Cannabis Industry

October 17, 2019December 4, 2019 by Duane Morris

Michigan Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting State’s Emergency Ban of Flavored Nicotine Products From Taking Effect

On September 18, 2019, Michigan became one of the first states to impose a ban on flavored e-cigarettes. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“MDHHS”) issued emergency regulations that stated, in part, that a retailer shall not “[s]ell, offer for sale, give, transport, or otherwise distribute, nor possess with intent to sell, give, or otherwise distribute a flavored nicotine vapor product.” The ban went into effect immediately upon the release of the emergency regulations and was supposed to last for six months.

Shortly thereafter a local vape shop owner filed suit in state court against MDHHS, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and the State of Michigan seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the emergency rules from going into effect. See Marc Slis, et al. v. State of Michigan et at., Nos. 19-000152-MZ, 19-000154-MZ (Mich. Ct. Cl., Oct. 15, 2019). At the preliminary injunction hearing, one plaintiff testified the emergency rules forced him to “shutter[] his business and that his customers have been obtaining their flavored vaping products from Wisconsin.” Id. at 7. Another presented evidence that the emergency rules “ban plaintiff from using its tradename and branding.” Id. The court found both harms constituted “irreparable harm” necessary for preliminary injunction.

The court also found the Plaintiffs established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, because the MDHHS rules were procedurally invalid under Michigan law. Id. at 8. Specifically, an agency must comply with standard procedures for the promulgation of new rules except in “emergency” situations, and the Court did not find there was a “genuine emergency” that warranted circumventing the standard rule-making process with respect to flavored nicotine vaping. “The plaintiffs have convinced the Court that defendants’ proffered reasons for the emergency declaration have fallen short. It is not enough under [Michigan law] for DHHS to merely identify a problem.” Id. at 10.

The court also considered the potential harm to the public that would result from allowing the ban to be enacted. After recognizing “compelling interests on both sides of the issue,” the court cited witnesses for the Plaintiffs that testified about their improved health after switching from traditional tobacco products to e-cigarettes. “Thus, plaintiffs have presented evidence that at least some segment of the population will be harmed by the vaping ban.” Id. at 14. Ultimately, after carefully weighing all factors pertinent to granting a preliminary injunction, the court concluded the Plaintiffs carried their burden, and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Michigan’s emergency rules from going into effect.

The Michigan ban of flavored e-cigarettes is significant because many other states around the country have since enacted similar bans, either through emergency regulation or executive order. These states include Rhode Island, Oregon, New York, Washington, Missouri and Montana, and the city of Los Angeles. Each of these bans may face similar challenges in the near future, and this court’s decision to block the emergency rules, which is in line with another recent ruling by a District Court in Indiana, indicate that such challenges may be successful.

October 7, 2019 by Duane Morris

Duane Morris Named One of America’s Top Trusted Corporate Law Firms

Duane Morris has been named one of America’s Top Trusted Corporate Law Firms by Forbes.

The publication writes:

More than 13 million attorneys practice at more than 400,000 law firms in the U.S., according to the American Bar Association, and those firms are becoming increasingly specialized. … Many firms have been expanding into new areas of law necessitated by the emergence of technologies such as blockchain and of state laws legalizing cannabis use. …

[Duane Morris] has a growing and strong focus on the legal cannabis industry, partnering with the American Trade Association of Cannabis and Hemp and representing cannabis companies in one of the first public cannabis industry mergers, a $640 million deal.

For more information, visit the Forbes website.

September 26, 2019October 1, 2019 by Duane Morris

SAFE Banking Act Passes the House – Cannabis Banking May Soon Be Reality

By Joseph J. Pangaro, Justin M. L. Stern, David E. Landau, Seth A. Goldberg and Michael S. Zullo

On Wednesday evening, September 25, by a vote of 321 to 103, the United States House of Representatives took a meaningful step toward easing federal restrictions that have limited the access of cannabis businesses to banking services notwithstanding the growth of the cannabis industry by passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (“SAFE Banking Act”). The public safety concerns resulting from the dearth of cannabis banking has led dozens of state Attorneys General, the American Banking Association, and numerous other voices to urge the passage of legislation like the SAFE Banking Act so that the U.S. cannabis industry, which now exceeds $10 billion in annual sales revenues, not to mention hundreds of millions in state tax revenues, will benefit from the same banking services – checking accounts, payroll, and credit cards, to name a few – that are common to virtually all other U.S. businesses. Passage of the SAFE Banking Act in the Senate would be liberating for the cannabis industry, as banking services will stimulate even more growth and better business practices, while eliminating the overhang of public safety concerns relating to large cash transactions. Below is: (i) a brief summary of the history leading to this point; (ii) the key provisions of the SAFE Banking Act of 2019; and (iii) a preview of what comes next.

