On March 17, 2015, Michael Ruth filed a shareholder derivative suit in Nevada District Court alleging breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement (the “Ruth Complaint”). The claims were premised on the same events that were the subject of a purported class action filed in the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2014 (the “Sallustro Case”). On July 2, 2019, the court in the Sallustro Case entered a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Company did not make any settlement payment, and at no time was there a finding of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its directors. Regarding the Ruth Complaint, the parties previously agreed to stay the action pending the conclusion of discovery in the Sallustro Case. Once the Sallustro Case was dismissed, the stay was lifted. Plaintiff’s counsel later informed the Court that Mr. Ruth sold his shares of CVSI stock and thus he no longer had standing to pursue this claim. However, the Court allowed plaintiff’s counsel to substitute CVSI shareholder Otilda Lamont as the named plaintiff. On September 20, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Ruth Complaint and the court issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss on November 24, 2020. A Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 11, 2020 substituting Otilda Lamont as plaintiff. The Company filed an answer to the Ruth complaint on January 11, 2021. The parties agreed to a settlement in principle in January 2022 whereby the Company agreed to make certain corporate governance reforms in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement on June 1, 2022. The court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on February 7, 2023. A hearing seeking final approval of the proposed settlement was held on May 15, 2023, and the court indicated it would likely approve the proposed settlement and reschedule the hearing with regard to plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. On June 23, 2023, the Company received notice of a court order dated May 23, 2023 without any hearing, granting plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses of approximately $250,000. On or about May 1, 2024, the Company and plaintiff executed a stipulation for the payment of the plaintiff's attorney's fees and expenses over the course of approximately eighteen months subject to a confession of judgment.

On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a putative class action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging the labeling on the Company’s products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the “Colette Complaint”). On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing the Company's motion, plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended complaint. The court's order stated that the portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") completes its rulemaking regarding the marketing, including labelling, of CBD ingestible products. However, on January 26, 2023, the FDA announced that it does not intend to pursue rulemaking allowing the use of cannabidiol products in dietary supplements or conventional foods. As a result, on February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a status report with the court asking to have the stay lifted. The Company filed a written opposition. The court has taken no action since Plaintiffs filed that status report, and the case remains stayed pursuant to the court's original order.

On February 12, 2025, the Company initiated an arbitration with JAMS asserting claims against its long-time legal counsel, Procopio. The Company’s engagement agreement with Procopio requires the resolution of such disputes through arbitration. Procopio provided the Company legal advice and guidance on when Mona would recognize W-2 income and be subject to payroll and income tax withholding resulting from the settlement of RSU's previously awarded to Mona. According to Procopio, because Mona was then an insider within the meaning of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and he was subject to suit and disgorgement of short-swing profits if he sells stock within six months of the settlement date of the RSU's, Mona does not recognize W-2 income on the settlement date and that Mona would recognize W-2 income and be subject to tax withholding upon the expiration of the six month period under Section 16(b). Consequently, the Company issued to Mona a share certificate evidencing his ownership of shares of the Company’s stock then valued at more than $13 million that Mona constructively received upon the settlement of his RSU's without withholding taxes. After Mona received the certificate, without acknowledging its prior advice and guidance, Procopio changed its prior advice and advised the Company that tax withholding was required as of the settlement date. Procopio continued to represent the Company to resolve the lack of withholding, address the fallout therefrom, report the same in its periodic reports filed with the SEC and numerous other legal matters. The Company disclosed the lack of withholding in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended, March 31, 2019, and in subsequent quarterly and annual reports. The Company has also disclosed in its prior reports filed with the SEC that the lack of withholding has been the subject of multiple legal proceedings, the most recent of which involved a case brought by Mona against the Company that was resolved in November 2024 in the Company’s favor in a binding arbitration. After that case was submitted to the arbitrator for decision, the Company sought to address with Procopio the legal advice and guidance it provided. Procopio responded by terminating the Company as a client on January 10, 2025, ending the Company’s 12-year relationship with Procopio as its legal counsel. The Company seeks to recover damages from Procopio resulting from its reliance on Procopio’s advice and guidance, including fees and expenses paid to Procopio and other professionals, expenses incurred by the Company and other harm to it. In April 2025, JAMS appointed an arbitrator to the case.

In the normal course of business, the Company is a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which they may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to

the conditional nature of our obligations, and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by us under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.