Terminal Disclosure Analysis: TerrAscend Corp. FY2025 Form 10-K

A structured framework for evaluating market-exit filings, applied to the first annual report after TerrAscend's complete Michigan withdrawal

LAW Corporate Intelligence Research Division · LAW Intelligence 2(4) · 2026

Terminal Disclosure Analysis: TerrAscend Corp. FY2025 Form 10-K

Abstract

When a public company exits an entire state market — closing all retail locations, terminating all employees, and classifying the entire operating segment as a disposal group — its next annual report on Form 10-K becomes what this paper terms a "terminal disclosure": the definitive SEC filing that closes the books on a geographic era. This paper introduces a structured five-dimension framework for evaluating terminal disclosures: Exit Accounting, Tax Position, Related-Party Disclosure, Disposal Group Transparency, and Structural Disclosure Integrity. Applied to TerrAscend Corp.'s FY2025 Form 10-K (CIK 0001778129, filed March 12, 2026) — the first annual report after the company's complete Michigan withdrawal — the analysis reveals: cumulative Michigan operating losses of $167.7 million across three fiscal years; a 592% effective tax rate driven by Section 280E disallowance; a $128.8 million uncertain tax position that exceeds the company's $99.0 million shareholders' equity by 30.1%; a $93.0 million FG Loan carrying 12.75% interest with substantially all corporate assets pledged as collateral to a lender syndicate that includes Executive Chairman Jason Wild's affiliated funds; the wholesale deferral of all Part III Items 10–14 (directors, executive compensation, related-party transactions, and beneficial ownership) to an as-yet-unfiled proxy statement; and a Michigan disposal group classified as "held for sale" with no purchaser, no purchase agreement, no asking price, and remaining current assets of $12.7 million — an 84.7% reduction from the prior year. The paper argues that terminal disclosure analysis is a necessary complement to conventional financial statement analysis: where the latter reads the numbers, the former reads what the filing structure reveals about management's posture toward the exit, the residual stakeholders, and the completeness of the public record.

Introduction

A company's final annual report after a major market exit is a document of legal consequence. Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a Form 10-K must disclose "such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading" (17 C.F.R. § 240.12b-20). When a registrant has exited an entire state market — closing operations, terminating employees, and reclassifying assets — the "circumstances under which they are made" include a material change that the 10-K must fully and fairly present. The question is whether it does.

This paper develops and applies a structured analytical framework — terminal disclosure analysis — to evaluate the completeness, transparency, and legal significance of the first 10-K filed after a company's exit from a major operating market. The framework is applied to TerrAscend Corp.'s FY2025 Form 10-K, filed March 12, 2026, which is the terminal disclosure for the company's Michigan cannabis operations. TerrAscend entered Michigan through its 2021 acquisition of Gage Growth Corp. in a transaction valued at approximately $545 million, and exited completely in August 2025 — closing all 20 retail dispensaries, 4 cultivation and processing facilities, and terminating approximately 250 employees.

The paper proceeds in eight parts. Part I defines the terminal disclosure analysis framework and its five dimensions. Parts II through VI apply each dimension to the TerrAscend FY2025 10-K. Part VII examines the litigation and investigative implications of terminal disclosures. Part VIII concludes.

I. The Terminal Disclosure Analysis Framework

A. Definition and Rationale

A "terminal disclosure" is the first Form 10-K filed after a registrant's complete exit from a material operating segment — defined here as a geographic market in which the registrant maintained retail operations, cultivation or manufacturing facilities, and a distinct employee base. The terminal disclosure is legally significant because it is the document in which management must account for the full arc of the exited operation: what was acquired, what was operated, what was lost, and what remains.

Conventional financial statement analysis addresses the terminal 10-K through the lens of discontinued operations (ASC 205-20), impairment (ASC 360), and income tax accounting (ASC 740). These accounting standards provide the vocabulary. But they do not address the structural question that terminal disclosure analysis asks: given what the registrant knew, what it disclosed, and what it deferred or omitted, does the filing present the exit fairly — or does it exploit the architecture of securities disclosure to bury the exit's significance within the routine format of an annual report?

