PDF

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - IIPR

Company Name
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
Stock Symbol
IIPR
Class Period
May 7, 2020 to April 13, 2022
Motion Deadline
June 24, 2022
Court
District of New Jersey
36 days left to seek lead plaintiff status

Case Summary

The Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR) securities between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022, inclusive (the “Class Period”).  Commenced on April 25, 2022, the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit – captioned Mallozzi v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., No. 22-cv-02359 (D.N.J.) – charges Innovative Industrial Properties and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.  You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.  Lead plaintiff motions for the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 24, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Innovative Industrial Properties purports to be an internally managed real estate investment trust (“REIT”) focused on the acquisition, ownership, and management of specialized industrial properties leased to experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated state-licensed cannabis facilities.

The Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (i) that Innovative Industrial Properties’ focus is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a REIT; (ii) that the true values of Innovative Industrial Properties’ properties are significantly lower than Innovative Industrial Properties represents; (iii) existential issues in its top customers; (iv) that, as a result, Innovative Industrial Properties’ top customers may not be able to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial Properties and Innovative Industrial Properties would face significant issues replacing these customers; and (v) that consequently, defendants’ statements about Innovative Industrial Properties’ business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On April 14, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital released a report on Innovative Industrial Properties, which described Innovative Industrial Properties, in summary, as “a marijuana bank masquerading as a REIT.  [Innovative Industrial Properties’] model is to conduct sale-leaseback transactions with cannabis producers who are otherwise prohibited from borrowing money because of federal regulations.”  The report, for example, stated the following: (i) regarding Innovative Industrial Properties’ true business focus of a cannabis company lender: “[i]n exchange for overpaying for properties from cannabis companies and funding the tenant improvements to build out the facilities, [Innovative Industrial Properties] receives repayment of the loan in the form of long-term lease agreements at 11–14% yields.  In effect, [Innovative Industrial Properties] is less of a traditional REIT, and more of a marijuana bank, lending to cannabis companies who otherwise would not have access to the banking system to grow their businesses”; (ii) regarding the true value of Innovative Industrial Properties’ properties: “the market value of the properties appears to be substantially lower than they are carried at on [Innovative Industrial Properties’] balance sheet.  This is because [Innovative Industrial Properties], by design, executes the sale-leaseback transaction with cannabis companies at above market prices to in effect loan money to its tenants who otherwise cannot borrow from the banking system”; and (iii) regarding Innovative Industrial Properties’ existential issues in its customers: Innovative Industrial Properties’ “Largest Tenant in Default on Debt and Accused of Being Ponzi Scheme in March 2022 Investor Lawsuits,” Innovative Industrial Properties’ “Second Largest Tenant Accused of Fraud in Lawsuit between Founders,” and Innovative Industrial Properties’ “Listed Tenants Struggling with Falling Share Prices (-46%) and worsening cash flows.”  On this news, Innovative Industrial Properties’ share price fell by more than 7.5%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Innovative Industrial Properties securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit.  A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit.  An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Innovative Industrial Properties class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world’s leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases.  The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs’ firm.  With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller’s attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig.

Main Menu