Banking has been an impediment for the cannabis industry because the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA) and related regulations―which seek to prevent money laundering and other financial crimes―place onerous requirements on banks when a transaction is suspected to involve illegal activity. 12 C.F.R. Section 21.11. Notwithstanding billions of state-legal cannabis dollars exchanging hands, the commercial banking industry, which is largely federally regulated, is virtually nonexistent in the cannabis space. In 2014, the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) provided guidance intended to enhance the banking of cannabis-related monies by establishing a category of suspicious activity reporting for “marijuana related businesses.” But, according to FinCEN, as of June 30, 2019, just 553 commercial banks and 162 credit unions had filed an SAR for a “marijuana-related business.”
Canadian Securities Regulators Signal Increased Scrutiny for Cannabis M&A Disclosures
On November 12, 2019, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), the organization that oversees securities regulations in the 10 Canadian provinces, released Multilateral Staff Notice 51-359 Corporate Governance Related Disclosure Expectations for Reporting Issuers in the Cannabis Industry (the “Guidance”). The Guidance specifically relates to the disclosures required in merger and acquisition transactions. The CSA expressed concern over the perceived inadequate transparency relating to the cross-ownership of financial interests involved in such transactions.
The rapid growth of the cannabis industry and the heightened pace of mergers and acquisitions has resulted in many cannabis companies and their directors and executive officers having a higher than usual crossover of financial interests. Often times these interests are intertwined within various management companies, leasing companies, real estate companies and across numerous license holders, as well as interests in investment advisory services entities and other transaction service providers that are receiving compensatory transaction fees.
The Guidance reiterates that in the disclosure document filed in connection with the transaction, the acquiror and/or the acquiree should disclose all relevant and material the cross-ownership of financial interests held by either by the acquirer, the acquiree, or either of their directors or executive officers.
“Investors need to understand the conflicts of interest that could arise when issuers have crossover of financial interests, because those conflicts could have implications for the possible M&A transaction,” said Louis Morisset, CSA Chair and President and CEO of the Autorité des marchés financiers. We would advise, to avoid potential shareholder litigation, that the disclosure should go beyond the Canadian disclosure requirements and adhere to the more stringent related party transaction disclosure required under U.S. securities laws as many of the cannabis companies have US shareholders or dual listings in the US.
The second issued raised by the Guidance is the determination of director independence as a result of such cross-ownership of financial interests. The CSA stated that they have, “observed instances where cannabis issuers have identified board members as being independent, without giving adequate consideration to potential conflicts of interest or other factors that may compromise their independence.” Again, the cross-over relationships should be reviewed to make a full independent determination.
It is important for reporting issuers to review closely all disclosures made in connection with a merger and acquisition. As a result of the release of the Guidance, the review conducted by the reporting issuer and its counsel is more critical than ever. The board of the reporting issuer should review closely all potential conflicts among its members and should consult with its code of business conduct and ethics to ensure that all procedures have been followed relating to conflicts of interest, as well as considering the jurisdiction rules of its shareholder base.
The importance of proper disclosures has been highlighted by a recent proposed class action lawsuits filed against Canopy Growth and Aurora Cannabis, each lawsuit alleging that the companies made false and misleading statements or withheld material information in their securities filings. While the lawsuit is not related to statements in connection with an M&A transaction, these lawsuits do highlight the importance of reviewing closely all disclosures made in US and Canadian securities filings.
By: Nanette C. Heide and Justin A. Santarosa
U.S. Senators Urge Changes to Testing Requirements Under USDA Interim Final Rule for Hemp Program
When the United States Department of Agriculture released the interim final rule for the hemp program in October 2019, many stakeholders—including businesses and state agencies—were caught off guard by certain testing-related requirements contained in the rule. Because hemp is now legal under the 2018 Farm Bill if it contains no more than 0.3 percent THC concentration, testing for THC levels is critical. However, significant questions and issues with the testing requirements must be clarified.
On November 20, 2019, Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both from the state of Oregon, submitted a letter to the secretary of the USDA, in which they flagged—“in no particular order”—five controversial testing-related requirements and requested modifications to those requirements. Below, we have summarized the senators’ concerns and proposed solutions to three particularly controversial testing-related requirements in the interim final rule.
Regulatory Uncertainty Hangs Over Production of Industrial Hemp
Duane Morris Partner Frederick Ball is quoted in the Agri-Pulse article “Regulatory Uncertainty Hangs Over Production of Industrial Hemp.”
Nearly a year after the 2018 farm bill legalized industrial hemp production, the business community continues to seek answers to questions about testing and marketing of products derived from the crop, the commercial potential of which has sparked interest throughout the country. […]
Rick Ball, a lawyer with Duane Morris in Boston, said on the sidelines of the FDLI meeting that he has “no clue” when FDA might take action.
