Note 9—Commitments and Contingencies
Operating Leases
The Company had 0 future rental commitments at June 30, 2021. The Company engaged our External Manager to manage the Company’s continuing operations on January 8, 2018, and conveyed all its operating lease agreements to Hunt at such time.
Litigation and Other Legal Matters
In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are named from time to time as defendants in various litigation matters or may have other claims made against them. These legal proceedings may include claims for substantial or indeterminate compensatory, consequential or punitive damages, or for injunctive or declaratory relief.
The Company establishes reserves for litigation matters or other loss contingencies when a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. Once established, reserves may be adjusted when new information is obtained.
On February 11, 2021, SAH 2001 Fund III MM, Inc. (“SAH”) served Jolt Realty, LLC (“Jolt”) and MMA Capital TC Fund I, LLC (“TC Fund I”) with a Complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. SAH is the managing member of the LNR 2001 Fund III MM, Inc. (the “Fund”). TC Fund I, through Jolt, its wholly owned subsidiary, is the investing member of the Fund. In its Complaint, SAH alleges that in July 2017, it mistakenly paid $1.8 million to Jolt as part of the distribution of proceeds from the sale of property from the Fund. SAH seeks return of that payment based on an alleged breach of the Fund’s Operating Agreement (Count I), unjust enrichment (Count II), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III). On January 8, 2018, MMA entered into a Master Transaction Agreement with an affiliate of its External Manager (the “MTA”), pursuant to which, among other things, MMA sold its interest in TC Fund I to an affiliate of its External Manager. The terms of the MTA require MMA to indemnify Hunt for any losses associated with this claim and permitted MMA to assume the defense of this claim. MMA assumed the defense of this claim and is vigorously defending against the allegations in the Complaint and denies all counts of the Complaint. The parties have agreed to go to mediation. Although MMA has reason to believe that it will prevail on the merits, the ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time.
The Company and a prospective purchaser of a 26-acre portion of the Company’s one direct investment in real estate in Virginia are engaged in a dispute over the prospective purchaser’s option to acquire such portion of the property. The prospective purchaser has filed a lawsuit seeking, among other things, to compel the sale to the prospective purchaser and filed a special litigation lien, known as a Lis Pendens, on the entire 150-acre property. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims and pursue available remedies. The Company has filed its own slander of title lawsuit against the prospective purchaser for wrongly filing the Lis Pendens on the entire 150-acre property rather than the 26-acres in dispute. Although the Company has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and the Lis Pendens, unless and until dismissed, the Lis Pendens constitutes a default under the Company’s financing for the property. The Company has been in communication with the lender and does not expect the lender to take any action in respect of the default in light of the lender’s first lien position but can provide no assurance that the lender will not take any action. At June 30, 2021, the UPB of this note payable was $9.7 million.
On May 24, 2021, the Company, the Parent and the Merger Sub entered into a Merger Agreement, pursuant to which the Company will merge with and into Merger Sub. Upon completion of the Merger, Merger Sub will be the surviving entity, continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and the separate corporate existence of the Company will cease. The Company filed with the SEC on July 13, 2021, its definitive proxy statement relating to the proposed transaction (the “Proxy Statement”).
After the Company filed the Proxy Statement, various plaintiffs filed lawsuits related to the proposed transaction. Six plaintiffs filed individual actions in federal courts, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). The cases are: Beraud v. MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., et al., 1:21-cv-04227 (E.D.N.Y.); Ciccotelli v. MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-06423 (S.D.N.Y.); Morgan v. MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-01088 (D. Del.); Ryan v. MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-01082 (D. Del.); Whitfield v. MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-03365 (E.D. Pa.); and Reinhardt v. MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., et al, 1:21-cv-01122 (D. Del.). The complaints in all six of these cases name the Company and all seven of its directors as defendants (collectively,