defaults to lenders with existing liens on the property.

Loans or investments involving international real estate-related assets are subject to special risks that we may not manage effectively, which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our investment guidelines permit investments in non-U.S. assets, subject to the same guidelines as investments in U.S. assets. To the extent that we invest in non-U.S. real estate-related assets, we may be subject to certain risks associated with international investment generally, including, among others:

If any of the foregoing risks were to materialize, they could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. While our investment guidelines permit investments in non-U.S. real estate assets, as of December 31, 2022, none of our loans were made to non-U.S. borrowers.  

We may not have control over certain of our loans and investments.

Our ability to manage our portfolio of loans and investments may be limited by the form in which they are made. In certain situations, we may:

Therefore, we may not be able to exercise control over all aspects of our loans or investments. Such financial assets may involve risks not present in investments where senior creditors, junior creditors, servicers or third parties controlling investors are not involved. Our rights to control the process following a borrower default may be subject to the rights of senior or junior creditors or servicers whose interests may not be aligned with ours. A partner or co-venturer may have financial difficulties resulting in a negative impact on such asset, may have economic or business interests or goals that are inconsistent with ours, or may be in a position to take action contrary to our investment objective. In addition, we may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the actions of our partners or co-venturers.

Our loans and investments expose us to risks associated with debt-oriented real estate investments generally.

We seek to invest primarily in debt investments in or relating to real estate-related businesses, assets or interests. Any deterioration of real estate fundamentals generally, and in the United States in particular, could negatively impact our performance, increase the default risk applicable to borrowers, and/or make it relatively more difficult for us to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns. Changes in general economic conditions will affect the creditworthiness of borrowers and/or the value of underlying real estate collateral relating to our investments and may include economic and/or market fluctuations, changes in environmental, zoning and other laws, casualty or condemnation losses, regulatory limitations on rents, decreases in property values, changes in the appeal of properties to tenants, changes in supply and demand of real estate products, fluctuations in real estate fundamentals, energy and supply shortages, various uninsured or uninsurable risks, natural disasters, changes in government regulations (such as rent control), changes in real property tax rates and operating expenses, changes in interest rates, changes in the availability of debt financing and/or mortgage funds which may render the sale or refinancing of properties difficult or impracticable, increased mortgage defaults, increases in borrowing rates, negative developments in the economy and/or real estate values generally and other factors that are beyond our control.

We cannot predict the degree to which economic conditions generally, and the conditions for real estate debt investing in particular, will improve or decline. Any declines in the performance of the U.S. and global economies or in the real estate debt markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Market conditions relating to real estate debt investments have evolved since the global financial crisis that began in 2008, which has resulted in a modification to certain loan structures and/or market terms. Any such changes in loan structures and/or market terms may make it relatively more difficult for us to monitor and evaluate our loans and investments.

We may finance first mortgage loans, which may present greater risks than if we had made first mortgages directly to owners of real estate collateral.

Our portfolio may include first mortgage loan-on-loan financings, which are loans made to holders of mortgage loans that are secured by commercial real estate. While we will have certain rights with respect to the real estate collateral underlying a first mortgage loan, the holder of the commercial real estate first mortgage loans may fail to exercise its rights with respect to a default or other adverse action relating to the underlying real estate collateral or fail to promptly notify us of such an event, which would adversely affect our ability to enforce our rights. In addition, in the event of the bankruptcy of the borrower under the first mortgage loan, we may not have full recourse to the assets of the holder of the commercial real estate loan, or the assets of the holder of the commercial real estate loan may not be sufficient to satisfy our first mortgage loan financing. Accordingly, we may face greater risks from our first mortgage loan financings than if we had made first mortgage loans directly to owners of real estate collateral.

Loans on properties in transition will involve a greater risk of loss than conventional mortgage loans.

We may invest in transitional loans to borrowers who are typically seeking short-term capital to be used in an acquisition or rehabilitation of a property. The typical borrower under a transitional loan has usually identified an undervalued asset that has been under-managed and/or is located in a recovering market. If the market in which the asset is located fails to improve according to the borrower’s projections, or if the borrower fails to improve the quality of the asset’s management and/or the value of the asset, the borrower may not receive a sufficient return on the asset to satisfy the transitional loan, and we bear the risk that we may not recover some or all of our investment.

In addition, borrowers usually use the proceeds of a conventional mortgage to repay a transitional loan. Transitional loans therefore are subject to risks of a borrower’s inability to obtain permanent financing to repay the transitional loan. In the event of any default under transitional loans that may be held by us, we bear the risk of loss of principal and non-payment of interest and fees to the extent of any deficiency between the value of the mortgage collateral and the principal amount and unpaid interest of the transitional loan. To the extent we suffer such losses with respect to these transitional loans, it could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our loans may be risky, and we could lose all or part of our loans.

The debt that we invest in is typically not initially rated by any rating agency, but we believe that if such loans were rated, they would generally be below investment grade (rated lower than “Baa3” by Moody’s Investors Service, lower than “BBB-” by Fitch Ratings or lower than “BBB-” by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services), which under the guidelines established by these entities is an indication of having predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to the borrower’s capacity to pay interest and repay principal. Therefore, certain of our loans may result in an above average amount of risk and volatility or loss of principal. While the loans we invest in are often secured, such security does not guarantee that we will receive principal and interest payments according to the terms of the loan, or that the value of any collateral will be sufficient to allow us to recover all or a portion of the outstanding amount of such loan should we be forced to enforce our remedies.

Any distressed loans or investments we make, or loans and investments that later become distressed, may subject us to losses and other risks relating to bankruptcy proceedings.

Our loans and investments may include making distressed investments from time to time (e.g., investments in defaulted, out-of-favor or distressed bank loans and debt securities) or may involve investments that become “non-performing” following our acquisition thereof. Certain of our investments may include properties that typically are highly leveraged, with significant burdens on cash flow and, therefore, involve a high degree of financial risk. During an economic downturn or recession, loans or securities of financially or operationally troubled borrowers or issuers are more likely to go into default than loans or securities of other borrowers or issuers. Loans or securities of financially or operationally troubled issuers are less liquid and more volatile than loans or securities of borrowers or issuers not experiencing such difficulties. The market prices of such securities are subject to erratic and abrupt market movements and the spread between bid and asked prices may be greater than normally expected. Investment in the loans or securities of financially or operationally troubled borrowers or issuers involves a high degree of credit and market risk.

In certain limited cases (e.g., in connection with a workout, restructuring and/or foreclosing proceedings involving one or more of our investments), the success of our investment strategy with respect thereto will depend, in part, on our ability to effectuate loan modifications and/or restructure and improve the operations of the borrower entities. The activity of identifying and implementing successful restructuring programs and operating improvements entails a high degree of uncertainty. There can be no assurance that we will be able to identify and implement successful restructuring programs and improvements with respect to any distressed loans or investments we may have from time to time.

These financial difficulties may not be overcome and may cause borrower entities to become subject to bankruptcy or other similar administrative proceedings. There is a possibility that we may incur substantial or total losses on our loans and investments and, in certain circumstances, become subject to certain additional potential liabilities that may exceed the value of our original investment therein. For example, under certain circumstances, a lender that has inappropriately exercised control over the management and policies of a debtor may have its claims subordinated or disallowed or may be found liable for damages suffered by parties as a result of such actions. In any reorganization or liquidation proceeding relating to our investments, we may lose our entire investment, may be required to accept cash or securities with a value less than our original investment and/or may be required to accept different terms, including payment over an extended period of time. In addition, under certain circumstances, payments to us may be reclaimed if any such payment or distribution is later determined to have been a fraudulent conveyance, preferential payment, or similar transaction under applicable bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Furthermore, bankruptcy laws and similar laws applicable to administrative proceedings may delay our ability to realize on collateral for loan positions held by us, may adversely affect the economic terms and priority of such loans through doctrines such as equitable subordination or may result in a restructuring of the debt through principles such as the “cramdown” provisions of the bankruptcy laws.

Construction loans involve an increased risk of loss.

We may invest in construction loans. If we fail to fund our entire commitment on a construction loan or if a borrower otherwise fails to complete the construction of a project, there could be adverse consequences associated with the loan, including, but not limited to, a loss of the value of the property securing the loan, especially if the borrower is unable to raise funds to complete it from other sources; a borrower’s claim against us for failure to perform under the loan documents; increased costs to the borrower that the borrower is unable to pay; a bankruptcy filing by the borrower; and abandonment by the borrower of the collateral for the loan.

Investments in construction loans require us to make estimates about the fair value of land improvements that may be challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

We may invest in construction loans, the interest from which would be qualifying income for purposes of the gross income tests applicable to REITs, provided that the loan value of the real property securing the construction loan was equal to or greater than the highest outstanding principal amount of the construction loan during any taxable year. For purposes of construction loans, the loan value of the real property is generally the fair value of the land plus the reasonably estimated cost of the improvements or developments (other than personal property) that secure the loan and that are to be constructed from the proceeds of the loan. There can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) would not challenge our estimates of the loan values of the real property.

We may in the future enter into credit agreements with borrowers that may permit them to incur debt that ranks equally with, or senior to, the loans we extend to such companies under such credit agreements.

