ITEM IA.  RISK FACTORS

Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In that event, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose part or all of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have a limited operating history, and may not be able to operate our business successfully or generate sufficient cash flow to sustain distributions to our stockholders.

We completed our initial public offering and commenced real estate operations with the acquisition of our first property in December 2016, and have a limited operating history. We currently own only 13 properties. We are subject to many of the business risks and uncertainties associated with any new business enterprise. We cannot assure you that we will be able to operate our business successfully or profitably or find additional suitable investments. Our ability to provide attractive risk-adjusted returns to our stockholders over the long term is dependent on our ability both to generate sufficient cash flow to pay an attractive dividend and to achieve capital appreciation, and we cannot assure you we will do either. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to generate sufficient revenue from operations to pay our operating expenses and make distributions to stockholders. The results of our operations and the execution on our business plan depend on several factors, including the availability of additional opportunities for investment, the performance of our existing properties and tenants, the availability of adequate equity and debt financing, the federal and state regulatory environment relating to the medical-use cannabis industry, conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions.

Our current real estate portfolio consists of only 13 properties and will likely continue to be concentrated in a limited number of properties in the future, which subjects us to an increased risk of significant loss if any property declines in value or if we are unable to lease a property.

We currently own only 13 properties. Three of our tenants, PharmaCann (at two of our properties located in New York and Massachusetts), Holistic MD (at our Maryland property) and The Pharm (at our Arizona property), represented approximately 39%, 18% and 16%, respectively, of our rental revenues for the year ended December 31, 2018. Lease payment defaults by any of our tenants or a significant decline in the value of any single property would materially adversely affect our business, financial position and results of operations, including our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. Our lack of diversification also increases the potential that a single underperforming investment could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and the price we could realize from the sale of our properties. Any adverse change in the financial condition of any of our tenants, including but not limited to the state medical-use cannabis markets not developing and growing in ways that we or our tenants projected, or any adverse change in the political climate regarding medical-use cannabis where our properties are located, would subject us to a significant risk of loss.

In addition, failure by any our tenants to comply with the terms of its lease agreement with us could require us to find another lessee for the applicable property. We may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing that property. Furthermore, we cannot assure you that we will be able to re-lease that property for the rent we currently receive, or at all, or that a lease termination would not result in our having to sell the property at a loss. The result of any of the foregoing risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Competition for the acquisition of properties suitable for the cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis may impede our ability to make acquisitions or increase the cost of these acquisitions, which could adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We compete for the acquisition of properties suitable for the cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis with other entities engaged in agricultural and real estate investment activities, including corporate agriculture companies, cultivators and producers of medical-use cannabis, private equity investors, and other real estate investors (including public and private REITs). We also compete as a provider of capital to medical-use cannabis operators with alternative financing sources to these companies, including both equity and debt financing alternatives. These competitors may prevent us from acquiring desirable properties, may cause an increase in the price we must pay for properties or may result in us having to lease our properties on less favorable terms than we expect. Our competitors may have greater financial and operational resources than we do and may be willing to pay more for certain assets or may be willing to accept more risk than we believe can be prudently managed. In particular, larger companies may enjoy significant competitive advantages that result from, among other things, a lower cost of capital and enhanced operating efficiencies. Our competitors may also adopt transaction structures similar to ours, which would decrease our competitive advantage in offering flexible transaction terms. In addition, due to a number of factors, including but not limited to potential greater clarity of the laws and regulations governing medical-use cannabis by state and federal governments, the number of entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable investment properties may increase, resulting in increased demand and increased prices paid for these properties. If we pay higher prices for properties or enter into leases for such properties on less favorable terms than we expect, our profitability and ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders may decrease. Increased competition for properties may also preclude us from acquiring those properties that would generate attractive returns to us.

Our growth will depend upon future acquisitions of medical-use cannabis facilities, and we may be unable to consummate acquisitions on advantageous terms.

Our growth strategy is focused on the acquisition of specialized industrial real estate assets on favorable terms as opportunities arise. Our ability to acquire these real estate assets on favorable terms is subject to the following risks:

Our failure to consummate acquisition on advantageous terms without substantial expense or delay would impede our growth and negatively affect our results of operations and our ability to generate cash flow and make distributions to our stockholders.

There may only be a limited number of medical-use cannabis facilities operated by suitable tenants available for us to acquire, which could adversely affect the return on our common stock.

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

Many of our existing tenants are, and we expect that most of our future tenants will be, start-up businesses and may be unable to pay rent with funds from operations or at all, which could adversely affect our cash available to make distributions to our stockholders or otherwise impair the value of our common stock.

Single tenants currently occupy our properties, and we expect that single tenants will occupy our properties that we acquire in the future. Therefore, the success of our investments will be materially dependent on the financial stability of these tenants. We rely on our management team to perform due diligence investigations of our potential tenants, related guarantors and their properties, operations and prospects, of which there is generally little or no publicly available operating and financial information. We may not learn all of the material information we need to know regarding these businesses through our investigations. As a result it is possible that we could enter into a sale-leaseback arrangement with tenants or otherwise lease properties to tenants that ultimately are unable to pay rent to us, which could adversely impact our cash available for distributions.

Many of our existing tenants are, and we expect that most of our future tenants will be, start-up businesses that have little or no revenue when they enter triple-net leasing arrangements with us and therefore, may be unable to pay rent with funds from operations. Many of our current tenants are not profitable and have experienced losses since inception, or have been profitable for only a short period of time. As a result, many of our current tenants have made, and we expect that most our future tenants will make, initial rent payments to us from proceeds from the sale of the property, in the case of sale-leaseback transactions, or other cash on hand.

In addition, in general, as start-up businesses, our tenants are more vulnerable to adverse conditions resulting from federal and state regulations affecting their businesses or industries and have limited access to traditional forms of financing. The success of our tenants will heavily depend on the growth and development of the state markets in which the tenants operate, many of which have a very limited history or are still in the stages of establishing the regulatory framework. For example, New York’s medical-use cannabis market is in its early stages, and is subject to strict regulations providing for, among other things, limited medical conditions for treatment with medical-use cannabis, limitations on the form in which medical cannabis can be consumed and enhanced registration requirements for patients and physicians, which may result in the New York market not growing and developing in the way that we or our tenants projected. In Maryland, the medical-use cannabis market is also in its very early stages, with commercial operations commencing upon the issuance of the first round of final licenses in late 2017, after significant delays in the development of the state's regulatory framework and litigation surrounding the application process.

In our evaluation of our existing leases with tenants at our properties, we determined to record associated revenue on a cash basis due to the uncertainty of collectability of lease payments from tenants due to their limited operating history and the U.S. federal regulatory uncertainty surrounding the medical-use cannabis industry (see the section entitled "Critical Accounting Policies — Revenue Recognition and Accounts Receivable" in Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" for more information).

Some of our tenants may also be subject to significant debt obligations. Tenants that are subject to significant debt obligations may be unable to make their rent payments if there are adverse changes in their business plans or prospects, the regulatory environment in which they operate or in general economic conditions. In addition, the payment of rent and debt service may reduce the working capital available to tenants for the start-up phase of their business. Furthermore, we may be unable to monitor and evaluate tenant credit quality on an on-going basis.