History of Marijuana Regulation and Banking Implications

Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”):[1] Marijuana is a federally unlawful Schedule I drug under the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § at § 841(a), and direct and indirect (conspiracy and aiding abetting) violations carry stiff criminal and civil penalties, including forfeiture. at §§ 841(b), 853.
Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and Money Laundering Control Act (“MLCA”): The BSA and MLCA obligate banks to root out financial transactions involving “unlawful” activities and thus banks must comply with BSA reporting requirements for suspicious transactions and must have robust customer diligence and MLCA programs.
2014 FinCEN[2] Guidance: In an effort to stimulate cannabis banking, FinCEN issued Guidance in 2014 that clarified BSA expectations of financial institutions by describing how financial institutions can provide services to cannabis businesses consistent with their BSA obligations. This Guidance included stringent customer due diligence obligations and a special category of suspicious activity reporting (SAR) for marijuana-related businesses. The 2014 Guidance created three types of marijuana SAR filings: (i) “Marijuana Limited”; (ii) “Marijuana Priority”; and (iii) “Marijuana Termination.”

Reluctant Banking and Public Safety Concerns

Notwithstanding FinCen’s Guidance, the CSA, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the MLCA have presented significant obstacles for banks interested in providing their services to cannabis companies that “touch the flower” and even companies that provide ancillary services to the cannabis industry. Most financial institutions, including commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies, have avoided the core and ancillary cannabis companies. For example, FinCen last reported that as of March 2019, only 633 of the 8,700 FDIC insured or supervised financial institutions are servicing marijuana-related business.

This widespread abstention has had a significant impact on the cannabis industry. An overwhelming portion of the $10 billion plus cannabis industry is comprised of cash transactions — purchases are made in cash, employees are paid in cash, accounts payable, including rent and other bills are paid in cash, even state taxes are paid in cash. Cannabis businesses may not have checking accounts or payroll services, cannot process credit cards, and are forced to find private lenders at high interest rates.

Public safety is at risk due to the volume of cannabis cash that is going untracked by the U.S. banking system. There is an increased risk of theft, and there have even been claims for ransom and violent crimes. Businesses may not carry enough insurance for their premises and products. Accurate record-keeping, accounting, and the calculation and payment of state and local taxes is challenged. Most importantly, the transparency objectives of the BSA are undermined, as cannabis companies often engage in corporate structuring intended to provide some access to banking, even if not directly. In addition, it is widely understood that some FDIC banks simply turn a blind eye, and provide services to cannabis businesses without reporting.

Key SAFE Banking Act Provisions

Although the SAFE Banking Act contains numerous important provisions, below are three of the most significant.

SAR Filings

The SAFE Banking Act does not do away with the requirement to file SARs. However, it does mandate that FinCEN issue revised guidance concerning SAR filings that “is consistent with the purpose and intent of the SAFE Banking Act of 2019 and does not significantly inhibit the provision of financial services to a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider in a State.”

Protections for Financial Institutions

Further, the SAFE Banking Act would protect financial institutions against adverse actions by federal banking regulators—such as limiting or terminating the insurance provided under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or the Federal Credit Union Act—taken solely on the basis of the financial institutions’ provision of banking services to cannabis businesses operating in accordance with state law or their service providers. The bill also prohibits regulators from discouraging institutions from providing financial services to such businesses or from incentivizing banks or credit unions to refuse, terminate, or downgrade accounts held by those engaged in the cannabis industry (such as owners or employees of cannabis businesses). Similarly, the bill provides that banks or other financial institutions providing financial services to legitimate cannabis businesses in states or jurisdictions where the cannabis business is lawfully operating will not, because of their dealings with such cannabis businesses, be held liable under federal law either for providing the financial services or for investing income derived from the provision of such services. The result of these protections is that financial institutions would, under the SAFE Banking Act, be able and thus more willing to provide cannabis businesses with routine services that companies in other industries take for granted, i.e., the processing of credit card transactions, the maintenance of operating and payroll checking accounts, etc.