As of December 31, 2022, all but one of our borrowers were restricted from incurring any debt that ranks equally with, or senior to, our loans. We have invested in one position with a principal balance of approximately $25.5 million that is subordinated to other indebtedness of the borrowers, which comprises 7.5% of our total assets.  Although our intended investment strategy is to construct a portfolio of loans secured with first priority liens on certain assets of our borrowers, we may in the future enter into credit agreements that rank equally with, or are subordinated to, other debt of our borrowers or that otherwise permit our borrowers to incur other debt that ranks equally with, or senior to, our loans under such credit agreements. In such case, such instruments may, by their terms, provide that the holders of such other debt are entitled to receive payment of interest or principal on or before the dates on which we are entitled to receive payments in respect of our loans. These instruments may prohibit borrowers from paying interest on or repaying our loans in the event and during the continuance of a default under such instrument or upon the occurrence of other specified events. In certain cases, we may, and may continue to, obtain unsecured guarantees from the parent entities or subsidiaries of our borrowers in addition to the collateral provided by such borrowers and such guarantees may be effectively subordinated to any secured debt of any such entities and/or structurally subordinated to any debt of such subsidiaries. Also, in the event of insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of a borrower, holders of securities ranking senior to our loan to that borrower, if any, typically are entitled to receive payment in full before we can receive any distribution in respect of our loan. After repaying such holders, the borrower may not have any remaining assets to use for repaying its obligation to us. In the case of securities or other debt ranking equally with our loans, we would have to share on an equal basis any distributions with other security holders in the event of an insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of the relevant borrower. 

Some of our borrowers may be highly leveraged.

Some of our borrowers may be highly leveraged, which may have adverse consequences to these companies and to us as a creditor. These companies may be subject to restrictive financial and operating covenants and the leverage may impair these companies’ ability to finance their future operations and capital needs. As a result, these companies’ flexibility to respond to changing business and economic conditions and to take advantage of business opportunities may be limited. Further, a leveraged company’s income and net assets will tend to increase or decrease at a greater rate than if borrowed money were not used.

There may be circumstances in which our loans could be subordinated to claims of other creditors, or we could be subject to lender liability claims.

If one of our borrowers were to go bankrupt, depending on the facts and circumstances, a bankruptcy court might re-characterize our loan and subordinate all or a portion of our claim to that of other creditors. In addition, we could be subject to lender liability claims if we are deemed to be too involved in a borrower’s business or exercise control over such borrower. For example, we could become subject to a lender’s liability claim if, among other things, we actually render significant managerial assistance to a borrower to which we have provided a loan.

As a debt investor, we are often not in a position to exert influence on borrowers, and the stockholders and management of such companies may make decisions with which we disagree and/or that could decrease the value of loans to such borrower.

As a debt investor, we are subject to the risk that a borrower may make business decisions with which we disagree, and the stockholders and management of such company may take risks or otherwise act in ways that do not serve our interests. As a result, or due to other factors, a borrower may make decisions that could decrease the value of our loan to such borrower.

Due to our borrowers’ involvement in the regulated cannabis industry, we currently do not have any insurance coverage. We and our borrowers have, and may continue to have, a difficult time obtaining or maintaining the various insurance policies that are desired to operate our business, which may expose us to additional risk and financial liabilities.

Insurance that is otherwise readily available, such as workers’ compensation, general liability, title insurance and directors’ and officers’ insurance, is more difficult for us and our borrowers to find and more expensive, because of our borrowers’ involvement in the regulated cannabis industry. We currently do not have any insurance coverage. There are no guarantees that we or our borrowers will be able to find insurance now or in the future, or that such insurance will be available on economically viable terms. As a result, this may prevent us from entering into certain business sectors, may inhibit our growth, may expose us to additional risk and financial liabilities and, in the case of an uninsured loss, may result in the loss of anticipated cash flow or the value of our loan.

We do not currently have catastrophic insurance policies.

There are certain types of losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, terrorism or acts of war, which may be uninsurable or not economically insurable. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors, including terrorism or acts of war, also might result in insurance proceeds insufficient to repair or replace an asset if it is damaged or destroyed. We do not currently have insurance policies to protect us from the type of losses described above or restore our economic position with respect to any of our loans. Any uninsured loss could result in the loss of anticipated cash flow from, and the asset value of, the affected asset and the value of our loan related to such asset. In addition, we do not currently carry directors’ and officers’ insurance.

Subject to the approval of our Manager, our Board (which must include a majority of our independent directors) may change our investment strategies or guidelines, financing strategies or leverage policies without the consent of our stockholders.

Subject to the approval of our Manager, our Board (which must include a majority of our independent directors) may change our investment strategies or guidelines, financing strategies or leverage policies with respect to loans, originations, acquisitions, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and distributions at any time without the consent of our stockholders, which could result in a loan portfolio with a different risk profile than that of our existing portfolio or of a portfolio comprised of our target loans. A change in our investment strategy may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, default risk and real estate market and cannabis industry fluctuations. Furthermore, a change in our asset allocation could result in our making loans in asset categories different from those described in this annual report on Form 10-K. These changes could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our equity and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

To the extent OID and PIK-interest constitute a portion of our income, we are exposed to typical risks associated with such income being required to be included in taxable and accounting income prior to receipt of cash representing such income.

Our investments include original-issue-discount instruments and contractual PIK-interest arrangements. To the extent OID or PIK-interest constitutes a portion of our income, we are exposed to typical risks associated with such income being required to be included in taxable and accounting income prior to receipt of cash, including the following:

We may pay our Manager an incentive fee on certain investments that include a deferred interest feature.

We underwrite our loans to generally include an end-of-term payment, a PIK interest payment and/or OID. Our end-of-term payments are contractual and fixed interest payments due at the maturity date of the loan, including upon prepayment, and are generally a fixed percentage of the original principal balance of the loan. The portion of our end-of-term payments which equal the difference between our yield-to-maturity and the stated interest rate on the loan are recognized as non-cash income or OID until they are paid.

We may have difficulty paying our required distributions under applicable tax rules if we recognize income before or without receiving cash representing such income.

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, we may be required to include in income certain amounts before our receipt of the cash attributable to such amounts, such as OID or PIK interest, which represents contractual interest added to the loan balance and due at the end of the loan term. For example, such OID or increases in loan balances as a result of PIK interest will be included in income before we receive any corresponding cash payments. Also, we may be required to include in income other amounts that we will not receive in cash, including, for example, non-cash income from PIK securities, deferred payment securities and hedging and foreign currency transactions. In addition, we intend to seek debt investments in the secondary market that represent attractive risk-adjusted returns, taking into account both stated interest rates and current market discounts to par value. Such market discount may be included in income before we receive any corresponding cash payments.

Since we may recognize income before or without receiving cash representing such income, we may have difficulty meeting the U.S. federal income tax requirement to distribute generally an amount equal to at least 90% of our REIT taxable income to maintain our status as a REIT. Accordingly, we may have to sell some of our investments at times we would not consider advantageous, raise additional debt or equity capital or reduce new investment originations to meet these distribution requirements. If we are not able to obtain cash from other sources, we may fail to qualify as a REIT and thus be subject to additional corporate-level taxes. However, in order to satisfy the Annual Distribution Requirement for a REIT, we may, but have no current intention to, declare a large portion of a dividend in shares of our common stock instead of in cash. As long as a portion of such dividend is paid in cash (which portion may be as low as 20% of such dividend) and certain requirements are met, the entire distribution will be treated as a dividend for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

We may expose ourselves to risks associated with the inclusion of non-cash income prior to receipt of cash.

To the extent we invest in OID instruments, including PIK loans and zero coupon bonds, investors will be exposed to the risks associated with the inclusion of such non-cash income in taxable and accounting income prior to receipt of cash.

The deferred nature of payments on PIK loans creates specific risks. Interest payments deferred on a PIK loan are subject to the risk that the borrower may default when the deferred payments are due in cash at the maturity of the loan. Since the payment of PIK income does not result in cash payments to us, we may also have to sell some of our investments at times we would not consider advantageous, raise additional debt or equity capital or reduce new investment originations (and thus hold higher cash balances, which could reduce returns) to pay our expenses or make distributions to stockholders in the ordinary course of business, even if such loans do not default. An election to defer PIK interest payments by adding them to principal increases our gross assets and, thus, increases future base management fees to the Manager. The deferral of interest on a PIK loan increases its loan-to-value ratio, which is a measure of the riskiness of a loan.

More generally, market prices of OID instruments are more volatile because they are impacted to a greater extent by interest rate changes than instruments that pay interest periodically in cash.

Additionally, we will be required under the tax laws to make distributions of non-cash income to stockholders without receiving any cash. Such required cash distributions may have to be paid from the sale of our assets without investors being given any notice of this fact. The required recognition of non-cash income, including PIK and OID interest, for U.S. federal income tax purposes may have a negative impact on liquidity because it represents a non-cash component of our taxable income that must, nevertheless, be distributed to investors to avoid us being subject to corporate level taxation.

Changes in laws or regulations governing our operations, including laws and regulations governing cannabis and REITs, changes in the interpretation thereof or newly enacted laws or regulations and any failure by us to comply with these laws or regulations, could require changes to certain of our business practices, negatively impact our operations, cash flow or financial condition, impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We are subject to laws and regulations at the local, state and federal levels, including laws and regulations governing cannabis and REITs by state and federal governments. These laws and regulations, as well as their interpretation, may change from time to time, and new laws and regulations may be enacted. We cannot predict the nature and timing of future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, or their potential effect. However, any change in these laws or regulations, changes in their interpretation, or newly enacted laws or regulations and any failure by us to comply with current or new laws or regulations or such changes thereto, could require changes to certain of our business practices, negatively impact our operations, cash flow or financial condition, impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain required licenses and authorizations to conduct our business and may fail to comply with various state and federal laws and regulations applicable to our business.

In general, lending is a highly regulated industry in the United States and we are required to comply with, among other statutes and regulations, certain provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 (the “Equal Credit Opportunity Act”) that are applicable to commercial loans, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”), regulations promulgated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, various laws, rules and regulations related to the cannabis industry and U.S. federal and state securities laws and regulations. In addition, certain states have adopted laws or regulations that may, among other requirements, require licensing of lenders and financiers, prescribe disclosures of certain contractual terms, impose limitations on interest rates and other charges, and limit or prohibit certain collection practices and creditor remedies.