B. The Five Dimensions

Terminal disclosure analysis evaluates the terminal 10-K across five dimensions:

1. Exit Accounting: How does the 10-K present the financial arc of the exited operation — from acquisition through operations to disposal? What cumulative losses were recognized? What impairment charges were taken? What residual assets and liabilities remain on the balance sheet?

2. Tax Position: What is the registrant's effective tax rate, and how does it reflect the structural characteristics of the exited business? For cannabis companies, this includes the impact of Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which disallows ordinary business deductions for trafficking in controlled substances.

3. Related-Party Disclosure: What related-party transactions, loans, and arrangements are disclosed — or deferred — in connection with the exit? This dimension is particularly significant when the registrant's executive officers or directors are also lenders to, or investors in, the registrant's debt.

4. Disposal Group Transparency: How completely does the 10-K disclose the terms, status, and prospects of the disposal group? Does it identify a purchaser, a purchase price, or a purchase agreement? Or does it classify assets as "held for sale" while disclosing none of these material terms?

5. Structural Disclosure Integrity: Reading the 10-K as a whole — including its deferrals to future filings, its risk factor disclosures, and its MD&A — does the filing's structure serve the purpose of full and fair disclosure, or does it exploit the 10-K's modular architecture to defer material information beyond the filing date?

Each dimension is applied below to TerrAscend's FY2025 Form 10-K.

II. Dimension 1: Exit Accounting — The Financial Arc of Michigan Operations

A. Acquisition to Impairment

TerrAscend entered the Michigan market through its 2021 acquisition of Gage Growth Corp., a transaction valued at approximately $545 million in enterprise value. The acquired assets included approximately 20 retail dispensaries (operating under the "Gage" and "Cookies" brands), 4 cultivation and processing facilities, and the Gage trademark registration.

Over the subsequent four fiscal years, the Michigan operation generated cumulative operating losses of approximately $167.7 million:

The Michigan operating losses by fiscal year were: FY2023 — $59.1 million; FY2024 — $51.8 million; FY2025 — $56.8 million. The cumulative Michigan operating loss across these three fiscal years totaled $167.7 million.

The FY2025 10-K discloses that the acquired Gage trademark — the core intangible asset of the 2021 acquisition — was written down to $0: a 100% impairment. This impairment is not a partial write-down reflecting adverse market conditions. It is a complete write-off — an acknowledgment that the trademark registration acquired as the centerpiece of a $545 million transaction has zero residual value on the company's balance sheet.

B. The Disposal Group Balance Sheet

As of December 31, 2025, the Michigan disposal group held current assets of $12.7 million — an 84.7% reduction from $83.2 million a year earlier. The reduction reflects the closure of operations, the sale or disposition of inventory, the termination of leases, and the write-down of assets to their estimated recoverable value.

The 10-K does not disclose the disposal group's liabilities separately, making it impossible to determine from the face of the filing whether the disposal group has a positive or negative net asset value. The absence of a separate liability disclosure for the disposal group — combined with the absence of any purchaser, purchase agreement, or asking price — means that the terminal disclosure does not permit an external analyst to estimate the net recovery, if any, that shareholders will receive from the Michigan exit.

C. The Accounting Significance

Under ASC 205-20, a disposal group classified as "held for sale" must be measured at the lower of its carrying amount or fair value less cost to sell. The 84.7% reduction in current assets, combined with the $0 trademark impairment and the absence of any disclosed sale consideration, suggests that the disposal group's fair value less cost to sell is approaching zero — a terminal valuation consistent with management's decision to exit completely rather than to seek a going-concern sale.

III. Dimension 2: Tax Position — The 280E Binary Event

A. The 592% Effective Tax Rate

The FY2025 10-K reports an effective tax rate of 592%. This rate is not a typographical error. It is the mathematical consequence of Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 280E), which provides:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the 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 Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Under Section 280E, cannabis companies operating in compliance with state law may nonetheless deduct only cost of goods sold — not rent, payroll, marketing, insurance, or any other ordinary business expense. The result is that a cannabis company's taxable income can substantially exceed its economic income. When the company also recognizes impairment charges, exit costs, and other losses that are not fully deductible under 280E, the effective tax rate can exceed 100% — sometimes dramatically.