Protections for Ancillary Businesses

The bill also provides protections for so-called “ancillary” businesses; under the SAFE Banking Act, receipt of money by a legitimate business or service provider, through a transaction with a cannabis business, would not on that basis result in the ancillary business’ violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957, concerning transactions involving the proceeds of illegal activity. This protection would extend to ancillary business service providers such as accountants, lawyers, bankers, and landlords, as well as to sellers of goods or services to cannabis businesses, such as cable and internet providers.

Conclusions – What to Expect

Having passed the House, the bill now moves to the Senate where, despite its bipartisan support, its fate is unclear. Senator McConnell, the Senate Majority leader who was instrumental in the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, has not shown much interest in the bill yet. Yet Senator Crapo, Chairman of the Banking Committee, however, has hinted he may be interested in the legislation. Given the strong vote count with which the House passed the bill, pressure may start to mount for Senate action, particularly in light of the broad based coalition that came together to pass the House bill. The Senate should have the very real public safety concerns resulting from the dearth of cannabis banking in plain view when it votes.

[1] 21 U.S.C. § 801 et. seq.

[2] Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

September 20, 2019September 25, 2019 by Duane Morris

Duane Morris’ Seth Goldberg Provides Perspective on Vaping

Seth A. Goldberg, Duane Morris partner and team lead of the Cannabis Industry Group, spoke with Law.com’s Higher Law on the health issues surrounding vaping and implications for the cannabis industry.

Read Seth’s observations on this topic.

September 11, 2019September 25, 2019 by Duane Morris

FTC Warning Letters and Reports of Vaping-Related Illnesses Hit Cannabis Industry

The past week has shown the challenges that the cannabis industry supply chain—manufacturers, processors, distributors and dispensaries—faces, as regulators target claims relating to the health benefits of CBD and media outlets report, without any scientific evidence, that cannabis vaping may be linked to lung illnesses, and, as of the issuing of this Alert, the Trump administration is reported to be poised to ban flavored nicotine vaping. These kinds of issues could spur claims against cannabis industry participants for consumer fraud, personal injury and products liability, and heighten the scrutiny of cannabis products by federal and state regulators.

On September 10, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had sent warning letters to three unidentified businesses “that sell oils, tinctures, capsules, ‘gummies,’ and creams” containing hemp-derived CBD, concerning health-related claims about the benefits of their CBD products. Although the FTC did not release the warning letters or identify the recipients, the FTC’s press release announcing the warning letters explained that the letters were issued to reinforce that “it is illegal to advertise that a product can prevent, treat, or cure human disease without competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims.”

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

September 11, 2019September 25, 2019 by Seth A. Goldberg

Will Ban on Flavored Nicotine Encompass THC or CBD Vaping?

I have been writing about the recent reports of vaping related deaths and illnesses, and allegations that in some instances cannabis vaping could be a contributing factor, with a focus on the heightened risk of personal injury/product liability lawsuits. Amidst those reports it is now being reported that the Trump Administration is preparing to ban flavored nicotine products. Because THC is federally unlawful, it us unlikely that such a ban would explicitly prohibit THC vaping products, but it could include federally lawful hemp-derived CBD vaping. The absence of an explicit reference to THC vaping by the Trump Administration should not be deemed a clear runway for THC vaping manufacturers, as federal prosecutors who have discretion to take enforcement action for public safety concerns may use that power against THC vape manufacturers. Cannabis vaping manufacturers need to be very mindful of the current climate with respect to vaping. I will continue to monitor and update our Cannabis Industry Blog on this issue.

September 6, 2019September 25, 2019 by Seth A. Goldberg

Cannabis Vaping Health Claims Should Be Taken Seriously by the Cannabis Product Supply Chain

Yesterday, I blogged about a Washington Post article that reported that vitamin E acetate in marijuana vaping products is being considered as possibly being linked to alleged vaping related lung injuries. I cautioned cannabis manufacturers, processors and dispensaries, i.e., the cannabis supply chain, that articles like WP’s, which referred to vitamin E acetate in cannabis vapor as a “contaminant,” could be the impetus for product liability lawsuits.