There is no guarantee that we will be able to obtain, maintain or renew any required licenses or authorizations to conduct our business or that we would not experience significant delays in obtaining these licenses and authorizations. As a result, we could be delayed in conducting certain business if we were first required to obtain certain licenses or authorizations or if renewals thereof were delayed. Furthermore, once licenses are issued and authorizations are obtained, we are required to comply with various information reporting and other regulatory requirements to maintain those licenses and authorizations, and there is no assurance that we will be able to satisfy those requirements or other regulatory requirements applicable to our business on an ongoing basis, which may restrict our business and could expose us to penalties or other claims.

Any failure to obtain, maintain or renew required licenses and authorizations or failure to comply with regulatory requirements that are applicable to our business could result in material fines and disruption to our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The long-term macroeconomic effects of any current or future global health pandemics could have an adverse impact on our financial performance and results of operations.

The long-term macroeconomic effects of any current or future global health pandemics could have a material adverse effect on our and our borrowers’ business, financial condition and results of operations. While many of the direct impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have eased, the longer-term macroeconomic effects on global supply chains, inflation, labor shortages and wage increases continue to impact many industries, including the regulated cannabis industry. Moreover, with the potential for new strains of existing viruses to emerge, or other pandemics or epidemics, governments and businesses may re-impose aggressive measures to help slow its spread in the future.

Long-term macroeconomic effects from a pandemic or epidemic may have a material adverse effect on our and our borrowers’ business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, due to, among other factors:

The full extent of the impact and effects of COVID-19, and any future pandemics or epidemics, will depend on future developments, including, among other factors, how rapidly variants develop, availability, acceptance and effectiveness of vaccines along with related travel advisories, quarantines and restrictions, the recovery time of the disrupted supply chains and industries, the impact of labor market interruptions, the impact of government interventions, and uncertainty with respect to the duration of the global economic slowdown. COVID-19, or any future pandemics or epidemics, and resulting impacts on the financial, economic and capital markets environment, and future developments in these and other areas present uncertainty and risk with respect to our performance, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Related to the Cannabis Industry and Related Regulations

Cannabis remains illegal under federal law, and therefore, strict enforcement of federal laws regarding cannabis would likely result in our inability to execute our business plan.

Cannabis, other than hemp, is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. Even in states or territories that have legalized cannabis to some extent, the cultivation, possession and sale 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 aid and abet another in violating these federal controlled substance laws, or conspire with another to violate them, and violating the federal cannabis laws is a predicate for certain other crimes under the anti-money laundering laws or The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Monitoring our compliance with these laws is a critical component of our business. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate and criminalize the sale, possession and use of cannabis, even for individual medical purposes, regardless of whether it is legal under state law.

For several years, the U.S. government has not enforced those laws against cannabis companies complying with state law and their vendors. We would likely be unable to execute our business plan if the federal government were to reverse its long-standing hands-off approach to the state legal cannabis markets, described below, and start strictly enforcing federal law regarding cannabis.

On January 4, 2018, then acting U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum for all U.S. Attorneys (the “Sessions Memo”) rescinding certain past DOJ memoranda on cannabis law enforcement, including the Memorandum by former Deputy Attorney General James Michael Cole (the “Cole Memo”) issued on August 29, 2013, under President Obama’s administration. Describing the criminal enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions against those complying with state cannabis regulatory systems as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources, the Cole Memo identified a list of federal enforcement priorities, including preventing interstate diversion or distribution of cannabis to minors, to focus enforcement efforts against operations that implicated these priorities. The Sessions Memo, which remains in effect, states that each U.S. Attorney’s Office should follow established principles that govern all federal prosecutions when deciding which cannabis activities to prosecute. As a result, federal prosecutors could and still can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute even state-legal cannabis activities. Since the Sessions Memo was issued over five years ago, however, U.S. Attorneys have not prosecuted state law compliant entities.

Former Attorney General William Barr testified in his confirmation hearing on January 15, 2019, that he would not upset “settled expectations,” “investments,” or other “reliance interest[s]” arising as a result of the Cole Memo, and that he does not intend to use federal resources to enforce federal cannabis laws in states that have legalized cannabis “to the extent people are complying with the state laws.” He stated: “My approach to this would be not to upset settled expectations and the reliance interest that have arisen as a result of the Cole Memorandum and investments have been made and so there has been reliance on it, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to upset those interests.” He also implied that the CSA’s prohibitions of cannabis may be null in states that have legalized cannabis: “[T]he current situation … is almost like a back door nullification of federal law.” Industry observers generally have not interpreted Attorney General Barr’s comments to suggest that the DOJ would proceed with cases against participants who entered the state-legal industry after the Cole Memo had been rescinded.

President Biden, at the time he won the Democratic Party nomination for President, affirmed that his administration would seek to “[d]ecriminalize marijuana use and legalize marijuana for medical purposes at the federal level” “allow states to make their own decisions about legalizing recreational use” and “automatically expunge all past marijuana convictions for use and possession.” While his promise to decriminalize marijuana likely would mean that the federal government would not criminally enforce the Schedule II status against state legal entities, the implications are not entirely clear. Although the U.S. Attorney General could order federal prosecutors not to interfere with cannabis businesses operating in compliance with states’ laws, the President alone cannot legalize medical cannabis, and as states have demonstrated, legalizing medical cannabis can take many different forms. Although President Biden issued a proclamation in October 2022 asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to review “expeditiously . . . how marijuana is scheduled under federal law,” the agencies have not released a formal update on their progress. Even in an expedited format, the re- or descheduling process could take months, or even years. A total de-scheduling of cannabis is unlikely, but entirely removing it from the schedule under the Controlled Substances Act would similarly eliminate the money laundering and aiding-and-abetting risks currently posed by providing financial services to cannabis businesses. Rescheduling cannabis to CSA Schedule II would ease certain research restrictions, it would not make the state medical or adult use programs federally legal. Additionally, President Biden has not appointed any known proponents of cannabis legalization to the Office of National Drug Control Policy transition team. Furthermore, while industry observers are hopeful that changes in Congress, along with a Biden presidency, will increase the chances of banking reform, such as the SAFE Banking Act, we cannot provide assurances that a bill legalizing cannabis would be approved by Congress.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion, and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we make a loan will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis manufacturing or distribution. Any change in the federal government’s enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cultivation of cannabis, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we make our loans, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our loans to cannabis industry participants in the United States, which would adversely affect our operations, cash flow and financial condition.

We believe that the basis for the federal government’s perceived détente with the cannabis industry extends beyond the strong public sentiment and ongoing prosecutorial discretion. Since 2014, versions of the U.S. omnibus spending bill have included a provision prohibiting the DOJ, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration, from using appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. In United States v. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who “strictly” comply with such laws. The court noted that, if the provision were not continued, prosecutors could enforce against conduct occurring during the statute of limitations even while the provision were previously in force. Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also considered the provision in United States v. Bilodeau and likewise concluded that the provision does not prohibit federal prosecution of persons and entities engaged in medical cannabis operations that violate state law. In that same opinion, however, the Court concluded that “strict” compliance with the law is not necessary, such that technical noncompliance could not lead to prosecution. Other courts that have considered the issue have ruled similarly, although courts disagree about which party bears the burden of proof of showing compliance or noncompliance with state law.

Our loans do not prohibit our borrowers from engaging in the cannabis business for adult-use that is permissible under state and local laws. Consequently, certain of our borrowers currently (and may in the future) cultivate adult-use cannabis with the proceeds of our loans, if permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future. This could subject our borrowers to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to businesses where cannabis is cultivated exclusively for medical use, which could materially adversely affect our business.

Our ability to grow our business depends on current state laws pertaining to the cannabis industry. New laws that are adverse to our borrowers may be enacted at the federal or state level, and current favorable state or national laws or enforcement guidelines relating to cultivation, production and distribution of cannabis may be modified or eliminated in the future, which would impede our ability to grow our business under our current business plan and could materially adversely affect our business.

Continued development of the cannabis industry depends upon continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level, along with no significant adverse regulatory efforts at the federal level. The status quo of, or progress in, the regulated cannabis industry, while encouraging, 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 manufacture and use of cannabis, numerous factors impact and can delay the legislative and regulatory processes. For example, many states that legalized medical-use and/or adult-use cannabis have seen significant delays in the drafting and implementation of industry regulations and issuance of licenses. In addition, burdensome regulations at the state level could slow or stop further development of the medical-use and/or adult-use cannabis industry, such as limiting the medical conditions for which medical-use cannabis can be recommended, restricting the form in which medical-use or adult-use cannabis can be consumed, or imposing significant taxes on the growth, processing and/or retail sales of cannabis, each of which could have the impact of dampening growth of the cannabis industry and making it difficult for cannabis businesses, including our borrowers, 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.

FDA regulation of cannabis could negatively affect the cannabis industry, which would directly affect our financial condition.

Should the federal government legalize cannabis for adult-use and/or medical-use, it is possible that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) may have some role in regulating certain cannabis product. Indeed, after the U.S. government removed hemp and its extracts from the CSA as part of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2008, then FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a statement reminding the public of the FDA’s continued authority “to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FD&C Act”) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.” He also reminded the public that “it’s unlawful under the FD&C Act to introduce food containing added cannabidiol (“CBD”) or tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products, as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived,” and regardless of whether health claims are made, because CBD and THC entered the FDA testing pipeline as the subject of public substantial clinical investigations for GW Pharmaceuticals’ Sativex (THC and CBD) and Epidiolex (CBD). The memo added that, prior to introduction into interstate commerce, any cannabis product, whether derived from hemp or otherwise, marketed with a disease claim (e.g., therapeutic benefit, disease prevention, etc.) must first be approved by the FDA for its intended use through one of the drug approval pathways. Notably, the FDA can look beyond the product’s express claims to find that a product is a “drug.” The definition of “drug” under the FDCA includes, in relevant part, “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” as well as “articles intended for use as a component of [a drug as defined in the other sections of the definition].” 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1). In determining “intended use,” the FDA has traditionally looked beyond a product’s label to statements made on websites, on social media, or orally by the company’s representatives.