The 592% effective tax rate means that for every dollar of pre-tax book loss, the company recognized approximately $5.92 in tax expense. This figure captures the structural tax penalty imposed by 280E on cannabis operators — a penalty that is amplified in the terminal year, when exit costs, impairment charges, and disposal losses converge with the 280E disallowance to produce a tax provision that dwarfs the book loss.

B. The $128.8 Million Uncertain Tax Position

The FY2025 10-K discloses an uncertain tax position of $128.8 million under ASC 740 (Income Taxes). This amount exceeds the company's $99.0 million shareholders' equity by 30.1%. Stated directly: if the IRS disallows the company's tax positions in full, the resulting liability would eliminate shareholders' equity entirely — and then some.

The uncertain tax position arises primarily from the company's interpretation of Section 280E, including its allocation of costs between cost of goods sold (deductible) and operating expenses (non-deductible). The IRS's examination of cannabis company tax returns — including 280E cost-allocation methodologies — is ongoing across the industry. For TerrAscend, the outcome of the IRS examination is an existential binary event: a favorable determination preserves the company's balance sheet; an adverse determination renders it insolvent on a net-asset basis.

C. The Disclosure Obligation

Under ASC 740-10-50-15, a registrant must disclose the nature of each uncertain tax position and "an indication of the reasonably possible change in the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits within the next twelve months." The FY2025 10-K's disclosure of the $128.8 million uncertain tax position satisfies the quantitative disclosure requirement. But the qualitative disclosure — the "indication of the reasonably possible change" — warrants scrutiny. When a tax position exceeds shareholders' equity by 30.1%, the "reasonably possible change" is that the company becomes insolvent. Whether the 10-K's risk-factor language adequately conveys this binary outcome is a question the framework flags for further analysis.

IV. Dimension 3: Related-Party Disclosure — The Part III Deferral Gap

A. The FG Loan Structure

The FY2025 10-K discloses a $93.0 million term loan (the "FG Loan") carrying an interest rate of 12.75%, with "substantially all" of the company's assets pledged as collateral. The lender syndicate includes funds affiliated with Jason Wild, TerrAscend's Executive Chairman and beneficial owner of approximately 27% of the company's voting stock.

The FG Loan is a related-party transaction: the company's Executive Chairman is both a borrower (through his control of the company) and a lender (through his affiliated funds). The loan's terms — 12.75% interest, substantially all assets pledged — would, in an arm's-length transaction, reflect a significant credit risk premium. But in a related-party context, the same terms also reflect the lender's structural advantage: an insider-lender can price the loan to reflect risks that the insider, through his control of the borrower, is positioned to manage or mitigate.

B. The Part III Deferral

The FY2025 10-K defers all Part III Items — Items 10 (Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance), 11 (Executive Compensation), 12 (Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters), 13 (Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence), and 14 (Principal Accountant Fees and Services) — to a proxy statement that, as of the 10-K's filing date, had not been filed.

The deferral is permitted by General Instruction G(3) to Form 10-K, which allows a registrant to incorporate Part III information by reference from a definitive proxy statement filed within 120 days of fiscal year end. But the permissive character of the incorporation-by-reference rule does not diminish the analytical significance of the resulting disclosure gap: the very items most relevant to evaluating the related-party dimension of the Michigan exit — the identity and compensation of the officers who approved the exit, the security holdings of the lender-insiders who stand to benefit from the 12.75% interest rate, and the full scope of related-party transactions during the exit year — are deferred to a document that, at the time of the 10-K's filing, does not exist as a public record.

C. The Analytical Implication

The Part III deferral means that the terminal disclosure is structurally incomplete. A reader of the FY2025 10-K cannot evaluate the related-party dimension of the Michigan exit without access to a proxy statement that has not been filed. This is not an accounting deficiency — it is an architectural feature of the SEC's Form 10-K framework, which permits registrants to bifurcate their annual disclosure across two documents filed months apart. Terminal disclosure analysis identifies this feature and treats it as a dimension of evaluation: the more material the related-party transactions, the more significant the deferral gap, and the less complete the terminal disclosure.