In addition, many states issue licenses for medical-use cannabis operations for a limited time period, which must be renewed periodically. If one or more of our tenants is unable to renew or otherwise maintain its license, or if it is unable to renew or otherwise maintain other requisite authorizations on state and local levels for business operations, that tenant will not be able to operate its business, and may default on its lease payments to us.

Any lease payment defaults by a tenant could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders. In the event of a default by a tenant, we may also experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing our property as operators of medical-use cannabis cultivation and production facilities are generally subject to extensive state licensing requirements. Furthermore, we will not operate any of the facilities that we purchase.

We acquired our properties, and may acquire other properties, "as-is," which increases the risk of an investment that requires us to remedy defects or costs without recourse to the prior owner.

We acquired our properties, and may acquire other real estate properties, "as is" with only limited representations and warranties from the property seller regarding matters affecting the condition, use and ownership of the property. There may also be environmental conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware despite our diligence efforts. In particular, medical-use cannabis facilities may present environmental concerns of which we are not currently aware. If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire or develops after acquisition, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. As a result, if defects in the property (including any building on the property) or other matters adversely affecting the property are discovered, including but not limited to environmental matters, we may not be able to pursue a claim for any or all damages against the property seller. Such a situation could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Our properties are, and are expected to continue to be, geographically concentrated in states that permit medical-use cannabis cultivation, and we will be subject to social, political and economic risks of doing business in these states and any other state in which we may own property.

Our current properties are located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania, and we expect that the properties that we acquire will be geographically concentrated in these states and other states that permit medical-use cannabis cultivation. 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:

Because our real estate investments consist of primarily industrial and greenhouse properties suitable for cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis, our rental revenues are significantly influenced by demand for these facilities generally, and a decrease in such demand would likely have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio.

Because our portfolio of properties consists of industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated medical-use cannabis industry, we are subject to risks inherent in investments in a single industry. A decrease in the demand for medical-use cannabis cultivation facilities would have a greater adverse effect on our rental revenues than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio. Demand for medical-use cannabis cultivation facilities has been and could be adversely affected by changes in current favorable state or local laws relating to cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis or any change in the federal government's current enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cultivation of medical-use cannabis, among others. To the extent that any of these conditions occur, they are likely to affect demand and market rents for medical-use cannabis cultivation facilities, which could cause a decrease in our rental revenue. Any such decrease could impair our ability to make distributions to you. We do not currently and do not expect in the future to invest in other real estate or businesses to hedge against the risk that industry trends might decrease the profitability of our medical-use cannabis cultivation facilities.

We face significant risks associated with the development and redevelopment of properties that we acquire.

We may, from time to time, engage in development or redevelopment of properties that we acquire. Development and redevelopment activities entail risks that could adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations, including:

On May 31, 2018, we executed a development agreement with a subsidiary of PharmaCann for the ground-up construction of a medical-use cannabis cultivation facility at one of our Massachusetts properties, for which we have agreed to provide funding for construction of up to $15.5 million, of which approximately $9.7 million was incurred and approximately $9.5 million was funded as of December 31, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, we acquired a property in Michigan in mid-construction, for which we have agreed to provide reimbursement to the seller for completion of certain development milestones for the building and a tenant improvement allowance to the tenant totaling approximately $7.5 million, of which approximately $6.8 million was incurred and approximately $6.4 million was funded as of December 31, 2018.

In addition, as of December 31, 2018, we had remaining commitments of approximately $12.4 million to reimburse certain tenants for future tenant improvements at our properties.

Subsequent to the end of the year, on March 13, 2019, we executed a development agreement with a subsidiary of PharmaCann for the ground-up construction of a medical-use cannabis cultivation facility at our Ohio property, for which we have agreed to provide funding for construction of up to $19.3 million.

Failure to complete development or redevelopment activities on budget or on schedule may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the ability of our tenants at such properties to make payments under their leases with us.

If our properties' access to adequate water and power supplies is interrupted, it could harm our ability to lease the properties for medical-use cannabis cultivation and production, thereby adversely affecting our ability to generate returns on our properties.

In order to lease the properties that we acquire, these properties require access to sufficient water and power to make them suitable for the cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis. Although we expect to acquire properties with sufficient access to water, should the need arise for additional wells from which to obtain water, we would be required to obtain permits prior to drilling such wells. Permits for drilling water wells are required by state and county regulations, and such permits may be difficult to obtain due to the limited supply of water in areas where we acquire properties. Similarly, our properties may be subject to governmental regulations relating to the quality and disposition of rainwater runoff or other water to be used for irrigation. In such case, we could incur costs necessary in order to retain this water. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient water supply for our properties, our ability to lease them for the cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis would be seriously impaired, which would have a material adverse impact on the value of our assets and our results of operations.

Historically, states that have legalized medical-use cannabis cultivation have typically required that such cultivation take place indoors. Indoor cultivation of medical-use cannabis requires significant power for growing lights and ventilation and air conditioning to remove the hot air generated by the growing lights. While outdoor cultivation is gaining acceptance in many states with favorable climates for such growth, we expect that a significant number of our properties will continue to utilize indoor cultivation methods. Any extended interruption of the power supply to our properties, particularly those using indoor cultivation methods, would likely harm our tenants' crops, which could result in their inability to make lease payments to us for our properties. Any lease payment defaults by a tenant could adversely affect our cash flows and cause us to reduce the amount of distributions to stockholders.

Some of our tenants could be susceptible to bankruptcy, which would affect our ability to generate rents from them and therefore negatively affect our results of operations.

In addition to the risk of tenants being unable to make regular rent payments, certain of our tenants may depend on debt, which could make them especially susceptible to bankruptcy in the event that their cash flows are insufficient to satisfy their debt. Any bankruptcy, if allowed, of one of our tenants would result in a loss of lease payments to us, as well as an increase in our costs to carry the property.

Additionally, under bankruptcy law generally, a tenant who is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings generally has the option of continuing ("assuming") or giving up ("rejecting") any unexpired lease of non-residential real property. If a bankrupt tenant decides to give up (reject) a lease with us, any claim we might have for breach of the lease, excluding a claim against (1) collateral securing the lease, or (2) a guarantor guaranteeing lease obligations, would be treated as a general unsecured claim in the tenant's bankruptcy case. The laws governing bankruptcy cases would impact the treatment of our general unsecured claim. Our claim would likely be capped at the amount the tenant owed us for unpaid rent prior to the bankruptcy unrelated to the termination, plus the greater of one year of lease payments or 15% of the lease payments payable under the remaining term of the lease, but in no case more than three years of lease payments. In addition to the cap on our damages for breach of the lease, even if our claim is timely submitted to the bankruptcy court, there is no guaranty that the tenant's bankruptcy estate would have sufficient funds to satisfy the claims of general unsecured creditors. Finally, a bankruptcy court could re-characterize a net lease transaction as a disguised secured lending transaction. If that were to occur, we would not be treated as the owner of the property, but might have additional rights as a secured creditor. This would mean our claim in bankruptcy court could be limited to the amount we paid for the property, which could adversely impact our financial condition.