Today, WP provided an update to yesterday’s article. WP now states as many as 450 vaping illness cases have been reported across 33 states. Up from yesterday’s report of 250 cases across 25 states. WP’s new article refers to the vaping related health claims as possible a “new lung disease” based on a study by the New England Journal of Medicine that reports about a possible lung disorder being experienced by certain consumers of vape. However, WP appears to acknowledge scientists have not yet identified a specific chemical in vape, or whether vaping of nicotine or marijuana, is resulting in an increased risk of the lung disorder reported by NEJM. Indeed, scientific research and investigation is needed in this area.

Nevertheless, as I explained yesterday, having represented pharmaceutical companies in product liability matters involving alleged “contaminants,” product liability lawsuits are often, if not usually, filed without any scientific proof of injury causation. Accordingly, the cannabis supply chain should be careful to ensure the safety of their products, and implement necessary compliance measures.

Likewise, cannabis consumers should be mindful that many of the reports of vaping related health issues concern “black market” vape products, not those manufactured by state-licensed cannabis companies who are required by law to maintain strict standards for their products.

September 5, 2019September 25, 2019 by Seth A. Goldberg

Will Cannabis Vaping Lead to Products Liability Lawsuits?

Today, the Washington Post reported that federal and state regulators have identified the chemical vitamin E acetate as being contained in certain cannabis vaping products allegedly linked to lung injuries. According to WP, 215 cases possibly arising out of cannabis vapes containing the chemical have been reported in 25 states, and two deaths have been linked to marijuana vaping.

WP refers to vitamin E acetate in cannabis vapor as a “contaminant,” which is a loaded term that could get the attention of the plaintiffs’ product liability bar. Articles like this are often the impetus for lawsuits to be filed. Consequently, products’ liability claims may soon become a reality for the cannabis vape supply chain.

However, as even the WP article makes clear, whether vitamin E acetate in marijuana vapor can cause an increased risk of injury of any kind to vaping consumers is being investigated, and has not been proven. The article also identifies the fact that many users of marijuana vape also vape nicotine, which is likely one of many confounding factors. Thus, product liability claims asserting injuries from marijuana vaping brought now are likely to be unsupported by science.

Nevertheless, those in the cannabis supply chain, e.g., manufacturers, processors, and sellers, should be aware of the likelihood of such claims, as product liability claims are often asserted without any scientific evidence of causation. Those in the supply chain should know that a range of compliance measures can be implemented to better protect against against such claims.

September 4, 2019 by Duane Morris

Ninth Circuit Punts on Interstate Transportation of Hemp

On September 4, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Big Sky Scientific LLC v. Jan Bennetts et al, the case involving the seizure of an interstate shipment of hemp that occurred after the enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill. In a three-page opinion, the court sidestepped the substantive issues presented on appeal and held that the parties should pursue their claims in state court.

In January 2019, a hemp cultivator in Oregon attempted to ship a truckload of hemp to a processor in Colorado. But as the cargo passed through Idaho, the Idaho State Police seized the shipment and arrested the driver, alleging violations of Idaho state law. The Idaho police charged the driver with a crime and filed a civil complaint in state court against the hemp itself. The Idaho civil case was stayed pending resolution of the criminal proceeding.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

September 3, 2019 by Duane Morris

DEA Announcement on Improving Access to Marijuana Research

On August 26, 2019, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) issued a press release announcing “it is moving forward to facilitate and expand scientific and medical research for marijuana in the United States.” This announcement comes in the midst of a growing demand for marijuana for medical and scientific research. Several years ago, in an August 11, 2016, press release, DEA first announced its intention to “expand… the number of DEA-registered marijuana manufacturers” because “only one entity was authorized to produce marijuana to supply researchers in the United States: the University of Mississippi.” Since that announcement, 33 entities have applied to DEA for a marijuana manufacturer registration. However, the approval process was stalled during Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ term in office, and to date no new applications have been approved. Meanwhile, the number of entities registered by DEA to conduct research on marijuana, marijuana extracts or marijuana derivatives has jumped from 384 in January 2017 to 542 in January 2019. Thus, while demand for marijuana for research purposes has increased sharply, the number of suppliers has remained stagnant.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.