While the FDA has not yet enforced against the cannabis industry, it has sent numerous warning letters to sellers of CBD products making health claims. The FDA could turn its attention to the cannabis industry. In addition to requiring FDA approval of cannabis products marketed as drugs, the FDA could issue rules and regulations including certified good manufacturing practices related to the growth, cultivation, harvesting and processing of cannabis. 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. Cannabis facilities are currently regulated by state and local governments. In the event that some or all of these federal enforcement and regulations are imposed, we do not know what the impact would be on the cannabis industry, including what costs, requirements and possible prohibitions may be enforced. If we or our borrowers are unable to comply with the regulations or registration as prescribed by the FDA, we and/or our borrowers may be unable to continue to operate our and their business in its current form or at all.

We and our borrowers may have difficulty accessing the service of banks and other financial institutions, and we may be limited in our ability to provide debt to participants in the cannabis industry, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Certain financial transactions involving proceeds from the trafficking of cannabis can form a basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statute and the Bank Secrecy Act. Previous guidance issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, clarified how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis-related businesses consistent with their obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. While the federal government has not initiated financial crimes prosecutions against state-law compliant cannabis companies or their vendors, the government theoretically could, at least against companies in the adult-use markets. The continued uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry or limit our ability to provide loans to the cannabis industry.

Consequently, those businesses involved in the regulated cannabis industry continue to encounter difficulty establishing banking relationships, which could increase over time. Our inability to maintain our current bank accounts or service our lending relationships would make it difficult for us to operate our business, increase our operating costs, and pose additional operational, logistical and security challenges and could result in our inability to implement our business plan.

The terms of our loans require that our borrowers make payments on such loans via check, ACH, or wire transfer. Only a small percentage of financial institutions in the United States currently provide banking services to licensed companies operating in the cannabis industry. The inability of our current and potential borrowers to open accounts and continue using the services of banks will limit their ability to enter into debt arrangements with us or may result in their default under our debt agreements, either of which could materially harm our business, operations, cash flow and financial condition.

Laws and regulations affecting the regulated cannabis industry are continually changing, which could materially adversely affect our proposed operations, and we cannot predict the impact that future regulations may have on us.

Local, state and federal cannabis laws and regulations have been evolving rapidly and are subject to varied interpretations, which could require us to incur substantial costs associated with compliance or alter our business plan and could negatively impact our borrowers or prospective borrowers, which in turn could negatively impact our business. It is also possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to our proposed business. We can know neither the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications nor the effect additional governmental regulations or administrative policies and procedures, when and if promulgated, could have on our business. For example, if cannabis is no longer illegal under federal law, we may experience a significant increase in competition. Accordingly, any change in these laws or regulations, changes in their interpretation, or newly enacted laws or regulations and any failure by us to comply with these laws or regulations, could require changes to certain of our business practices, negatively impact our operations, cash flow or financial condition, impose additional costs on us or otherwise adversely affect our business.

Applicable state laws may prevent us from maximizing our potential income.

Depending on the state, and the laws of that particular state, we may not be able to fully realize our potential to generate profit. For example, some states have residency requirements for those directly involved in the cannabis industry, which may impede our ability to contract with cannabis businesses in those states. Furthermore, cities and counties are being given broad discretion to ban certain cannabis activities. Even if these activities are legal under state law, specific cities and counties may ban them.

Loans to cannabis businesses may be forfeited to the federal government.

Any assets used in conjunction with the violation of federal law are potentially subject to federal forfeiture, even in states that have legalized cannabis. In July 2017, the DOJ issued a new policy directive regarding asset forfeiture, referred to as the “equitable sharing program.” This policy directive represents a reversal of DOJ’s policy under President Obama’s administration, and allows for forfeitures to proceed that are not in accord with the limitations imposed by state-specific forfeiture laws. This policy directive could lead to increased use of asset forfeitures by local, state and federal enforcement agencies. If the federal government decides to initiate forfeiture proceedings against cannabis businesses, such as the cannabis facilities that are owned or utilized by our borrowers, our loans to our borrowers would likely be materially and adversely affected.

We may have difficulty accessing bankruptcy courts.

Because cannabis is illegal under federal law, federal bankruptcy protection is currently not available to parties who engage in the cannabis industry or cannabis-related businesses. Recent bankruptcy rulings have denied bankruptcies for dispensaries upon the justification that businesses cannot violate federal law and then claim the benefits of federal bankruptcy for the same activity and upon the justification that courts cannot ask a bankruptcy trustee to take possession of, and distribute cannabis assets as such action would violate the CSA. Therefore, we may not be able to seek the protection of the bankruptcy courts, and this could materially affect our business or our ability to obtain credit.

The loans we make may include Canadian entities within their corporate structure that have the ability to seek insolvency protections in Canada, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

The loans that we make may include U.S.-based companies operating in the cannabis industry with at least one Canadian entity within their corporate structure for the purpose of listing on the CSE. In May 2020, a U.S.-based cannabis company that is listed on the CSE filed for, and was granted, insolvency protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act pursuant to Canadian law. If the applicable borrower obtains bankruptcy protections in Canada, it could restrict our ability, or create additional costs or delays involved in our efforts, to foreclose on the collateral, which will reduce the net proceeds realized and, thus, increase the potential for loss.

We may make loans that are secured by properties that are, and will be, subject to extensive regulations, such that if such collateral was foreclosed upon those regulations may result in significant costs and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

We may make loans that are secured by properties that are, and will be, subject to various local laws and regulatory requirements, and we would be subject to such requirements if such collateral was foreclosed upon. Local property regulations may restrict the use of collateral or our ability to foreclose on the collateral. Among other things, these restrictions may relate to cultivation of cannabis, the use of water and the discharge of wastewater, fire and safety, seismic conditions, asbestos-cleanup or hazardous material abatement requirements. Due to current statutory prohibitions and exchange listing standards, we will not own any real estate used in cannabis-related operations. While our loan agreements and related mortgages provide for foreclosure remedies, receivership remedies and/or other remedies that would allow us to cause the sale or other realization of real property collateral, the regulatory requirements and statutory prohibitions related to real property used in cannabis-related operations may cause significant delays or difficulties in realizing upon the expected value of such real property collateral. We make no assurance that existing regulatory policies will not materially and adversely affect the value of such collateral, or that additional regulations will not be adopted that would increase such potential material adverse effect. The negative effect on such collateral could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

If we foreclose on properties securing our loans, we may have difficulty selling the properties due to the nature of specialized industrial cultivation/processing cannabis properties and the potentially limited number of high-quality operators for such properties, as well as for retail/dispensary cannabis properties.

Specialized industrial cultivation/processing cannabis properties are highly specialized and require substantial investment to make them suitable for such uses. In addition, there may be a limited number of high-quality operators of specialized industrial cultivation/processing and retail/dispensary cannabis properties or a limited number of operators in a particular market that have completed the state-licensing process. As a result, if we foreclose on properties securing our loans, we may have difficulty selling such properties and may be forced to sell a property to a lower quality operator. To the extent there is a change in law or we are unable to find a suitable cannabis operator, we may be forced to sell a property at a loss to a party outside of the cannabis industry. Any of the foregoing could materially and adversely affect the value of our assets and our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Certain assets of our borrowers may not be used as collateral or transferred to us due to applicable state laws and regulations governing the cannabis industry, and such restrictions could negatively impact our profitability.

Each state that has legalized cannabis in some form has adopted its own set of laws and regulations that differ from one another. In particular, laws and regulations differ among states regarding the collateralization or transferability of cannabis-related assets, such as cannabis licenses, cannabis inventory, and ownership interests in licensed cannabis companies. Some state laws and regulations where our borrowers operate may prohibit the collateralization or transferability of certain cannabis-related assets. Other states may allow the collateralization or transferability of cannabis-related assets, but with restrictions, such as meeting certain eligibility requirements, utilization of state receiverships, and/or upon approval by the applicable regulatory authority. Prohibitions or restrictions on our ability to acquire certain cannabis-related assets securing the loans of our borrowers could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Specifically, there is no limitation under state law on foreclosing on the real estate underlying the loans that we hold; however, to the extent the real estate is still being used in cannabis-related activities, we will not foreclose and take title to such real estate as doing so would violate NASDAQ listing standards. If we determine to foreclose on the real estate underlying a defaulted loan, we would have a third party collateral manager evict the tenant and have the cannabis equipment and inventory removed from such property. With respect to equipment, receivables and cash accounts, there are no limitations under state law regarding our ability to foreclose on such collateral. Foreclosing on pledged equity is subject to approval by the applicable state regulator as it would trigger a change of control, which has to be approved by the state regulator, in its discretion. Our loans are secured by liens on equity, including the equity in the entity that holds the state-issued license to cultivate, process, distribute, or retail cannabis, as the case may be, but we will not take title to such equity as doing so would violate NASDAQ listing standards. We also cannot foreclose on liens on state licenses as they are generally not transferable, nor do we have liens on cannabis inventory.

Our ability to force a sale of our real estate collateral in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania is governed by judicial foreclosure. Under judicial foreclosure, we can enforce a judgment in foreclosure by a writ of execution. The writ directs the sheriff, clerk, special master, referee or other authorized person, as the case may be, to levy on and sell the real property, commonly at a properly noticed public auction. In Maryland, Massachusetts and West Virginia, a trustee or appointed auctioneer sells the property at a public sale.