Furthermore, U.S. bankruptcy courts have generally refused to grant bankruptcy protections to cannabis businesses. The inability of our tenants to seek bankruptcy protection may impact their ability to secure financing for their operations and prevents our tenants from utilizing the benefits of reorganization of their businesses under bankruptcy protection to operate in a financially sustainable way, thereby reducing the probability that such a tenant would be able to honor its lease obligations with us.

Our real estate investments consist of primarily industrial and greenhouse properties suitable for cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis, which may be difficult to sell or re-lease upon tenant defaults or early lease terminations, either of which would adversely affect returns to stockholders.

While our business objectives consist of principally acquiring and deriving rental income from industrial and greenhouse properties used in the regulated medical-use cannabis industry, we expect that at times we will deem it appropriate or desirable to sell or otherwise dispose of certain properties we own. These types of properties are relatively illiquid compared to other types of real estate and financial assets. This illiquidity could limit our ability to quickly dispose of properties in response to changes in regulatory, economic or other conditions. Therefore, our ability at any time to sell assets may be restricted and this lack of liquidity may limit our ability to make changes to our portfolio promptly, which could materially and adversely affect our financial performance. We cannot predict the various market conditions affecting the properties that we expect to acquire that will exist in the future. Due to the uncertainty of regulatory and market conditions which may affect the future disposition of the real estate assets we expect to acquire, we cannot assure you that we will be able to sell these assets at a profit in the future. Accordingly, the extent to which we will realize potential appreciation on the real estate investments we expect to acquire will depend upon regulatory and other market conditions. In addition, in order to maintain our REIT status, we may not be able to sell properties when we would otherwise choose to do so, due to market conditions or changes in our strategic plan.

Furthermore, we may be required to make expenditures to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold and we cannot assure you that we will have funds available to correct such defects or to make such improvements. With these kinds of properties, if the current lease is terminated or not renewed, we may be required to make expenditures and rent concessions in order to lease the property to another tenant. In addition, in the event we are forced to sell or re-lease the property, we may have difficulty finding qualified purchasers who are willing to buy the property or tenants who are willing to lease the property on terms that we expect, or at all. These and other limitations may affect our ability to sell or re-lease properties, which may adversely affect returns to our stockholders.

Liability for uninsured losses could adversely affect our financial condition.

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

Contingent or unknown liabilities could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

We acquired our properties and may in the future acquire properties, subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, with respect to 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.

The assets we acquire may be subject to impairment charges.

We periodically evaluate the real estate investments we acquire and other assets for impairment indicators. The judgment regarding the existence of impairment indicators is based upon factors such as market conditions, tenant performance and legal structure. For example, the termination of a lease by a tenant may lead to an impairment charge. 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.

Due to our involvement in the regulated medical-use cannabis industry, we may have a difficult time obtaining the various insurance policies that are desired to operate our business, which may expose us to additional risks and financial liabilities.

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

We may purchase properties subject to ground leases that expose us to the loss of such properties upon breach or termination of the ground leases.

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

The occurrence of cyber incidents or cyber attacks could disrupt our operations, result in the loss of confidential information and/or damage our business relationships and reputation.

We rely on technology to run our business, and as such we are subject to risk from cyber incidents, including cyber attacks attempting to gain unauthorized access to our systems to disrupt operations, corrupt data or steal confidential information, and other electronic security breaches.  While we have implemented measures to help mitigate these threats, such measures cannot guarantee that we will be successful in preventing a cyber incident.  The occurrence of a cyber incident or cyber attack could disrupt our operations, compromise the confidential information of our employees or tenants, and/or damage our business relationships and reputation.

We cannot predict every event and circumstance that may affect our business, and therefore, the risks and uncertainties discussed herein may not be the only ones you should consider.

We are not aware of any other publicly-traded REIT that focuses on the acquisition, ownership and management of medical-use cannabis facilities. Therefore, we may encounter risks of which we are not aware at this time, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Risks Related to Regulation

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

Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. Even in those jurisdictions in which the manufacture and use of cannabis has been legalized at the state level, the possession, use and cultivation all remain violations of federal law that are punishable by imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Moreover, individuals and entities may violate federal law if they intentionally aid and abet another in violating these federal controlled substance laws, or conspire with another to violate them. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in  United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop.  and  Gonzales v. Raich  that it is the federal government that has the right to regulate and criminalize the sale, possession and use of cannabis, even for medical purposes. We would likely be unable to execute our business plan if the federal government were to strictly enforce federal law regarding cannabis.

In January 2018, the DOJ rescinded certain memoranda, including the so-called “Cole Memo” issued on August 29, 2013 under the Obama Administration, which had characterized enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions under the CSA to prosecute those complying with state regulatory systems allowing the use, manufacture and distribution of medical cannabis as an inefficient use of federal investigative and prosecutorial resources when state regulatory and enforcement efforts are effective with respect to enumerated federal enforcement priorities under the CSA. The impact of the DOJ's recent rescission of the Cole Memo and related memoranda is unclear, but may result in the DOJ increasing its enforcement actions against the regulated cannabis industry generally, including our tenants and us.

Congress previously enacted an omnibus spending bill that includes a provision prohibiting the DOJ (which includes the DEA) from using funds appropriated by that bill to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. This provision, however, expires on September 30, 2019, and must be renewed by Congress. In  USA vs. McIntosh , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. However, the Ninth Circuit's opinion, which only applies to the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Idaho, also held that persons who do not strictly comply with all state laws and regulations regarding the distribution, possession and cultivation of medical-use cannabis have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and in such instances the DOJ may prosecute those individuals. Furthermore, while we target the acquisition of medical-use cannabis facilities, our leases do not prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under the state and local laws where our facilities are located, such as in California, Colorado, Massachusetts and Michigan. Consequently, certain of our tenants currently (and additional tenants may in the future) cultivate adult-use cannabis in our medical-use cannabis facilities, as permitted by such state and local laws now or in the future, which may in turn subject the tenant, us and our properties to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to facilities where cannabis is cultivated exclusively for medical use, including not providing protection under the Congressional spending bill provision described above.  

Additionally, financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statutes and the Bank Secrecy Act. The penalties for violation of these laws include imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Prior to the DOJ's rescission of the Cole Memo, supplemental guidance from the DOJ issued under the Obama administration directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. With the rescission of the Cole Memo, there is increased uncertainty and added risk that federal law enforcement authorities could seek to pursue money laundering charges against entities or individuals engaged in supporting the cannabis industry.

Federal prosecutors have significant discretion and no assurance can be given that the federal prosecutor in each judicial district where we purchase a property will not choose to strictly enforce the federal laws governing cannabis production 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 purchase properties, would result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our investment in cannabis facilities in the United States, which would adversely affect the trading price of our securities. Furthermore, following any such change in the federal government's enforcement position, we could be subject to criminal prosecution, which could lead to imprisonment and/or the imposition of penalties, fines, or forfeiture.

Certain of our tenants engage in operations for the adult-use cannabis industry in addition to or in lieu of operations for the medical-use cannabis industry, and such tenants, we and our properties may be subject to additional risks associated with such adult-use cannabis operations.

