On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022.

On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 19, 2023, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice.

On October 19, 2023, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, and asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; on February 1, 2024, plaintiff responded with their opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and on March 1, 2024, defendants replied to plaintiff’s response. On September 25, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On September 30, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court’s dismissal of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On December 9, 2024, plaintiff filed their opening appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On January 23, 2025, defendants filed their appellate brief. On February 27, 2025, plaintiff filed their reply brief. Oral argument is tentatively set for June 16, 2025.

On January 17, 2025, a second federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan D. Gold, Paul E. Smithers, David Smith and Ben Regin, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-RDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock and alleges that we and certain of our officers made false or misleading statements regarding our business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock between February 27, 2024 and December 19, 2024. On April 25, 2025, the court issued an order setting a briefing schedule, which is as follows: plaintiff is to file an Amended Complaint no later than June 23, 2025; defendants are to file an answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond no later than August 22, 2025; if defendants move to dismiss, plaintiff is to file a response no later than October 21, 2025; and defendants are to file a reply no later than November 20, 2025.

On July 26, 2022, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named John Rice, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Andy Bui, Alan Gold, Gary Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 24-C-22-003312, and was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief, direction to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 6, 2022, the defendants in this action filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Proceedings, which was granted on October 11, 2022. On September 28, 2022, a second derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Karen Draper, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Andy Bui, Alan Gold, Gary Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, David Stecher, Defendants, and Innovative Industrial Properties Inc., Nominal Defendant, Case Number 24-C-22-004243, and filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks actions to reform and improve the Company, and an undetermined amount of damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 19, 2022, the parties to both cases filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and to Appoint Lead and Liaison Counsel for plaintiffs, which was granted on December 19, 2022, along with a stay in the lawsuit pending a ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal class action lawsuit described above. On April 17, 2023, a third derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Ross Weintraub, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Ben Regin, Andy Bui, Tracie Hager, Gary Kreitzer, David Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:23-cv-00737-GLR, and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of

Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks an undetermined amount of damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants in this action filed a Consent Motion to Stay the Proceeding, which was granted on April 17, 2023. On June 5, 2023, a fourth derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Franco DeBlasio, on behalf of Gerich Melenth Nin (GMN) LP, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Alan D. Gold, Tracie J. Hager, Benjamin C. Regin, Andy Bui, Gary A. Kreitzer, David Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:23-cv-01513-GLR, and filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 19, 2023, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:23-cv-00737-GLR and 1:23-cv-01513-GLR with case number 1:23-cv-00737-GLR as the lead case, and kept the stay in place. The consolidated case remains stayed as Case Number 24-C-22-003312. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Mallozzi class action, detailed above.

On May 9, 2024, a fifth derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Gary A Gedig, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Ben Regin, Andy Bui, Tracy Hager, Alan Gold, Gary A. Kreitzer, Mary Curran, Scott Shoemaker, M.D., and David Stecher, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Civil No. C-24-CV-24-000130, and filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Plaintiff and defendants in this action filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay the Proceedings, which was granted on September 17, 2024. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Mallozzi class action, detailed above.

On February 12, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Joshua Steffens, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00456-ABA, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, an accounting and constructive trust, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 18, 2025, the case was reassigned and given Case Number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH (detailed below) with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case. Plaintiff and defendants in this action filed a Joint Stipulation and Order Staying the Consolidated Action, which was granted on March 13, 2025. This derivative action relates to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above.

On February 13, 2025, a derivative action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The case was named Joshua Albers, derivatively on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. v. Alan Gold, Paul Smithers, David Smith, Ben Regin, Gary Kreitzer, Gary Stecher, Scott Shoemaker, Mary Allis Curran, and Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Case Number 1:25-cv-00469-BAH, and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit asserts putative derivative claims for violations of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution against the directors and certain officers of the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, reform, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 19, 2025, the United States Court for the District of Maryland consolidated Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00469-BAH with case number 1:25-cv-00456-GLR as the lead case. This derivative action also relates to the same allegations as those made in the Giraudon class action, detailed above.

We may, from time to time, be a party to other legal proceedings, which arise in the ordinary course of our business. Although the results of these proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the final outcome of these matters is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. Regardless of final outcomes, however, any such proceedings, claims, inquiries, and investigations may nonetheless impose a significant burden on management and employees and may come with significant defense costs or unfavorable preliminary and interim rulings.