Ball said regulatory confusion is stoked in some cases by different rules in different states. In Massachusetts, for example, farmers were left holding their hemp after the state followed FDA and said CBD cannot be used in foods or dietary supplements or marketed with health claims.
“They lost a huge market for their product,” Ball said. […]
To read the full article, visit the Agri-Pulse website (subscription required).
NJ Legislators Opt to allow Voters to Decide on Cannabis Legalization in NJ instead of Legislating such a Change – Brad A. Molotsky, Esq. – Duane Morris LLP
New Jersey’s top lawmakers have decided to let voters decide on legalization of cannabis during the 2020 presidential elections.
The constitutional amendment introduced today, November 18, 2019, by Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Senator Nicholas Scutari would legalize the use of recreational marijuana for anyone at least 21 years of age, and establish a Cannabis Regulatory Commission to oversee the new market.
The amendment does NOT detail the taxation rate, which was $42 an ounce in the original bill. It is also not clear if the commission will have 5 members, like the original bill.
According to NJBiz., Gov. Phil Murphy and legislative leadership long-resisted pursuing legalization via a ballot question because any, inevitable, changes to the program would have to go before voters in yet another ballot referendum.
“We made further attempts to generate additional support in the Senate to get this done legislatively, but we recognize that the votes just aren’t there,” reads the joint statement from Sweeney, D-3rd District, and Scutari, D-21st District.
To appear on the 2020 ballot as a constitutional amendment, both houses would need to pass the measure by a super-majority by the summer, or they would need to pass it 2x in both houses by a simple majority for 2 years in a row.
Just hours earlier, several progressive and social justice groups made a plea to legislative leadership to push through a legalization bill, pointing to a growing increase in low-level cannabis offenses which have disproportionately affected people of color.
“Cannabis 206” Webinar Replay Available
A video replay of the webinar “Privacy and Data Protection in the Cannabis and Hemp Industries” is available to view.
“Overview of New Federal Rules on Hemp Production” Webinar Replay Available
A video replay of the webinar “Overview of New Federal Rules on Hemp Production and Q&A” is available to view.
Neville Bilimoria Quoted on FDA Rules in Cannabis Era
Duane Morris partner Neville M. Bilimoria is quoted in the Law360 article, “CBD Rules In Limbo As FDA Grapples With New Cannabis Era.”
Hemp may have been legalized less than a year ago, but CBD derived from it is already on its way to becoming a multibillion-dollar industry. However, sales of everything from CBD gummies to lattes are occurring in a legal gray area as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration struggles with regulating the largely unstudied ingredient. […]
“This is a watershed year for the FDA and its coming to grips with the increasing demand from the consumer public over marijuana, cannabis, CBD, hemp. It’s trying to catch up to what the consumers are touting as being therapeutic uses for CBD and THC,” Mr. Bilimoria said. “It’s basically saying, ‘Wait, everybody slow down. We’re the FDA. We rely on science before we can approve any uses and regulate any uses of cannabis or CBD.'” […]
Mr. Bilimoria said he can’t blame the FDA for “taking it slow,” but said doing so is frustrating when CBD is already all over store shelves. […]
To read the full article, visit the Law360 website (subscription required).
USDA Issues Regulatory Framework for Hemp Production Under 2018 Farm Bill
The long awaited regulations establishing a regulatory framework under the 2018 Farm Bill passed last December were issued today (10/29/19). An Interim Final Rule will be published in the Federal Register later this week, which will make the U.S. Domestic Hemp Production Program effective. As explained in the Interim Final Rule: “The program includes provisions for maintaining information on the land where hemp is produced, testing the levels of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, disposing of plants not meeting necessary requirements, licensing requirements, and ensuring compliance with the requirements of the new part.” USDA has published the Interim Final Rule and Guidelines for Sampling and Guidelines for Testing pursuant to the Interim Final Rule on its website.
Among other key provisions, the new regulatory framework provides for USDA’s approval of State and Tribal Land hemp programs established under the 2018 Farm Bill, which will end debate as to whether hemp activities in a State or Tribal Land receiving such approval are federally lawful. To be approved, those plans will have to contain stringent requirements for testing the THC content of hemp to ensure it does not meet the definition of marijuana, and contain procedures for the enforcement of violations of the State or Tribe’s hemp program. Importantly, the regulatory framework provides for USDA’s granting of hemp production permits in states and territories that do not establish hemp programs for approval by USDA.
Duane Morris attorneys will be publishing a more fulsome review of the Interim Final Rule. Please visit our Alerts and Updates webpage, or our cannabis industry webpage for that information.
“Cannabis 205” Webinar Replay Available
A video replay of the webinar “Cannabis 205: What Big Global Companies Should Know About Entering the Cannabis Space” is available to view.