Our existing leases at our properties do not, and we expect that leases that we enter into with future tenants at other properties we acquire will not, prohibit cannabis cultivation for adult-use that is permissible under state and local laws where our facilities are located and certain of our tenants are currently engaged in operations for the adult-use cannabis industry, which may subject our tenants, us and our properties to different and greater risks, including greater prosecution risk for aiding and abetting violation of the CSA and federal laws governing money laundering. For example, the prohibition in the current omnibus spending bill that prohibits the DOJ from using funds appropriated by Congress to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws does not extend to adult-use cannabis laws. In addition, while we may purchase properties in states that only permit medical-use cannabis at the time of acquisition, such states may in the future authorize by state legislation or popular vote the legalization of adult-use cannabis, thus permitting our tenants to engage in adult-use cannabis operations at our properties. For example, the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed an initiative to legalize cannabis for adult-use in 2016, having previously voted to legalize medical-use cannabis in 2012. Massachusetts began issuing licenses to operators for the sale of adult-use cannabis in July 2018. Our existing leases at our Massachusetts properties do not prohibit our tenants from conducting adult-use cannabis cultivation, processing or dispensing that is permissible under state and local laws. Similarly, the states of California and Colorado permit licensed adult-use cannabis cultivation, processing and dispensing, and our leases with tenants in California and Colorado allow for adult-use cannabis operations to be conducted at the properties in compliance with state and local laws. In addition, Michigan voters passed an initiative in November 2018 to legalize cannabis for adult-use.

New laws that are adverse to the business of our tenants may be enacted, and current favorable national, state or local laws or enforcement guidelines relating to cultivation and production of cannabis may be modified or eliminated in the future.

We have acquired and are targeting for acquisition properties that are owned by state-licensed cultivators and producers of cannabis. Relevant state or local laws may be amended or repealed, or new laws may be enacted in the future to eliminate existing laws permitting cultivation and production of cannabis. If our tenants were forced to close their operations, we would need to replace those tenants with tenants who are not engaged in the cannabis industry, who may pay significantly lower rents. Moreover, any changes in state or local laws that reduce or eliminate the ability to cultivate and produce cannabis would likely result in a high vacancy rate for the kinds of properties that we seek to acquire, which would depress our lease rates and property values. In addition, we would realize an economic loss on any and all improvements made to properties that were specific to the cannabis industry.

Our ability to grow our business depends on state laws pertaining to the cannabis industry.

Continued development of the medical-use cannabis industry depends upon continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level. The status quo of, or progress in, the regulated medical-use cannabis industry is not assured and any number of factors could slow or halt further progress in this area. While there may be ample public support for legislative action permitting the manufacture and use of cannabis, numerous factors impact the legislative process. For example, many states that voted to legalize medical and/or adult-use cannabis have seen significant delays in the drafting and implementation of industry regulations and issuance of licenses. In addition, burdensome regulation at the state level could slow or stop further development of the medical-use cannabis industry, such as limiting the medical conditions for which medical cannabis can be recommended by physicians for treatment, restricting the form in which medical cannabis can be consumed, imposing significant registration requirements on physicians and patients or imposing significant taxes on the growth, processing and/or retail sales of cannabis, which could have the impact of dampening growth of the cannabis industry and making it difficult for cannabis businesses, including our tenants, to operate profitably in those states. Any one of these factors could slow or halt additional legislative authorization of medical-use cannabis, which could harm our business prospects.

FDA regulation of medical-use cannabis and the possible registration of facilities where medical-use cannabis is grown could negatively affect the medical-use cannabis industry, which would directly affect our financial condition.

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

We and our tenants may have difficulty accessing the service of banks, which may make it difficult to contract for real estate needs.

Financial transactions involving proceeds generated by cannabis-related conduct can form the basis for prosecution under the federal money laundering statutes, unlicensed money transmitter statute and the Bank Secrecy Act. Previous guidance issued by the FinCen, a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, clarifies how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis-related businesses consistent with their obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. Prior to the DOJ’s announcement in January 2018 of the rescission of the Cole Memo and related memoranda, supplemental guidance from the DOJ directed federal prosecutors to consider the federal enforcement priorities enumerated in the Cole Memo when determining whether to charge institutions or individuals with any of the financial crimes described above based upon cannabis-related activity. It is unclear what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo will have, but federal prosecutors may increase enforcement activities against institutions or individuals that are conducting financial transactions related to cannabis activities. The increased uncertainty surrounding financial transactions related to cannabis activities may also result in financial institutions discontinuing services to the cannabis industry.

Consequently, those businesses involved in the regulated medical-use cannabis industry continue to encounter difficulty establishing banking relationships, which may increase over time. Our inability to maintain our current bank accounts 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 leases require that our tenants make rental payments via check or wire transfer. The inability of our current and potential tenants to open accounts and continue using the services of banks will limit their ability to enter into triple-net lease arrangements with us or may result in their default under our lease agreements, either of which could materially harm our business and the trading price of our securities.

Owners of properties located in close proximity to our properties may assert claims against us regarding the use of the property as a medical cannabis cultivation and processing facility, which if successful, could materially and adversely affect our business.

 Owners of properties located in close proximity to our properties may assert claims against us regarding the use of our properties for medical cannabis cultivation and processing, including assertions that the use of the property constitutes a nuisance that diminishes the market value of such owner's nearby property. Such property owners may also attempt to assert such a claim in federal court as a civil matter under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. If a property owner were to assert such a claim against us, we may be required to devote significant resources and costs to defending ourselves against such a claim, and if a property owner were to be successful on such a claim, our tenants may be unable to continue to operate their business in its current form at the property, which could materially adversely impact the tenant's business and the value of our property, our business and financial results and the trading price of our securities.

Laws and regulations affecting the regulated cannabis industry are constantly 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 are broad in scope and subject to evolving interpretations, which could require us to incur substantial costs associated with compliance or alter our business plan. In addition, violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our business and result in a material adverse effect on our operations. It is also possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will be directly applicable to our proposed business. We cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, nor can we determine what effect additional governmental regulations or administrative policies and procedures, when and if promulgated, could have on our business.

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

Depending on the laws of each 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 medical-use 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.

Assets leased 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 where cannabis is legal. In July 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a new policy directive regarding asset forfeiture, referred to as the "equitable sharing program." Under this new policy directive, federal authorities may adopt state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level, allowing for state and local agencies to keep up to 80% of any forfeiture revenue. This policy directive represents a reversal of the DOJ's policy under the Obama administration, and allows for forfeitures to proceed that are not in accord with the limitations imposed by state-specific forfeiture laws. This new policy directive may 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 medical-use cannabis facilities that we have acquired and intend to acquire, our investment in those properties may be lost.

We may have difficulty accessing bankruptcy courts.

As discussed above, the cannabis is illegal under federal law. Therefore, there is a compelling argument that the federal bankruptcy courts cannot provide relief for parties who engage in the cannabis 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 properties that we acquire are subject to extensive regulations, which may result in significant costs and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

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

Compliance with environmental laws could materially increase our operating expenses.