V. Dimension 4: Disposal Group — Held for Sale with No Purchaser

A. The Disclosure Vacuum

The FY2025 10-K classifies the Michigan disposal group as "held for sale." But it does not disclose:

• The identity of any purchaser
• The existence of any purchase agreement
• The asking price or expected consideration
• The expected timeline for completion of the sale
• The method by which fair value less cost to sell was determined

This is a disclosure vacuum at the center of the terminal filing. A disposal group "held for sale" with no purchaser, no price, and no agreement is a disposal group whose sale is aspirational rather than transactional. The classification "held for sale" triggers specific accounting treatment under ASC 205-20 — including measurement at the lower of carrying value or fair value less cost to sell — but it does not, by itself, establish that a sale is probable, that a purchaser exists, or that any recovery will be realized.

B. The Fair Value Problem

Under ASC 820 (Fair Value Measurement), fair value is "the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date." When a disposal group has no purchaser, no agreement, and no disclosed asking price, the fair value measurement is inherently subjective: management must estimate what a hypothetical market participant would pay for assets that actual market participants — approached during the exit process — have apparently not agreed to purchase on terms the company has accepted.

The $12.7 million in remaining current assets — down 84.7% from the prior year — represents management's estimate of recoverable value. Whether that estimate reflects fair value, or reflects an optimistic assumption about the probability of a sale that has not materialized, is a question the 10-K's disclosures do not permit an external analyst to answer.

C. The Terminal Significance

The disposal group disclosure is the terminal dimension of the terminal disclosure. After a $545 million acquisition, $167.7 million in cumulative operating losses, a $0 trademark impairment, and a complete market exit, the question the 10-K must answer is: what, if anything, will shareholders recover from the Michigan disposal? The FY2025 10-K does not answer this question. It defers it — to a future sale that may or may not occur, at a price that has not been determined, to a purchaser that has not been identified.

VI. Dimension 5: Structural Disclosure Integrity

A. What the 10-K Reveals

To be clear about what the FY2025 10-K does disclose: it reports the Michigan exit (Part I, Item 1 — Business); it discloses the $0 trademark impairment (Financial Statements, Note on Intangible Assets); it reports the 592% effective tax rate and the $128.8 million uncertain tax position (Financial Statements, Note on Income Taxes); it discloses the FG Loan terms and the collateral pledge (Financial Statements, Note on Debt); it classifies the Michigan disposal group as held for sale (Financial Statements, Note on Discontinued Operations); and it incorporates Part III by reference (Form 10-K, Items 10–14). These disclosures, read individually, satisfy the technical requirements of the SEC's disclosure regime. The question is whether, read together, they present the Michigan exit fairly.

B. What the 10-K Defers

The Part III deferral is the most significant structural gap, but it is not the only one. The 10-K also defers, by its nature as a periodic report filed at a single point in time, any disclosure of events occurring after the filing date — including any developments in the Michigan disposal process, any IRS examination activity, or any further impairment determinations. These post-filing developments are properly the subject of subsequent filings (Forms 8-K and 10-Q). But the terminal disclosure's value as a comprehensive account of the Michigan exit is necessarily limited by the temporal boundaries of the filing date.

C. What the 10-K Omits

Terminal disclosure analysis also identifies omissions — information that the filing's structure does not require but that the exit's materiality would suggest is necessary to a fair presentation. The FY2025 10-K omits:

• Segment-level disaggregation: The Michigan operations are not presented as a separate reportable segment, making it difficult to isolate Michigan-specific revenues, expenses, and cash flows from the company's continuing operations in other states.
• Employee impact disclosure: The termination of approximately 250 employees is disclosed in qualitative terms, but the financial impact — severance costs, benefits continuation, and WARN Act compliance — is aggregated within broader exit cost line items.
• Community impact: The closure of 20 retail dispensaries in communities across Michigan — each of which generated local tax revenue, employed local residents, and served local patients — is not addressed in the 10-K's MD&A or risk factors.
• Trademark disposition: The $0 impairment of the Gage trademark is disclosed, but the 10-K does not address whether the company intends to maintain, abandon, or sell the trademark registration — a question with legal significance given the pending TTAB proceedings challenging the validity of that registration (Opposition No. 91278331, Gage Prestige Holdings LLC v. Gage Growth Corp.).