We cannot take the position of mortgagee-in-possession as long as the property is used by a cannabis operator, but we can request that the court appoint a receiver to manage and operate the subject real property until the foreclosure proceedings are completed. The appointment of a receiver to manage the property does not render us a mortgagee-in-possession. A receiver serves as an officer of the court, appointed to preserve the value of the real property and the income from the real property during the pendency of foreclosure proceedings or trustee sales.

Equipment, receivables, and cash in deposit accounts may be collected under state Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). In all states, we are permitted for non-real estate collateral (e.g., equipment) to pursue a judicial action and execute on a judgment via sheriffs’ sale.

While we cannot foreclose under UCC and take title or sell equity in a licensed cannabis business, a potential purchaser of a delinquent or defaulted loan could. However, the transfer of ownership of equity in a licensed cannabis business requires state regulator approval, which can take significant time.

In addition, if a borrower defaults on a loan from us and we seek to cause a sale of the collateral, the sales of such assets may be forced upon the borrower at such point when time may be of the essence. Therefore, the assets may be made available to a limited number of potential purchasers, and particularly in limited-license states in which we focus, the sales prices may be less than the prices obtained with more time in a larger market. As a result, the sale of such collateral may not result in sufficient proceeds to repay our loan and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Liability relating to environmental matters may impact the value of properties that we may acquire upon foreclosure of the properties securing our loans.

To the extent we foreclose on properties securing our loans, we may be subject to environmental liabilities arising from such foreclosed properties. In particular, cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facilities may present environmental concerns of which we are not currently aware. Under various federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real property may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released on its property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances. Accordingly, if environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire or develop after acquisition, we could become subject to liability for the contamination.

The presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect an owner’s ability to sell real estate or borrow using real estate as collateral. To the extent that an owner of a property securing one of our loans becomes liable for removal costs, the ability of the owner to make payments to us may be reduced, which in turn may adversely affect the value of the relevant loan held by us and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

If we foreclose on any properties securing our loans, the presence of hazardous substances on a property may adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs, thus harming our financial condition. The discovery of material environmental liabilities attached to any properties securing our loans could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The market value of properties securing our loans acquired by us upon foreclosure may decrease if they cannot be used for cannabis related operations.

Properties used for cannabis operations, particularly cultivation and manufacturing facilities, are generally more valuable than if used for other purposes. If we are unable to sell a property securing our loans to a licensed cannabis company for similar use and we, therefore, must foreclose on such property, we may recover significantly less than the expected value of the foreclosed property, thereby having a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Risks Related to Sources of Financing Our Business

Our growth depends on external sources of capital, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all.

We intend to grow by expanding our portfolio of loans, which we intend to finance primarily through newly issued equity or debt. We may not be in a position to take advantage of attractive lending opportunities for growth if we are unable, due to global or regional economic uncertainty, changes in the state or federal regulatory environment relating to our business, our own operating or financial performance or otherwise, to access capital markets on a timely basis and on favorable terms or at all. In addition, U.S. federal income tax law generally requires that a REIT distribute annually at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain and certain non-cash income, and that it pay U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that it annually distributes less than 100% of its taxable income. Because we intend to grow our business, this limitation may require us to raise additional equity or incur debt at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so.

Our access to capital will depend upon a number of factors over which we have little or no control, including, but not limited to:

If general economic instability or downturn leads to an inability to borrow at attractive rates or at all, our ability to obtain capital to finance our loans to borrowers could be negatively impacted. In addition, while we do not consider our Company to be engaged in the cannabis industry, banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us, particularly secured lending, because we invest in companies involved in the cultivation, manufacturing and sale of cannabis.

If we are unable to obtain capital on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, we likely will have to reduce the loans we make. In addition, our ability to refinance all or any debt we may incur in the future, on acceptable terms or at all, is subject to all of the above factors, and will also be affected by our future financial position, results of operations and cash flows, which additional factors are also subject to significant uncertainties, and therefore we may be unable to refinance any debt we may incur in the future, as it matures, on acceptable terms or at all. All of these events would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Global economic, political and market conditions could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations, including a negative impact on our ability to access the capital markets on favorable terms.

Downgrades by rating agencies to the U.S. government’s credit rating or concerns about its credit and deficit levels in general could cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise, which may negatively impact both the perception of credit risk associated portfolio and our ability to access the debt markets on favorable terms. In addition, a decreased U.S. government credit rating could create broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which may weigh heavily on our financial performance and the value of our equity. Additionally, concerns regarding a potential increase in inflation would likely cause interest rates and borrowing costs to rise.

Deterioration in the economic conditions in the Eurozone and globally, including instability in financial markets, may pose a risk to our business. In recent years, financial markets have been affected at times by a number of global macroeconomic and political events, including the following: large sovereign debts and fiscal deficits of several countries in Europe and in emerging markets jurisdictions, levels of non-performing loans on the balance sheets of European banks, the potential effect of any European country leaving the Eurozone, the potential effect of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and market volatility and loss of investor confidence driven by political events. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may in the future affect, consumer confidence levels and spending, personal bankruptcy rates, levels of incurrence and default on consumer debt and home prices, among other factors. We cannot assure you that market disruptions in Europe, including the increased cost of funding for certain governments and financial institutions, will not impact the global economy, and we cannot assure you that assistance packages will be available, or if available, be sufficient to stabilize countries and markets in Europe or elsewhere affected by a financial crisis. To the extent uncertainty regarding any economic recovery in Europe negatively impacts consumer confidence and consumer credit factors, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be significantly and adversely affected.

Various social and political circumstances in the U.S. and around the world (including wars and other forms of conflict, including rising trade tensions between the United States and China, and other uncertainties regarding actual and potential shifts in the U.S. and foreign, trade, economic and other policies with other countries, terrorist acts, security operations and catastrophic events such as fires, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and global health epidemics), may also contribute to increased market volatility and economic uncertainties or deterioration in the U.S. and worldwide. Specifically, the rising conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and resulting market volatility, could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In response to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. and other countries have imposed sanctions or other restrictive actions against Russia. Any of the above factors, including sanctions, export controls, tariffs, trade wars and other governmental actions, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common shares to decline. These market and economic disruptions could also negatively impact the operating results of our borrowers.

We may incur significant debt, which may subject us to restrictive covenants and increased risk of loss and may reduce cash available for distributions to our stockholders, and our governing documents contain no limit on the amount of debt we may incur.

Subject to market conditions and availability, we may incur significant debt through bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities), public and private debt issuances and derivative instruments, in addition to transaction or asset specific funding arrangements. The percentage of leverage we employ will vary depending on our available capital, our ability to obtain and access financing arrangements with lenders, debt restrictions contained in those financing arrangements and the lenders’ and rating agencies’ estimate of the stability of our loan portfolio’s cash flow. Our governing documents contain no limit on the amount of debt we may incur, and we may significantly increase the amount of leverage we utilize at any time without approval of our stockholders. Leverage can enhance our potential returns but can also exacerbate our losses. Incurring substantial debt could subject us to many risks that, if realized, would materially and adversely affect us, including, but not limited to, the risks that:

There can be no assurance that a leveraging strategy will be successful. If any one of these events were to occur, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected.

Interest rate fluctuations could increase our financing costs, which could lead to a significant decrease in our results of operations, cash flows and the market value of our loans.

Our primary interest rate exposures will relate to the financing cost of our debt. To the extent that our financing costs will be determined by reference to floating rates, the amount of such costs will depend on a variety of factors, including, without limitation, (i) for collateralized debt, the value and liquidity of the collateral, and for non-collateralized debt, our credit, (ii) the level and movement of interest rates, and (iii) general market conditions and liquidity. In a period of rising interest rates, our interest expense on floating-rate debt would increase, while any additional interest income we earn on our floating-rate loans may not compensate for such increase in interest expense. At the same time, the interest income we earn on our fixed-rate loans would not change, the duration and weighted average life of our fixed-rate loans would increase and the market value of our fixed-rate loans would decrease. Similarly, in a period of declining interest rates, our interest income on floating-rate loans would decrease, while any decrease in the interest we are charged on our floating-rate debt may not compensate for such decrease in interest income and interest we are charged on our fixed-rate debt would not change. Any such scenario could materially and adversely affect us.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve has raised the Federal Funds Rate multiple times in 2022 and may continue to do so in 2023. These developments, along with the United States government’s credit and deficit concerns, global economic uncertainties and market volatility and the impacts of COVID-19, could cause interest rates to be volatile, which may negatively impact our ability to access the capital markets on favorable terms.

Recent macroeconomic trends, including inflation and rising interest rates, may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

During the year ended December 31, 2022, inflation in the United States has accelerated and is currently expected to continue at an elevated level in the near-term. Rising inflation could have an adverse impact on any variable rate debt we may incur in the future, and our general and administrative expenses, as these costs could increase at a rate higher than our interest income and other revenue. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates multiple times in 2022 to combat inflation and restore price stability and rates may continue to rise in 2023. To the extent our borrowing costs increase faster than the interest income earned from our floating-rate loans, such increases may adversely affect our cash flows.

Any bank credit facilities that we may use in the future to finance our operations may require us to provide collateral or pay down debt.

We may utilize bank credit facilities (including term loans and revolving facilities) to finance our loans if they become available on acceptable terms. We may not have the funds available to repay our debt at that time, which would likely result in defaults unless we are able to raise the funds from alternative sources, which we may not be able to achieve on favorable terms or at all. If we cannot meet these requirements, lenders could accelerate our indebtedness, increase the interest rate on advanced funds and terminate our ability to borrow funds from it, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and ability to implement our investment strategy. In addition, if a lender files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, our loans may become subject to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, thus depriving us, at least temporarily, of the benefit of such loans. Such an event could restrict our access to bank credit facilities and increase our cost of capital. The providers of bank credit facilities may also require us to maintain a certain amount of cash or set aside assets sufficient to maintain a specified liquidity position that would allow us to satisfy our collateral obligations. As a result, we may not be able to obtain leverage as fully as we would choose, which could reduce the return on our loans. If we are unable to meet these collateral obligations, our financial condition and prospects could deteriorate rapidly.