There may be environmental conditions associated with properties we acquire of which we are unaware. If environmental contamination exists on properties we acquire, we could become subject to liability for the contamination. The presence of hazardous substances on a property may materially and adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs. In addition, although we may require in our leases that tenants operate in compliance with all applicable laws and indemnify us against any environmental liabilities arising from a tenant's activities on the property, we could nonetheless be subject to liability by virtue of our ownership interest and we cannot be sure that our tenants would satisfy their indemnification obligations to us. Such environmental liability exposure associated with properties we acquire could harm our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Risks Related to Financing Our Business

Our growth depends on external sources of capital, which may not be available on favorable terms or at all. In addition, banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us, including secured lending, because we acquire properties used in the cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis. If this source of funding is unavailable to us, our growth may be limited and our levered return on the properties we purchase may be lower.

We expect to acquire additional real estate assets, which we intend to finance primarily through newly issued equity or debt. We may not be in a position to take advantage of attractive investment opportunities for growth if we are unable, due to global or regional economic uncertainty, changes in the state or federal regulatory environment relating to the medical-use cannabis industry, 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 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 general market conditions and the market's perception of our current and potential future earnings. 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 the purchase of real estate assets could be negatively impacted. In addition, banks and other financial institutions may be reluctant to enter into lending transactions with us, particularly secured lending, because we intend to acquire properties used in the cultivation and production of medical-use cannabis. If this source of funding is unavailable to us, our growth may be limited and our levered return on the properties we purchase may be lower.

If we are unable to obtain capital on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, we likely will have to reduce the number of properties we can purchase. 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.

Our Exchangeable Senior Notes and any future indebtedness reduces our cash available for distribution and may expose us to the risk of default.

Subsequent to December 31, 2018, in February 2019, we issued $143.75 million aggregate principal amount of Exchangeable Senior Notes. Payments of principal and interest on our Exchangeable Senior Notes and borrowings that we may incur in the future may leave us with insufficient cash resources to operate the properties that we expect to acquire or to pay the distributions currently contemplated or necessary to satisfy the requirements for REIT qualification. Our level of debt and the limitations imposed on us by these debt agreements could have significant material and adverse consequences, including the following:

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.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

We are dependent on our key personnel for our success.

We depend upon the efforts, experience, diligence, skill and network of business contacts of our senior management team, and our success will depend on their continued service. The departure of any of our executive officers or key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business. If any of our key personnel were to cease their employment, our operating results could suffer. Further, we do not intend to maintain key person life insurance that would provide us with proceeds in the event of death or disability of any of our key personnel.

We believe our future success depends upon our senior management team's ability to hire and retain highly skilled managerial, operational and marketing personnel. Competition for such personnel is intense, and we cannot assure you that we will be successful in attracting and retaining such skilled personnel. If we lose or are unable to obtain the services of key personnel, our ability to implement our investment strategies could be delayed or hindered, and the value of our common stock may decline.

Furthermore, we may retain independent contractors to provide various services for us, including administrative services, transfer agent services and professional services. Such contractors have no fiduciary duty to us and may not perform as expected or desired.

Our senior management team manages our portfolio subject to very broad investment guidelines.

Our senior management team has broad discretion over our investments, and our stockholders will have no opportunity to evaluate the terms of transactions or other economic or financial data concerning our investments that are not described in periodic filings with the SEC. We rely on the senior management team's ability to execute acquisitions and dispositions of medical-use cannabis facilities, subject to the oversight and approval of our board of directors. Our senior management team is authorized to pursue acquisitions and dispositions of real estate investments in accordance with very broad investment guidelines, subject to approval of our board of directors.

Our board of directors may change our investment objectives and strategies without stockholder consent.

Our board of directors determines our major policies, including with regard to financing, growth, debt capitalization, REIT qualification and distributions. Our board of directors may amend or revise these and other policies without a vote of the stockholders. Under our charter and Maryland General Corporation Law (the "MGCL"), our stockholders generally have a right to vote only on the following matters:

All other matters are subject to the discretion of our board of directors.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control.

Under the MGCL, "business combinations" (including a merger, consolidation, statutory share exchange or, in certain circumstances, an asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities) 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. An interested stockholder is defined as: (a) any person who beneficially owns 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding voting stock of the corporation; or (b) an affiliate or associate of the corporation who, at any time within the two-year period prior to the date in question, was the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the then-outstanding stock of the 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. A Maryland corporation's board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance with any terms and conditions determined by the board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.

Thereafter, any such business combination must generally be recommended by the board of directors of such corporation and approved by the affirmative vote of at least:

A Maryland corporation's board of directors may provide that its approval is subject to compliance with any terms and conditions determined by it. These provisions of the MGCL do not apply, however, to business combinations that are approved or exempted by a Maryland corporation's board of directors prior to the time that the interested stockholder becomes an interested stockholder.

The "control share" provisions of the MGCL provide that, subject to certain exceptions, a holder of "control shares" of a Maryland corporation (defined as shares which, if aggregated with all other shares of stock owned by the acquirer or in respect of which the acquirer is able to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power (except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy), entitle the stockholder 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 ownership or control of issued and outstanding "control shares") has no voting rights with respect to such shares except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding votes entitled to be cast by the acquirer of control shares, our officers and our personnel who are also our directors. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. Our bylaws contain a provision exempting from the control share acquisition statute any and all acquisitions by any person of shares of our stock. There can be no assurance that such provision will not be amended or eliminated at any time in the future by our board of directors.

The "unsolicited takeover" provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL, or Subtitle 8, permit our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to implement certain takeover defenses, some of which (for example, a classified board) we do not yet have. Our charter provides that vacancies on our board may be filled only by the remaining directors and for the remainder of the full term of the directorship in which the vacancy occurred. Through provisions in our charter and bylaws unrelated to Subtitle 8, we already (i) require the affirmative vote of stockholders entitled to cast not less than two-thirds of all of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors for the removal of any director from the board, only with cause, (ii) vest in the board of directors the exclusive power to fix the number of directorships and (iii) require, unless called by our chairman of the board, our chief executive officer or our board of directors, the written request of stockholders entitled to cast not less than a majority of all votes entitled to be cast at such a meeting to call a special meeting of our stockholders.

These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for us or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us under the circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price.

Our authorized but unissued shares of common and preferred stock may prevent a change in our control.

Our charter permits our board of directors to authorize us to issue additional shares of our authorized but unissued common or preferred stock. In addition, our board of directors may, without stockholder approval, amend our charter to increase the aggregate number of our shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have the authority to issue and classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common or preferred stock and set the terms of the classified or reclassified shares. As a result, our board of directors may establish a class or series of shares of common or preferred stock that could delay or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for shares of our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Severance agreements with our executive officers could be costly and prevent a change in our control.

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

Because of our holding company structure, we depend on our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries for cash flow and we will be structurally subordinated in right of payment to the obligations of such operating subsidiary and its subsidiaries.

We are a holding company with no business operations of our own. Our only significant asset is and will be the general and limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. We conduct, and intend to conduct, all of our business operations through our Operating Partnership. Accordingly, our only source of cash to pay our obligations is distributions from our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries of their net earnings and cash flows. We cannot assure our stockholders that our Operating Partnership or its subsidiaries will be able to, or be permitted to, make distributions to us that will enable us to make distributions to our stockholders from cash flows from operations. Each of our Operating Partnership's subsidiaries is or will be a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from such entities. In addition, because we are a holding company, your claims as stockholders will be structurally subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries. Therefore, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, our assets and those of our Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries will be able to satisfy your claims as stockholders only after all of our and our Operating Partnership's and its subsidiaries' liabilities and obligations have been paid in full. Furthermore, U.S. bankruptcy courts have generally refused to grant bankruptcy protections to cannabis businesses.

Our Operating Partnership may issue additional limited partnership interests to third parties without the consent of our stockholders, which would reduce our ownership percentage in our Operating Partnership and would have a dilutive effect on the amount of distributions made to us by our Operating Partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders.

We are the sole general partner of our Operating Partnership and own, directly or through a subsidiary, 100% of the outstanding partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. We may, in connection with our acquisition of properties or otherwise, cause our Operating Partnership to issue additional limited partnership interests to third parties. Such issuances would reduce our ownership percentage in our Operating Partnership and affect the amount of distributions made to us by our Operating Partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders. Because our stockholders will not directly own any interest in our Operating Partnership, our stockholders will not have any voting rights with respect to any such issuances or other partnership level activities of our Operating Partnership.

If we issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership in exchange for property, the value placed on such partnership interests may not accurately reflect their market value, which may dilute your interest in us.

If we issue limited partnership interests in our Operating Partnership in exchange for property, the per unit value attributable to such interests will be determined based on negotiations with the property seller and, therefore, may not reflect the fair market value of such limited partnership interests if a public market for such limited partnership interests existed. If the value of such limited partnership interests is greater than the value of the related property, your interest in us may be diluted.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event of actions not in your best interests.

We have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our executive directors and officers that provide for indemnification to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. Maryland law permits us to include in our charter a provision eliminating the liability of our directors and officers and our stockholders for money damages except for liability resulting from:

Our charter authorizes us to obligate ourselves and our bylaws obligate us, to the fullest extent permitted by Maryland law in effect from time to time, to indemnify and, without requiring a preliminary determination of the ultimate entitlement to indemnification, pay or reimburse reasonable expenses in advance of final disposition of a proceeding to:

Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for our stockholders to effect changes to our management.

Our charter provides that, subject to the rights of holders of any series of preferred stock, a director may be removed only with cause upon the affirmative vote of stockholders entitled to cast at least two-thirds of the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. Vacancies may be filled only by a vote of the majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change our management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

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

In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), shares of our stock must be owned by 100 or more persons during at least 335 days of a taxable year of 12 months (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made) or during a proportionate part of a shorter taxable year. Also, not more than 50% of the value of the outstanding shares of our stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the Code to include certain entities) during the last half of a taxable year (other than the first year for which an election to be a REIT has been made). In order for us to qualify as a REIT under the Code, the relevant sections of our charter provide that, subject to certain exceptions, no person or entity may own, or be deemed to own, by virtue of the applicable constructive ownership provisions of the Code, more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of the aggregate of our outstanding shares of stock or more than 9.8% (in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of our outstanding common stock or any class or series of our outstanding preferred stock, including our 9.00% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). These ownership limits and other restrictions could have the effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction in which holders of our common stock might receive a premium for their shares over the then prevailing market price or which holders might believe to be otherwise in their best interests.

The requirements of being a public company impose costs and demands upon our management, which could make it difficult to manage our business, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

Complying with the reporting and other regulatory requirements of the Exchange Act and the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act") is time-consuming and costly. The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting. To maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we have committed additional resources and provided additional management oversight. We expect these resources and management oversight requirements to continue. These activities may divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the "JOBS Act"), we benefit from certain temporary exemptions from various reporting requirements, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements. In addition, we have elected under the JOBS Act to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies. When these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort toward ensuring compliance with them. We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur as these exemptions cease to apply.

We plan to continue to operate our business so that we are not required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

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

Risks Related to Our Securities

The market prices and trading volumes of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock have been and may continue to be volatile.

The market prices for our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock have been, and may continue to be, volatile. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock has fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate, resulting in significant price variations.

Some of the factors that could negatively affect the share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common stock and preferred stock include:

Market factors unrelated to our performance could also negatively impact the market price of our common stock and preferred stock. One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common stock or Series A Preferred Stock is our distribution rate as a percentage of our stock price relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may demand a higher distribution rate or seek alternative investments paying higher dividends or interest. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and conditions in capital markets can affect the market value of our common stock or Series A Preferred Stock.

Common stock and preferred stock eligible for future sale may have material and adverse effects on our share price.

Subject to applicable law, our board of directors, without stockholder approval, may authorize us to issue additional shares of our common stock or to raise capital through the issuance of preferred stock (including equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock), options, warrants and other rights, on terms and for consideration as our board of directors in its sole discretion may determine. Any such issuance could result in dilution of the equity of our stockholders. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our charter also authorizes our board of directors, without stockholder approval, to designate and issue one or more classes or series of preferred stock (including equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock) and to set or change the voting, conversion or other rights, preferences, restrictions, limitations as to dividends or other distributions and qualifications or terms or conditions of redemption of each class of shares so issued. If any preferred stock is publicly offered, the terms and conditions of such preferred stock (including any equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock) will be set forth in a registration statement registering the issuance of such preferred stock or equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock. Because our board of directors has the power to establish the preferences and rights of each class or series of preferred stock, it may afford the holders of any series or class of preferred stock preferences, powers, and rights senior to the rights of holders of common stock or other preferred stock. If we ever create and issue additional preferred stock or equity or debt securities convertible into preferred stock with a distribution preference over common stock or preferred stock, payment of any distribution preferences of new outstanding preferred stock would reduce the amount of funds available for the payment of distributions on the common stock and junior preferred stock. Further, holders of preferred stock are normally entitled to receive a preference payment if we liquidate, dissolve, or wind up before any payment is made to the common stockholders, likely reducing the amount common stockholders would otherwise receive upon such an occurrence. In addition, under certain circumstances, the issuance of additional preferred stock may delay, prevent, render more difficult or tend to discourage a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest, the assumption of control by a holder of a large block of our securities, or the removal of incumbent management.

Furthermore, we filed a shelf registration statement, which was subsequently declared effective by the SEC, which may permit us, from time to time, to offer and sell common stock, preferred stock, warrants and other securities to the extent necessary or advisable to meet our liquidity needs.

Additionally, from time to time we also may issue shares of our common stock or operating partnership units of our Operating Partnership in connection with property acquisitions. We may grant additional demand or piggyback registration rights in connection with these issuances. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or operating partnership units of our Operating Partnership, or the perception that these sales could occur, may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock or may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities.

As of March 13, 2019, 9,806,194 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding, and we had reserved an additional 753,806 shares of common stock for future issuance under our 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan and 2,066,116 shares potentially issuable upon exchange of our Exchangeable Senior Notes (based on the exchange rate as of March 13, 2019). The existence of operating partnership units Exchangeable Senior Notes, shares of Series A Preferred Stock and shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under our 2016 Omnibus Incentive Plan may adversely affect the terms upon which we may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of equity securities.

We cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future. We may be unable to pay or maintain cash dividends, and may borrow money, sell assets or use offering proceeds to make distributions to our stockholders, if we are unable to make distributions from cash flows from operations.

U.S. federal income tax law generally requires that a REIT distribute annually at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain (which does not equal net income as calculated in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP")), 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. We may not continue our current level of distributions to stockholders. Our board of directors will determine future distributions based on a number of factors, including cash available for distribution, economic conditions, operating results, our financial condition, especially in relation to our anticipated future capital needs, then current expansion plans, the distribution requirements for REITs, and other factors our board deems relevant. In addition, we may borrow money, sell assets or use offering proceeds to make distributions to our stockholders, if we are unable to make distributions from cash flows from operations.

Our charter permits us to pay distributions from any source and, as a result, the amount of distributions paid at any time may not reflect the performance of our properties or as cash flow from operations.

Our organizational documents permit us to make distributions from any source. To the extent that our cash available for distribution is insufficient to cover our distributions, we expect to use our cash on hand, the proceeds from the issuance of securities in the future, the proceeds from borrowings or other sources to pay distributions. It is possible that any distributions declared will be paid from our cash on hand or future issuances of shares of our common stock or preferred stock, which would constitute a return of capital to our stockholders. If we fund distributions from borrowings, sales of properties, future issuances of securities or cash on hand, we will have fewer funds available for the acquisition of additional properties resulting in potentially fewer investments, less diversification of our portfolio and a reduced overall return to our stockholders. In addition, the value of our shares of common stock and preferred stock may be diluted because funds that would otherwise be available to make investments would be diverted to fund distributions.

The market price of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock could be materially and adversely affected by our level of cash distributions.

The market value of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock is based primarily upon the market's perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future cash distributions, whether from operations, sales or re-financings, and is secondarily based upon the real estate market value of our underlying assets. For that reason, our stock may trade at prices that are higher or lower than our net asset value per share. To the extent we retain operating cash flow for investment purposes, working capital reserves or other purposes, these retained funds, while increasing the value of our underlying assets, may not correspondingly increase the market price of our stock. Our failure to meet the market's expectations with regard to future earnings and cash distributions likely would materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock and Series A Preferred Stock.

Our Exchangeable Senior Notes and future offerings of debt or preferred equity securities, which may rank senior to our common stock and existing preferred stock, may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our Exchangeable Senior Notes rank senior to our common stock and existing preferred stock. If we decide to issue additional debt securities in the future, which would rank senior to our common stock and existing preferred stock, it is likely that they will be governed by an indenture or other instrument containing covenants restricting our operating flexibility. Additionally, any preferred equity securities or convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and/or existing preferred stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock and existing preferred stock. We and, indirectly, our stockholders will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue debt or preferred equity securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, holders of our common stock and existing preferred stock will bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and existing preferred stock and diluting the value of their stock holdings in us.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and we benefit from certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which may increase the risk that weaknesses or deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting go undetected, and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, which may make it more difficult for investors and securities analysts to evaluate our company. In addition, we have elected under the JOBS Act to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with public company effective dates. If some investors find our common stock and existing preferred stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and existing preferred stock, and corresponding stock prices may be more volatile. We may take advantage of these reporting exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” which in certain circumstances could be up to five years.

Risks Related to Our Taxation as a REIT

Our failure to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT would subject us to U.S. federal income tax and applicable state and local taxes, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders and have significant adverse consequences on the market price of our common stock and existing preferred stock.

We have been organized and we intend to operate in a manner that will enable us to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2017. We have not requested and do not intend to request a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") that we qualify as a REIT, and the statements in this report are not binding on the Service or any court. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Treasury Department thereunder ("Treasury Regulations") for which there are limited judicial and administrative interpretations. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that we will qualify or remain qualified as a REIT.

To qualify as a REIT, we must meet, on an ongoing basis, various tests regarding the nature and diversification of our assets and our income, the ownership of our outstanding stock, and the amount of our distributions to stockholders. Our ability to satisfy these asset tests depends upon the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination, and for which we will not obtain independent appraisals. Our compliance with the REIT income and quarterly asset requirements also depends upon our ability to manage successfully the composition of our income and assets on an ongoing basis. Moreover, new legislation, court decisions or administrative guidance, in each case possibly with retroactive effect, may make it more difficult or impossible for us to qualify as a REIT. Thus, while we intend to operate in a manner to qualify as a REIT, in view of the highly complex nature of the rules governing REITs, the ongoing importance of factual determinations, and the possibility of future changes in our circumstances, we cannot provide assurance that we will so qualify for any particular year. These considerations also might restrict the types of income we can realize, or assets that we can acquire in the future.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, and we do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, we would be required to pay U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. We will not be able to deduct distributions to our stockholders in any year in which we fail to qualify, nor will we be required to make distributions to our stockholders. In such a case, we might need to borrow money, sell assets, or reduce or even cease making distributions in order to pay our taxes. Our payment of income tax would reduce significantly the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, all distributions to stockholders, to the extent of current and accumulated earnings and profits, will be taxable to the stockholders as dividend income (which may be subject to tax at preferential rates) and corporate distributions may be eligible for the dividends received deduction if they satisfy the relevant provisions of the Code. Furthermore, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we no longer would be required to distribute substantially all of our net taxable income to our stockholders. In addition, unless we were eligible for certain statutory relief provisions, we could not re-elect to qualify as a REIT until the fifth calendar year following the year in which we failed to qualify. We might not be entitled to the statutory relief described in this paragraph in all circumstances.

The REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan, require us to borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions or subject us to tax, which would reduce the cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders, on an annual basis, at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In addition, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income (including net capital gain) and will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to distribute our net income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. However, we can provide no assurances that we will have sufficient cash or other liquid assets to meet these requirements. Difficulties in meeting the distribution requirements might arise due to competing demands for available funds or timing differences between tax reporting and cash receipts. In addition, if the Service were to disallow certain of our deductions, such as employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense, by alleging that we, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed medical cannabis tenants, are primarily or vicariously liable for "trafficking" a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or otherwise, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements and would fail to qualify as a REIT. Likewise, if any governmental entity were to impose fines on us for our business involvement in state-licensed medical-use cannabis, such fines would not be deductible and the inability to deduct such fines could also cause us to be unable to satisfy the distribution requirement.

We may also generate less cash flow than taxable income in a particular year. In such event, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt or liquidate assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable or, to the extent possible, make a taxable distribution of our stock in order to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in that year. Under certain circumstances, we may be able to rectify a failure to meet the distribution requirement for a year by paying "deficiency dividends" to stockholders in a later year, which may be included in our deduction for dividends paid for the earlier year. Thus, we may be able to avoid being taxed on amounts distributed as deficiency dividends; however, we will be required to pay penalties and interest based upon the amount of any deduction taken for deficiency dividends. If we do not have sufficient cash to distribute, we may incur U.S. federal income tax, U.S. federal excise tax and/or our REIT status may be jeopardized.

If we are deemed to be subject to Section 280E of the Code because of the business activities of our tenants, the resulting disallowance of tax deductions could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and jeopardize our REIT status.

Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year "in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted." Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of medical-use cannabis products. Although we will not be engaged in the purchase, sale, growth, cultivation, harvesting, or processing of medical-use cannabis products, we will lease our properties to tenants who will engage in such activities, and therefore our tenants will likely be subject to Section 280E. If the Service were to take the position that, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed medical-use cannabis tenants, we are primarily or vicariously liable under federal law for "trafficking" a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under section 280E of the Code or for any other violations of the CSA, the Service may seek to apply the provisions of Section 280E to our company and disallow certain tax deductions, including for employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense. If such tax deductions are disallowed, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, which could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and fail to qualify as a REIT. Because we are not engaged in the purchase and/or sale of a controlled substance, we do not believe that we will be subject to the disallowance provisions of Section 280E, and neither we nor our tax advisors are aware of any tax court cases or guidance from the Service in which a taxpayer not engaged in the purchase or sale of a controlled substance was disallowed deductions under Section 280E. However, there is no assurance that the Service will not take such a position either currently or in the future.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive business opportunities or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify as a REIT, we must ensure that we meet the REIT gross income tests annually. In addition, we must ensure that, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of our total assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets, including certain mortgage loans, certain kinds of mortgage-backed securities and certain securities issued by other REITs. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities, securities of corporations that are treated as TRSs, and qualified REIT real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, no more than 25% (20% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017) of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs, and, the aggregate value of debt instruments issued by public REITs held by us that are not otherwise secured by real property may not exceed 25% of the value of our total assets. If we fail to comply with these asset requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we generally must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing our REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences.

To meet these tests, we may be required to take or forgo taking actions that we would otherwise consider advantageous. For instance, in order to satisfy the gross income or asset tests applicable to REITs under the Code, we may be required to forego investments that we otherwise would make. Furthermore, we may be required to liquidate from our portfolio otherwise attractive investments. In addition, we may be required to make distributions to stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our investment performance.

The tax on prohibited transactions could limit our ability to engage in certain transactions or subject us to a 100% penalty tax.

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

If we were considered to actually or constructively pay a "preferential dividend" to certain of our stockholders, our status as a REIT could be adversely affected.

In order to qualify as a REIT, we must annually distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income (which does not equal net income, as calculated in accordance with GAAP), determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gain. In order for distributions to be counted as satisfying the annual distribution requirements for REITs, and to provide us with a REIT-level tax deduction, the distributions must not be "preferential dividends." A dividend is not a preferential dividend if the distribution is pro rata among all outstanding shares of stock within a particular class, and in accordance with the preferences among different classes of stock as set forth in our organizational documents. Currently, there is uncertainty as to the Service's position regarding whether certain arrangements that REITs have with their stockholders could give rise to the inadvertent payment of a preferential dividend (e.g., the pricing methodology for stock purchased under a distribution reinvestment program inadvertently causing a greater than 5% discount on the price of such stock purchased). There is no de minimis exception with respect to preferential dividends; therefore, if the Service were to take the position that we inadvertently paid a preferential dividend, we may be deemed to have failed the 90% distribution test, and our status as a REIT could be terminated for the year in which such determination is made if we were unable to cure such failure. While we believe that our operations will be structured in such a manner that we will not be treated as inadvertently paying preferential dividends, we can provide no assurance to this effect.

The "preferential dividend" prohibition described above does not apply to a "publicly offered REIT," which generally is a REIT that is required to make regular filings with the SEC under the Exchange Act. While we intend to qualify as a "publicly offered REIT" and therefore expect that the preferential dividend prohibition will not apply to us, we cannot provide you with assurance that we will so qualify and, accordingly, we may be subject to the prohibition.

The ability of our board of directors to revoke our REIT election without stockholder approval may cause adverse consequences to our stockholders.

Our charter provides that the board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if the board of directors determines that it is no longer in our best interest to attempt to, or continue to, qualify as a REIT. If we cease to qualify as a REIT, we would become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our net taxable income and we generally would no longer be required to distribute any of our net taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on our total return to our stockholders.

Dividends payable by REITs do not qualify for the reduced tax rates on dividend income from regular corporations, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate for certain qualified dividends payable to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates is 20%. Dividends (other than capital gain dividends) payable by REITs, however, generally are not eligible for the reduced rates. Although the reduced U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to dividend income from regular corporate dividends does not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, the more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of our common stock.

Complying with REIT requirements may limit our ability to hedge our liabilities effectively and may cause us to incur tax liabilities.

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

Non-U.S. stockholders will generally be subject to withholding tax with respect to our ordinary dividends.

Non-U.S. stockholders generally will be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax on ordinary dividends received from us at a 30% rate, subject to reduction under an applicable treaty or a statutory exemption under the Code.

Legislative, regulatory or administrative changes could adversely affect us or our stockholders.

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws or Treasury Regulations governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws or regulations may be changed, possibly with retroactive effect, and may adversely affect us and our stockholders. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective or whether any such law, regulation or interpretation may take effect retroactively.

It is unclear at this time what impact the rescission of the Cole Memo may have on our ability to qualify as a REIT. If rescission of the Cole Memo is followed by strict enforcement of federal prohibitions regarding cannabis, the Service could seek to apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company. Section 280E of the Code provides that, with respect to any taxpayer, no deduction or credit is allowed for expenses incurred during a taxable year “in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the CSA) which is prohibited by federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.” Because cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA, Section 280E of the Code by its terms applies to the purchase and sale of medical-use cannabis products. If the Service were to take the position that, through our rental agreements with our state-licensed medical-use cannabis tenants, we are primarily or vicariously liable under federal law for “trafficking” a Schedule 1 substance (cannabis) under Section 280E of the Code or for any other violations of the CSA, the Service may apply the provisions of Section 280E of the Code to our company and disallow certain tax deductions, including for employee salaries, depreciation or interest expense. If such tax deductions are disallowed, we would be unable to meet the distribution requirements applicable to REITs under the Code, which could cause us to incur U.S. federal income tax and fail to qualify as a REIT.

In addition, tax legislation originally introduced as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and signed into law in December 2017 (the “TCJA”) makes numerous changes to the tax rules that do not affect the REIT qualification rules directly, but may otherwise affect us or our stockholders. Among the changes made by the TCJA are permanently reducing the generally applicable corporate tax rate, generally reducing the tax rate applicable to individuals and other non-corporate taxpayers for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, eliminating or modifying certain previously allowed deductions (including substantially limiting interest deductibility and, for individuals, the deduction for non-business state and local taxes), and, for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, providing for preferential rates of taxation through a deduction of up to 20% (subject to certain limitations) on most ordinary REIT dividends and certain trade or business income of non-corporate taxpayers. The TCJA also imposes new limitations on the deduction of net operating losses, which may result in us having to make additional taxable distributions to our stockholders in order to comply with REIT distribution requirements or avoid taxes on retained income and gains. The effect of the significant changes made by the TCJA is highly uncertain, and administrative guidance will be required in order to fully evaluate the effect of many provisions. The effect of any technical corrections with respect to the TCJA could have an adverse effect on us or our stockholders.