D. The Integrity Assessment

Terminal disclosure analysis does not conclude that the FY2025 10-K is false or misleading. It concludes that the 10-K, read as a terminal disclosure, is structurally incomplete: the Part III deferral postpones the most sensitive related-party disclosures to an unfiled document; the disposal group disclosure identifies no purchaser, price, or agreement; and the filing does not aggregate the Michigan exit's financial, legal, and human dimensions into a coherent account of what happened to the $545 million acquisition. Each individual disclosure may be technically compliant. The structural question is whether technical compliance with the 10-K's line-item requirements is equivalent to fair presentation of a terminal market exit — and, if it is not, what additional disclosure obligations arise under the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act (Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and the Rule 12b-20 requirement that filings not omit material information necessary to make required statements not misleading).

VII. Litigation and Investigative Implications

A. The 10-K as Admission

Under the federal securities laws, statements in a Form 10-K are attributable to the registrant and may constitute admissions in subsequent litigation. A 10-K that discloses a $0 trademark impairment, a 592% effective tax rate, and a $128.8 million uncertain tax position exceeding shareholders' equity is a document that can be cited — in shareholder litigation, in regulatory proceedings, and in adversarial matters such as the pending TTAB opposition — as the company's own characterization of the Michigan operation's terminal value.

The terminal disclosure's litigation significance is not limited to what it affirmatively states. What it defers or omits can also be significant: a plaintiff in a securities fraud action may argue that the Part III deferral, combined with the materiality of the related-party transactions (the FG Loan, the Wild-affiliated lender syndicate, the 12.75% interest rate), rendered the 10-K misleading because it omitted information necessary to make the disclosed information — the exit, the impairment, the loan terms — not misleading in light of the circumstances under which they were made.

B. The TTAB Nexus

The pending TTAB Opposition No. 91278331 challenges the validity of the Gage trademark registration — the same registration that TerrAscend's FY2025 10-K has now written to $0. The 10-K's $0 impairment is an admission by the registrant that the trademark has no residual value on its balance sheet. In the TTAB proceeding, this admission — made in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to the certification requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 — is independently admissible evidence of the trademark's terminal valuation by the entity that acquired it.

The 10-K also discloses that the Michigan disposal group is "held for sale" with no purchaser identified. This admission is relevant to the TTAB's analysis of the respondent's ongoing use of the mark: if the entity that holds the registration has exited the market entirely and classified its assets as held for sale with no identified purchaser, the question of whether the mark remains in bona fide use in commerce — a requirement for maintaining a federal trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1058 — is squarely presented.

C. The Investigative Framework

Terminal disclosure analysis, as developed in this paper, provides a structured framework for investigators, litigators, and regulatory examiners evaluating market-exit filings. The five dimensions — Exit Accounting, Tax Position, Related-Party Disclosure, Disposal Group Transparency, and Structural Disclosure Integrity — can be applied to any registrant's terminal 10-K to identify gaps between what the filing discloses and what a fair presentation of the exit would require. The framework does not depend on cannabis-specific facts; it is applicable to any industry in which public companies enter and exit material geographic markets. The cannabis application is a case study in how the framework operates when applied to an industry characterized by structural tax penalties, related-party lending, and incomplete federal regulatory recognition.

VIII. Conclusion

TerrAscend Corp.'s FY2025 Form 10-K is the terminal disclosure for the company's Michigan cannabis operations — a market the company entered through a $545 million acquisition in 2021 and exited completely in August 2025. Applied across the five dimensions of terminal disclosure analysis, the filing reveals a comprehensive picture of value destruction: $167.7 million in cumulative operating losses, a $0 trademark impairment, a 592% effective tax rate, and a $128.8 million uncertain tax position that exceeds shareholders' equity by 30.1%. It also reveals a structural disclosure gap: the wholesale deferral of Part III related-party disclosures — including the terms and beneficiaries of the $93.0 million FG Loan at 12.75% interest — to an unfiled proxy statement, and a disposal group "held for sale" with no purchaser, no price, and no agreement.