In addition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain bank credit facilities on favorable terms, or at all. Banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us.

Adoption of the Basel III standards and other proposed supplementary regulatory standards may negatively impact our access to financing or affect the terms of our future financing arrangements.

In response to various financial crises and the volatility of financial markets, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision adopted the Basel III standards several years ago to reform, among other things, bank capital adequacy, stress testing, and market liquidity risk. United States regulators have elected to implement substantially all of the Basel III standards and have even implemented rules requiring enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards, which impose capital requirements more stringent than those of the Basel III standards for the most systematically significant banking organizations in the United States. Adoption and implementation of the Basel III standards and the supplemental regulatory standards adopted by United States regulators may negatively impact our access to financing or affect the terms of our future financing arrangements due to an increase in capital requirements for, and constraints on, the financial institutions from which we may borrow.

Moreover, in January 2019, the Basel Committee published its revised capital requirements for market risk, known as Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (“FRTB”), which are expected to generally result in higher global capital requirements for banks that could, in turn, reduce liquidity and increase financing and hedging costs. The impact of FRTB will not be known until after any resulting rules are finalized and implemented by the United States federal bank regulatory agencies.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Provisions in our Charter and our amended and restated bylaws (our “Bylaws”) may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders, and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our Charter and our Bylaws contain provisions that may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management. Our Charter and Bylaws include, among others, provisions that:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.

Any provision of our Charter or Bylaws that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit your opportunity to receive a premium for your shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our stock shall be deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our Charter and Bylaws described above.

Our Board may approve the issuance of stock, including preferred stock, with terms that may discourage a third party from acquiring us.

Our Charter permits our Board, without any action by our stockholders, to authorize the issuance of stock in one or more classes or series. Our Board may also classify or reclassify any unissued shares of stock and set or change the preferences, conversion and other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends and other distributions, qualifications and terms and conditions of redemption of any such stock, which rights may be superior to those of our common stock. Thus, our Board could authorize the issuance of shares of a class or series of stock with terms and conditions which could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of some or a majority of our outstanding common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then current market price of our common stock.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or MGCL, could inhibit changes of control, which may discourage third parties from conducting a tender offer or seeking other change of control transactions that could involve a premium price for our common stock or that our stockholders otherwise believe to be in their best interests.

We are a Maryland corporation and subject to the MGCL. Under the MGCL, certain “business combinations” between a Maryland corporation and an “interested stockholder” or an affiliate of an interested stockholder are prohibited for five years after the most recent date on which the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. These business combinations include a merger, consolidation, share exchange or, in circumstances specified in the statute, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities. An interested stockholder is defined as: (a) any person who beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding voting stock of a corporation; or (b) an affiliate or associate of a corporation who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding stock of such corporation.

A person is not an interested stockholder under the statute if the board of directors approved in advance the transaction by which the person otherwise would have become an interested stockholder. However, in approving a transaction, the board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance, at or after the time of approval, with any terms and conditions determined by the board of directors.

After the expiration of the five-year period described above, any business combination between a Maryland corporation and an interested stockholder must generally be recommended by the board of directors of such corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

These supermajority vote requirements do not apply if the corporation’s common stockholders receive a minimum price, as defined under the MGCL, for their shares in the form of cash or other consideration in the same form as previously paid by the interested stockholder for its shares. The MGCL also permits various exemptions from these provisions, including business combinations that are exempted by the board of directors before the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder. By resolution of our Board, we have opted out of the business combination provisions of the MGCL and provide that any business combination between us and any other person is exempt from the business combination provisions of the MGCL, provided that the business combination is first approved by our Board (including a majority of directors who are not affiliates or associates of such persons).

In addition, under the MGCL, holders of our “control shares” (defined as voting shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned or controlled by the acquirer, would entitle the acquirer to exercise one of three increasing ranges of voting power in electing directors) acquired in a “control share acquisition” (defined as the direct or indirect acquisition of issued and outstanding “control shares”) have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all of the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares. Our Bylaws contain a provision exempting from the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that this exemption will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future.

Additionally, Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL permits our Board, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our Charter or Bylaws, to implement certain takeover defenses, such as a classified board, some of which we do not have.

Our Bylaws designate the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders and provide that claims relating to causes of action under the Securities Act may only be brought in federal district courts, which could limit stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, if any, and could discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees, if any.

Our Bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, or, if that court does not have jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, will be the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any Internal Corporate Claim, as such term is defined in the MGCL, (b) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf (other than actions arising under federal securities laws), (c) any action asserting a claim of breach of any duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or to our stockholders, (d) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our directors, officers or other employees arising pursuant to any provision of the MGCL or our Charter or Bylaws or (e) any other action asserting a claim against us or any of our directors, officers or other employees that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. These choice of forum provisions will not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, or any other claim for which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, our Bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for the resolution of any claim arising under the Securities Act.

These exclusive forum provisions may limit the ability of our stockholders to bring a claim in a judicial forum that such stockholders find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees, if any, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and employees, if any. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provisions contained in our Bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and operating results. For example, under the Securities Act, federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act, and investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder. In addition, the exclusive forum provisions described above do not apply to any actions brought under the Exchange Act.

Ownership limitations contained in the Charter may restrict change of control or business combination opportunities in which our stockholders might receive a premium for their shares.

For us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, not more than 50% of the value of our outstanding stock may be owned directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (including certain entities treated as individuals for this purpose) at any time during the last half of a taxable year. For the purpose of assisting our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, among other purposes, our Charter prohibits beneficial or constructive ownership by any person of more than a certain percentage, currently 9.8%, in value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of our common stock or 9.8% in value of our outstanding shares of all classes or series of our stock, which we refer to as the “ownership limits.” The constructive ownership rules under the Code and our Charter are complex and may cause shares of the outstanding common stock owned by a group of related persons to be deemed to be constructively owned by one person. As a result, the acquisition of less than 9.8% of our outstanding common stock or all classes or series of our stock by a person could cause a person to own constructively in excess of 9.8% of the outstanding shares of our common stock or in excess of 9.8% of the outstanding shares of all class and series of our stock, respectively, and thus violate the ownership limits. There can be no assurance that our Board, as permitted in the Charter, will not decrease the ownership limits in the future. Any attempt to own or transfer shares of our common stock in excess of the ownership limits without the consent of our Board will result either in the shares in excess of the limit being transferred by operation of the Charter to a charitable trust, and the person who attempted to acquire such excess shares will not have any rights in such shares, or in the transfer being void. The ownership limits may have the effect of precluding a change in control of us by a third party, even if such change in control would be in the best interests of our stockholders or would result in receipt of a premium to the price of our common stock (and even if such change in control would not reasonably jeopardize our REIT status). In addition, our Board has granted conditional exceptions to the ownership limits to affiliates of our Sponsor, which may limit our Board’s power to increase the ownership limits or grant further exemptions in the future.

Maintenance of our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act may impose significant limits on our operations. Your investment return in our common stock may be reduced if we are required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

We intend to continue to conduct our operations so that we will be exempt from the provisions of the Investment Company Act pursuant to an exemption contained in 3(c)(5)(C) thereunder. The Investment Company Act provides certain protection to investors and imposes certain restrictions on registered investment companies (including, for example, limitations on the ability of registered investment companies to incur leverage), none of which will be applicable to us.

We rely on the exception set forth in Section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act, which excludes from the definition of investment company “[a]ny person who is not engaged in the business of issuing redeemable securities, face-amount certificates of the installment type or periodic payment plan certificates, and who is primarily engaged in one or more of the following businesses . . . (C) purchasing or otherwise acquiring mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate.” The SEC generally requires that, for the exception provided by Section 3(c)(5) to be available, at least 55% of an entity’s assets be comprised of mortgages and other liens on and interests in real estate, also known as “qualifying interests,” and at least another 25% of the entity’s assets must be comprised of additional qualifying interests or real estate-type interests (with no more than 20% of the entity’s assets comprised of miscellaneous assets).

We classify our assets for purposes of our 3(c)(5)(C) exemption based upon no-action positions taken by the SEC staff and interpretive guidance provided by the SEC and its staff. These no-action positions are based on specific factual situations that may be substantially different from the factual situations we may face. No assurance can be given that the SEC or its staff will concur with our classification of our assets. In addition, the SEC or its staff may, in the future, issue further guidance that may require us to re-classify our assets for purposes of the Investment Company Act. If we are required to reclassify our assets, we may no longer be in compliance with the exemption from the definition of an investment company provided by Section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act.

A change in the value of any of our assets could negatively affect our ability to maintain our exemption from regulation under the Investment Company Act. To maintain compliance with the applicable exemption under the Investment Company Act, we may be unable to sell assets we would otherwise want to sell and may need to sell assets we would otherwise wish to retain. In addition, we may have to acquire additional assets that we might not otherwise have acquired or may have to forego opportunities to acquire assets that we would otherwise want to acquire and would be important to our investment strategy.

A failure by us to maintain this exemption would require us to significantly restructure our investment strategy. For example, because affiliated transactions are generally prohibited under the Investment Company Act, we would not be able to enter into transactions with any of our affiliates if we are required to register as an investment company, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to operate the business and pay distributions. If we were required to register as an investment company but failed to do so, we would be prohibited from engaging in our business, and criminal and civil actions could be brought against us. In addition, our contracts would be unenforceable unless a court required enforcement, and a court could appoint a receiver to take control of such entity and liquidate its business.

Rapid and steep declines in the values of our real estate-related investments may make it more difficult for us to maintain our qualification as a REIT or exemption from the Investment Company Act.

