Benedict Cubitt: The results are pretty good and I can’t imagine your creditor could have expected anything better at this point in the process of the kind of turnaround. What covenants were you offside on that puts this into like a current liability?
Josh Rosen: It largely or almost entirely relates to continuing to have New York on our books, and so we had a fixed charge covenant ratio performance metric for the first quarter that would allow us to kick the term of the debt all the way out to potentially – it’s quarter by quarter, but all the way out to potentially early 2026. And with New York on the operating law side, we were going to have a very hard time meeting that for the first quarter, for instance. The other side of that is, per that credit agreement, we were required to have sold New York and we had not yet closed on that transaction. So that puts us out of compliance. And so, those are the two places that create that need to address. And as I referenced, very pleased with the collaborative approach of our secured lender and Chicago Atlantic has been – and they have been supportive relative to the performance that we put up.
And it’s definitely been part of – I’m sure why they chose to be collaborative is I think we are performing well. And I think they also note that there’s continued room for ongoing improvement.
Benedict Cubitt: Are they likely to give something up? Like, they asked for kind of like, I don’t know, a bunch of warrants? Are they going to have to pay up to get it extended or is it something more like they’re obviously a big shareholder and a big creditor, so it’ll be relatively seamless or are they going to ask for their pound of flesh?
Josh Rosen: I will only note that they are a secured lender at core.
Benedict Cubitt: I also noticed that you called it a binding term sheet with this Ace group. What’s between this and I guess a definitive agreement? Like, are you close to that or like what…?
Josh Rosen: There are a couple of moving pieces and closing conditions that go along with this. But, really, the key components is capital at risk in their vein. So, they need to close in the capital piece, something that we’ve got – as I referenced before, never guaranteed, but really optimistic that they’ve got the pieces put together for that part. And so, that piece is one. We are still working through the full puts and takes of the corporate guarantee on the innovative industrial property sale respect that we have. So that would be the other dynamic that would tie into an ultimate closing. And then, obviously, the regulatory piece of this, although you can have definitive docs before and be contingent upon regulatory. And so, I would consider it relatively close with the actual form and function of the definitive docs, but we’re not over that finish line yet.
Benedict Cubitt: I guess that was my next question. So, Goodness Growth is having to provide a corporate guarantee to IIPR? Like, they won’t just take them on as a new counterparty?
Josh Rosen: That’s what exists today. But upon closing with enough capital and with some certain conditions, that’s the piece that there’s still a little bit of put and take to.
Operator: [Operator Instructions]. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to thank everyone. This concludes today’s call. You may now disconnect.