The terminal disclosure analysis framework does not answer the question of whether the FY2025 10-K complies with the line-item requirements of the SEC's disclosure regime. It addresses a different question: whether, read as the definitive account of a material market exit, the filing presents the exit fairly — or whether it exploits the architecture of periodic disclosure to bury the exit's significance within the routine format of an annual report. For the FY2025 10-K, the answer is that the terminal disclosure is structurally incomplete: each individual line item may be technically satisfied, but the filing as a whole does not aggregate the Michigan exit's financial, legal, and human dimensions into a coherent account of what happened to the $545 million acquisition and what, if anything, shareholders will recover from its terminal disposition.

The framework is offered as a tool for securities analysts, litigators, investigators, and regulators. Terminal disclosures are documents of legal consequence. Reading them as such — with attention to what they disclose, what they defer, and what they omit — is the analytical discipline this paper proposes.

References

1. TerrAscend Corp., Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed March 12, 2026, CIK 0001778129. Available: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001778129

2. TerrAscend Corp., Current Report on Form 8-K, filed June 27, 2025, CIK 0001778129, Accession No. 0000950170-25-091718 (Michigan exit plan approval). Available: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1778129/000095017025091718/0000950170-25-091718-index.htm

3. 15 U.S.C. § 78m (Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 13 — Periodical and Other Reports). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78m

4. 17 C.F.R. § 240.12b-20 (Additional Information — material information necessary to make required statements not misleading). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.12b-20

5. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-5

6. 17 C.F.R. § 229.401–229.407 (Regulation S-K, Items 401–407 — Directors, Executive Officers, Executive Compensation, Security Ownership, Related Transactions). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/229.401

7. 26 U.S.C. § 280E (Expenditures in Connection with the Illegal Sale of Drugs — disallowance of deductions for trafficking in Schedule I/II controlled substances). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280E

8. FASB ASC 205-20 (Presentation of Financial Statements — Discontinued Operations). Financial Accounting Standards Board.

9. FASB ASC 740-10 (Income Taxes — Overall). Financial Accounting Standards Board.

10. FASB ASC 820 (Fair Value Measurement). Financial Accounting Standards Board.

11. FASB ASC 360-10 (Property, Plant, and Equipment — Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets). Financial Accounting Standards Board.

12. TerrAscend Corp., Schedule 13D/A (Amendment No. 2), filed by JW Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., JW Partners, LP, Pharmaceutical Opportunities Fund, LP, and Jason Wild, May 31, 2023, CIK 0001778129. Available: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1778129/000095017023031698/0000950170-23-031698-index.htm

13. 15 U.S.C. § 1058 (Duration of Trademark Registration — affidavit of continued use). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1058

14. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Opposition No. 91278331, Gage Prestige Holdings LLC v. Gage Growth Corp., Show Cause Order, March 3, 2026. Available: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91278331

15. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, § 302 (Corporate Responsibility for Financial Reports), 15 U.S.C. § 7241. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7241

16. IRS Notice 2015-53, Guidance Regarding the Application of Section 280E to Cannabis Businesses (Sept. 28, 2015).

17. SEC Division of Corporation Finance, Form 10-K General Instructions. Available: https://www.sec.gov/files/form10-k.pdf

18. 17 C.F.R. § 229.303 (Regulation S-K, Item 303 — Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/229.303

19. 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (Securities Exchange Act § 10(b) — Manipulative and Deceptive Devices). Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78j

20. LAW Intelligence Research Division. (2026). What Is Gage Cannabis? Two Brands, One Name, and a $545 Million Question. LAW Intelligence, 2(5), 1–32.

Citation

LAW Corporate Intelligence Research Division. (2026). Terminal Disclosure Analysis: TerrAscend Corp. FY2025 Form 10-K. LAW Intelligence, 2(4), 55–82.

Distribution

Published: LAW Intelligence, LAW Intelligence 2(4) Status: published