If the market value or income potential of real estate-related investments declines as a result of increased interest rates or other factors, we may need to increase our real estate loans and income and/or liquidate our non-qualifying assets in order to maintain our REIT qualification or exemption from the Investment Company Act. If the decline in real estate asset values and/or income occurs quickly, this may be especially difficult to accomplish. This difficulty may be exacerbated by the illiquid nature of any non-qualifying assets that we may own. We may have to make investment decisions that we otherwise would not make absent REIT and Investment Company Act considerations.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited.

Our Charter eliminates the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law. Under current Maryland law and our Charter, our directors and officers will not have any liability to us or our stockholders for money damages other than liability resulting from:

Our Charter obligates us to indemnify each of our directors or officers who is or is threatened to be made a party to or witness in a proceeding by reason of his or her service in those or certain other capacities, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, from and against any claim or liability to which such person may become subject or which such person may incur by reason of his or her status as a present or former director or officer of us or serving in such other capacities. In addition, we may be obligated to pay or reimburse the expenses incurred by our present and former directors and officers without requiring a preliminary determination of their ultimate entitlement to indemnification. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights to recover money damages from our directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent these provisions in our Charter or that might exist with other companies, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions that are not in our best interests.

Future joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on joint venture partners’ financial condition and liquidity and disputes between us and our joint venture partners.

We may in the future make investments through joint ventures. Such joint venture investments may involve risks not otherwise present when we originate or acquire investments without partners, including the following:

Any of the above may subject us to liabilities in excess of those contemplated and adversely affect the value of our future joint venture investments.

Risks Related to Our Relationship with Our Manager and its Affiliates

Our future success depends on our Manager and its key personnel and investment professionals. We may not find a suitable replacement for our Manager if our Management Agreement is terminated or if such key personnel or investment professionals leave the employment of our Manager or otherwise become unavailable to us.

We rely on the resources of our Manager to manage our day-to-day operations, as we do not separately employ any personnel. We rely completely on our Manager to provide us with investment advisory services and general management services. Each of our executive officers also serve as officers or employees of our Manager. Our Manager has significant discretion as to the implementation of our investment and operating policies and strategies. Accordingly, we believe that our success depends to a significant extent upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of the officers, key personnel and investment professionals of our Manager as well as the information and deal flow generated by such individuals. The officers, key personnel and investment professionals of our Manager source, evaluate, negotiate, close and monitor our loans; therefore, our success depends on their continued service. The departure of any of the officers, key personnel and investment professionals of our Manager could have a material adverse effect on our business.

None of our officers are obligated to dedicate any specific portion of their time to our business. Each of them may have significant responsibilities for other investment vehicles managed by affiliates of our Manager. As a result, the time these individuals may be able to devote to the management of our business could be limited. Further, when there are turbulent conditions in the real estate markets or distress in the credit markets, the attention of our Manager’s personnel and our executive officers and the resources of our Manager may also be required by other investment vehicles managed by affiliates of our Manager.

In addition, we offer no assurance that our Manager will remain our manager or that we will continue to have access to our Manager’s officers, key personnel and investment professionals due to the termination of the Management Agreement, our Manager being acquired, or due to other circumstances. Currently, we are managed by our Board and our officers and by our Manager, as provided for under our Management Agreement. The initial term of the Management Agreement will expire on May 1, 2024, and will be automatically renewed for one-year terms thereafter unless otherwise terminated. Furthermore, our Manager may decline to renew the Management Agreement with 90 days’ written notice prior to the expiration of the renewal term. If the Management Agreement is terminated and we are unable to find a suitable replacement for our Manager, we may not be able to execute its investment strategy.

Our growth depends on the ability of our Manager to make loans on favorable terms that satisfy our investment strategy and otherwise generate attractive risk-adjusted returns initially and consistently from time to time.

Our ability to achieve our investment objective depends on our ability to grow, which depends, in turn, on the management and investment teams of our Manager and their ability to identify and to make loans on favorable terms in accordance with our investment strategy as well as on our access to financing on acceptable terms. The demands on the time of the professional staff of our Manager will increase as our portfolio grows and the management of our existing portfolio may divert our Manager’s attention from future potential loans or otherwise slow our rate of investment. Our Manager may be unable to successfully and efficiently integrate new loans into our existing portfolio or otherwise effectively manage our assets or our future growth effectively. We cannot assure you that our Manager will be able to hire, train, supervise, manage and retain new officers and employees to manage future growth effectively, and any such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business. The failure to consummate loans on advantageous terms without substantial expense or delay would impede our growth, would negatively affect our results of operations and our ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders, and could cause the value of our common stock to decline.

There are various conflicts of interest in our relationship with our Manager that could result in decisions that are not in the best interests of our stockholders.

We are subject to conflicts of interest arising out of our relationship with our Manager and its affiliates. We are managed by our Manager, and our executive officers are employees of our Manager. There is no guarantee that the policies and procedures adopted by us, the terms and conditions of the Management Agreement or the policies and procedures adopted by our Manager and its affiliates, will enable us to identify, adequately address or mitigate these conflicts of interest.

Some examples of conflicts of interest that may arise by virtue of our relationship with our Manager include:

Manager’s advisory activities. While our Manager and its affiliates have agreed that for so long as our Manager is managing us, neither it nor any of its affiliates will sponsor or manage any other mortgage REIT that invests primarily in loans of the same kind as our Company, our Manager and its affiliates may otherwise manage other investment vehicles that have investment objectives that compete or overlap with, and may from time to time invest in, our target asset classes. This may apply to existing investment vehicles or investment vehicles that may be organized in the future. Consequently, we, on the one hand, and these other investment vehicles, on the other hand, may from time to time pursue the same or similar loan opportunities. To the extent such other investment vehicles seek to acquire the same target assets as us, the scope of opportunities otherwise available to us may be adversely affected and/or reduced. Our Manager or its affiliates may also give advice to such other investment vehicles that may differ from the advice given to us even though their investment objectives may be the same or similar to ours.

Allocation of loans. Our Manager and its affiliates endeavor to allocate loan opportunities in a fair and equitable manner, subject to their internal policies. The internal policies of our Manager and its affiliates, which may be amended without our consent, are intended to enable us to share equitably with any other investment vehicles that are managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager. In general, loan opportunities are allocated taking into consideration various factors, including, among others, the relevant investment vehicles’ available capital, their investment objectives or strategies, their risk profiles and their existing or prior positions in a borrower or particular loan, their potential conflicts of interest, the nature of the opportunity and market conditions, as well as the rotation of loan opportunities. Nevertheless, it is possible that we may not be given the opportunity to participate in certain loans made by investment vehicles managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager. In addition, there may be conflicts in the allocation of loan opportunities among us and the investment vehicles that our Manager or affiliates of our Manager manage in the future.

Co-investments. Other investment vehicles managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager may co-invest with us or hold positions in a loan where we have also invested, including by means of splitting commitments, participating in loans or other means of syndicating loans. Such loans may raise potential conflicts of interest between us and such other investment vehicles. To the extent such investment vehicles seek to acquire the same target assets as us, subject to the internal policies of our Manager and its affiliates described above, the scope of opportunities otherwise available to us may be adversely affected and/or reduced. In such circumstances, the size of the investment opportunity in loans otherwise available to us may be less than it would otherwise have been, and we may participate in such opportunities on different and potentially less favorable economic terms than such other parties if our Manager deems such participation as being otherwise in our best interests. Furthermore, when such other investment vehicles have interests or requirements that do not align with our interests, including differing liquidity needs or desired investment horizons, conflicts may arise in the manner in which any voting or control rights are exercised with respect to the relevant borrower, potentially resulting in an adverse impact on us. If we participate in a co-investment with an investment vehicle managed by our Manager or an affiliate of our Manager and such vehicle fails to fund a future advance on a loan, we may be required to, or we may elect to, cover such advance and invest additional funds. In addition, if we and such other investment vehicles invest in different classes or types of debt, equity or other investments relating to the same borrower, actions may be taken by such other investment vehicles that are adverse to our interests, including, but not limited to, during a work-out, restructuring or insolvency proceeding or similar matter occurring with respect to such loan.

Loans in which other investment vehicles managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager hold different loans. We may invest in, acquire, sell assets to or provide financing to investment vehicles managed by our Manager or affiliates of our Manager and their borrowers or purchase assets from, sell assets to, or arrange financing from any such investment vehicles and their borrowers. Any such transactions will require approval by a majority of our independent directors. There can be no assurance that any procedural protections will be sufficient to ensure that these transactions will be made on terms that will be at least as favorable to us as those that would have been obtained in an arm’s-length transaction.

Fees and expenses. We will be responsible for certain fees and expenses as determined by our Manager, including due diligence costs, legal, accounting and financial advisor fees and related costs, incurred in connection with evaluating and consummating loan opportunities, regardless of whether such loans are ultimately consummated by the parties thereto.

The ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities may reduce the time our Manager spends managing our business and may result in certain conflicts of interest.

Certain of our officers and directors and the officers and other personnel of our Manager also serve or may serve as officers, directors or partners of certain affiliates of our Manager, as well as investment vehicles sponsored by such affiliates, including investment vehicles or managed accounts not yet established, whether managed or sponsored by affiliates or our Manager. Accordingly, the ability of our Manager and its officers and employees to engage in other business activities may reduce the time our Manager spends managing our business. These activities could be viewed as creating a conflict of interest insofar as the time and effort of the professional staff of our Manager and its officers and employees will not be devoted exclusively to our business; instead, it will be allocated between our business and the management of these other investment vehicles.

In the course of our investing activities, we pay Base Management Fees to our Manager and will reimburse our Manager for certain expenses it incurs. As a result, investors in our common stock will invest on a “gross” basis and receive any distributions on a “net” basis after expenses, resulting in, among other things, a lower rate of return than one might achieve through direct loans. As a result of this arrangement, our Manager’s interests may be less aligned with our interests.

Our Management Agreement with our Manager was not negotiated on an arm’s-length basis and may not be as favorable to us as if they had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party, and the manner of determining the Base Management Fees may not provide sufficient incentive to our Manager to maximize risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio since it is based on the book value of our equity per annum and not on our performance.

We rely completely on our Manager to provide us with investment advisory and general management services. Our executive officers also serve as officers or employees of our Manager. Our Management Agreement was negotiated between related parties and their terms, including fees payable, may not be as favorable to us as if they had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

We pay our Manager Base Management Fees regardless of the performance of our portfolio. Pursuant to the terms of our Management Agreement, our Manager receives Base Management Fees that are calculated and payable quarterly in arrears in cash, in an amount equal to 0.375% (1.50% on an annualized basis) of our Equity, subject to certain adjustments, including any agency fees relating to our loans, but excluding the Incentive Compensation and any diligence fees paid to and earned by our Manager and paid by third parties in connection with our Manager’s due diligence of potential loans. Such Base Management Fees will be calculated and payable quarterly in arrears in cash, subject to certain adjustments. Our Manager’s entitlement to the Base Management Fees, which are not based upon performance metrics or goals, might reduce its incentive to devote its time and effort to seeking loans that provide attractive risk-adjusted returns for our portfolio. Further, the Base Management Fee structure gives our Manager the incentive to maximize the book value of our equity raised by the issuance of new equity securities or the retention of existing equity value, regardless of the effect of these actions on existing stockholders. In other words, the Base Management Fee structure will reward our Manager primarily based on the size of our equity raised and not necessarily on our financial returns to stockholders. This in turn could hurt both our ability to make distributions to our stockholders and the market price of our common stock.

The Incentive Compensation payable to our Manager under the Management Agreement may cause our Manager to select riskier loans to increase its Incentive Compensation.

In addition to the Base Management Fees, our Manager is entitled to receive Incentive Compensation under our Management Agreement. Under our Management Agreement, we pay Incentive Compensation to our Manager based upon our achievement of targeted levels of Core Earnings. “Core Earnings” is generally defined in our Management Agreement as, for a given period, the net income (loss) computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals (“GAAP”), excluding (i) non-cash equity compensation expense, (ii) the Incentive Compensation, (iii) depreciation and amortization, (iv) any unrealized gains, losses or other non-cash items recorded in net income (loss) for the period, regardless of whether such items are included in other comprehensive income or loss, or in net income (loss); provided that Core Earnings does not exclude, in the case of loans with a deferred interest feature (such as OID, debt instruments with PIK interest and zero coupon securities), accrued income that we have not yet received in cash, and (v) one-time events pursuant to changes in GAAP and certain non-cash charges after discussions between our Manager and our independent directors and after approval by a majority of such independent directors.

In evaluating loans and other management strategies, the opportunity to earn Incentive Compensation based on Core Earnings and realized profits, as applicable, may lead our Manager to place undue emphasis on the maximization of Core Earnings and realized profits at the expense of other criteria, such as preservation of capital, in order to achieve higher Incentive Compensation. Loans with higher yield potential are generally riskier or more speculative. This could result in increased risk to the value of our loan portfolio.

Terminating our Management Agreement for unsatisfactory performance of our Manager or electing not to renew the Management Agreement may be difficult, and terminating our Management Agreement in certain circumstances requires payment of a substantial termination fee.

Terminating our Management Agreement without cause is difficult and costly. Our independent directors and the Audit Committee of our Board will review our Manager’s performance and the applicable Base Management Fees and Incentive Compensation at least annually. Upon 90 days’ written notice prior to the expiration of any renewal term, our Management Agreement may be terminated upon the affirmative vote of at least a majority of our independent directors, based upon unsatisfactory performance by our Manager that is materially detrimental to us. The Management Agreement provides that upon any termination as described in the foregoing, we would pay our Manager a Termination Fee equal to three times the sum of the annualized average quarterly Base Management Fees and annualized average quarterly Incentive Compensation received from us during the 24-month period immediately preceding the most recently completed fiscal quarter prior to such termination. This provision increases the cost to us of terminating the Management Agreement and adversely affects our ability to terminate our Manager without cause.

Even if we terminate our Management Agreement for cause, we may be required to continue to retain our Manager for 30 days following the occurrence of events giving rise to a for-cause termination.

While we have the right to terminate our Management Agreement for cause without paying a Termination Fee, we must provide 30 days’ notice to our Manager in advance of any such termination, including in the event of our Manager’s fraud, misappropriation of funds, embezzlement or bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence or reckless disregard in the performance of its duties. As a result, we would be forced to continue to pay our Manager during such 30-day period and we may not be able to find a suitable replacement for our Manager during this period or, if we were able to find a suitable replacement, we may be required to compensate the new manager while continuing to pay our terminated Manager during this 30-day period, unless our Manager waives the notice requirement. This could have an adverse effect on our business and operations, which could adversely affect our operating results and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our Manager manages our portfolio in accordance with very broad investment guidelines and our Board does not approve each loan and financing decision made by our Manager, which may result in us making riskier loans than those currently comprising our existing portfolio.

While our Board periodically reviews our loan portfolio, it does not review all proposed loans. In addition, in conducting periodic reviews, such directors may rely primarily on information provided to them by our Manager. Our Investment Guidelines (as defined below) may be changed from time to time upon recommendation by our Manager and approval by a majority of our Board (which must include a majority of the independent directors of our Board) and our Manager, without stockholders’ consent. Furthermore, our Manager may use complex strategies and loans entered into by our Manager that may be difficult or impossible to unwind by the time they are reviewed by our Board. Our Manager has great latitude in determining the types of loans that are proper for us, which could result in loan returns that are substantially below expectations or that result in losses, which would materially and adversely affect our business operations and results. In addition, our Manager is not subject to any limits or proportions with respect to the mix of target investments that we make or that we may in the future acquire other than as necessary to maintain our exemption from registration under the Investment Company Act and our qualification as a REIT. Decisions made and loans entered into by our Manager may not fully reflect your best interests.

Our Manager may change its investment process, or elect not to follow it, without the consent of our stockholders and at any time, which may adversely affect the performance of our portfolio.

Our Manager may change its investment process without the consent of our stockholders and at any time. In addition, there can be no assurance that our Manager will follow its investment process in relation to the identification and underwriting of prospective loans. Changes in our Manager’s investment process may result in inferior, among other things, due diligence and underwriting standards, which may adversely affect the performance of our portfolio.

While we believe that we benefit from the expertise and experience of our Manager’s key personnel and investment professionals, we have a limited operating history and our Manager has not previously managed a REIT.

We believe that we will benefit from the extensive and diverse expertise and significant financing industry experience of the key personnel and investment professionals of our Manager and its affiliates. However, investors should understand that we and our Manager are recently formed entities that have limited prior operating history upon which to evaluate our and our Manager’s likely performance and we and our Manager have not previously managed a REIT.

In addition to other analytical tools, our Manager may utilize financial models to evaluate loan opportunities, the accuracy and effectiveness of which cannot be guaranteed.

In addition to other analytical tools, our Manager may utilize financial models to evaluate loan opportunities, the accuracy and effectiveness of which cannot be guaranteed. In all cases, financial models are only estimates of future results which are based upon assumptions made at the time that the projections are developed. There can be no assurance that our Manager’s projected results will be attained and actual results may vary significantly from the projections. General economic and industry-specific conditions, which are not predictable, can have an adverse impact on the reliability of projections.

Our Manager’s and its affiliates’ liability is limited under the Management Agreement, and we have agreed to indemnify our Manager against certain liabilities. As a result, we could experience poor performance or losses for which our Manager and its affiliates would not be liable.

Pursuant to the Management Agreement, our Manager does not assume any responsibility other than to render the services called for thereunder in good faith and will not be responsible for any action of our Board in following or declining to follow its advice or recommendations. Under the terms of the Management Agreement, our Manager, its affiliates, and any of their respective members, stockholders, managers, partners, trustees, personnel, officers, directors, employees, consultants and any person providing sub-advisory services to our Manager (collectively, the “Manager Parties”) will not be liable to us for acts or omissions performed in accordance with and pursuant to the Management Agreement, except by reason of acts constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of their duties under the relevant Management Agreement. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify the Manager Parties with respect to all losses, damages, liabilities, demands, charges and claims of any nature whatsoever, and any and all expenses, costs and fees related thereto, arising from acts or omissions of the Manager Parties not constituting bad faith, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless disregard of duties, performed in good faith in accordance with and pursuant to the Management Agreement. We have also entered into indemnification agreements with the members of the Manager’s Investment Committee to indemnify and advance certain fees, costs and expenses to such individuals, subject to certain standards to be met and certain other limitations and conditions as set forth in such indemnification agreements. These protections may lead our Manager to act in a riskier manner when acting on our behalf than it would when acting for its own account.

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT

Failure to qualify as a REIT would cause us to be taxed as a regular corporation, which would substantially reduce funds available for distributions to our stockholders.

We intend to operate in a manner so as to continue to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We believe that our organization and method of operation will enable us to continue to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT. However, we cannot assure you that we will qualify as such. This is because qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex provisions of the Code, and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Treasury Department thereunder (“Treasury Regulations”) as to which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations and involves the determination of facts and circumstances not entirely within our control. In addition, while we intend to take the position that we and certain of our affiliates are treated as separate entities for purposes of determining whether we qualify as a REIT, there can be no guarantee that the IRS will agree with our position. If we and certain of our affiliates are treated as the same entity for this purpose, we may not qualify as a REIT. Furthermore, future legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may significantly change the U.S. tax laws or the application of the U.S. tax laws with respect to qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, we will face serious tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for distributions to our stockholders because: