New York City Introduces Several Local Laws Aimed at Helping to Control the Unlicensed Cannabis Industry in NYC

Two pieces of legislation were recently introduced in the New York City Council aimed at  controlling the unlicensed cannabis market in New York City.

The first bill  bill would prohibit knowingly leasing commercial premises to a tenant who uses the premises for distribution or sale of cannabis or cannabis products without a license. The first time that an unlicensed cannabis seller is found to be operating in leased commercial premises, the Sheriff, Police Department, or any other relevant agency would issue a warning to the owner of the premises. If an unlicensed cannabis seller is later found to be operating in the same commercial premises, the owner would be liable for civil penalties.  https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=Alert&ID=6165428&GUID=33A0F77B-950A-4A9E-8033-F0316A346404&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=cannabis

The second bill would require the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene  to collaborate with the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection  and any other relevant agency to create and implement a public awareness campaign on the dangers of purchasing cannabis or cannabis products from unlicensed cannabis retailers. The campaign would target minors and young adults and focus on the risks of consuming cannabis products adulterated with synthetic cannabinoids and other harmful substances and the risk of purchasing such products from unlicensed cannabis retailers .https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6165413&GUID=59A6FC8D-E54A-43D2-B621-906AA1B706A2&Options=&Search=

 

 

Interview with Axel Bernabe of the New York Office of Cannabis Management Regarding True Party of Interest Rules

In an interview published on March 23, 2023, Green Market Report spoke with Axel Bernabe, the Chief of Staff and Senior Policy Director for the New York Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”). The interview is significant because Axel Bernabe is one of the leading policymakers in the OCM. The interview ranged over many topics; however, the most-detailed part of the interview was devoted to the proposed True Party of Interest rules (“TPI”) issued in December of last year.

In the interview, Axel Bernabe explained that the focus in understanding the TPI rules should not be on the mechanics of the rules but on their purpose. The purpose of the rules is to prevent ownership or control between the supply tier of the cannabis industry, consisting of cultivation, processing and wholesale distributing, and the retail tier of the cannabis industry, consisting of retail dispensaries, on-site consumption establishments and delivery. This two-tier market structure is fundamental to the New York Cannabis Law. Accordingly, if a person or entity has an ownership or control interest in a business in the supply tier, then that person or entity cannot have any ownership or control interest in any business in the retailing tier. Similarly, if a person has an ownership or control interest in a business in the retailing tier, then that person cannot have any ownership interest in any entity in the supply tier.

Bernabe explained that New York has adopted this policy because suppliers who had an interest in the retailing tier would be able to exert anti-competitive pressures on retailers, which would limit choice and quality of product.

Bernabe admitted that there has been heated criticism that the TPI rules would hobble the ability of dispensary operators to raise funds because many investors want to buy into vertically integrated operation, due to the perceived economic advantages of vertical integration. However, Bernabe seemed dubious about these economic advantages. In addition, he felt that the investors (for the most part) who would be discouraged by the TPI rules would be existing cannabis businesses that are vertically integrated. As a side note, although Bernabe did not mention it, less than half of California cannabis businesses are vertically integrated, which helps his argument that prohibition of vertical integration does not foreclose businesses in the retail tier from finding investors.

Bernabe further argued that barring businesses in the supply tier from dictating to the retail tier would, in fact, further (rather than discourage) the ability of the retail tier to raise investment money from investors new to the cannabis industry. He added that this model has been used in the liquor industry in New York and has produced a market of thousands of profitable, small and often family-owned liquor stores.

In short, from the policy point of view enunciated by Bernabe, the only purpose of the TPI rules is to prevent ownership between the two tiers. The idea is straightforward. If the true person of interest is identified, then prohibited cross-ownership would be easy to detect by comparing whether the same name is appearing on one tier and the other tier. Accordingly, the application for a conditional adult use dispensary license requires both a personal history disclosure form and an entity history disclosure form. (In fact, the TPI definitions in the rules proposed in December of last year are substantially the same as the TPI definitions in the Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary rules, which were adopted in final form on August 3, 2022, and presumably are already affecting investors in positive and negative ways.)
Bernabe stressed that horizontal integration among licensees in a tier is permitted, although subject to certain limitations on size such on the number of acres in a farming facility or the amount of passive investment in multiple retail dispensaries. Accordingly, the horizontal integration rules are much less severe than the absolute prohibition on vertical integration. Bernabe confirmed that out-of-state vertically integrated operators would be free to invest in New York supply operations as long as the operators did not invest or control businesses in the retail sale tier.

Bernabe admitted that the final TPI rules will likely be strict, broad and perhaps mechanical, but that it is necessary to draw a “bright line” to preserve the integrity of the two-tier regulatory regime.
Bernabe did not say when the TPI rules—whose comment period ended on February 13, 2023—would be issued in the final form.

New York Approves Draft Rules regarding Local Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

On November 21, 2022, the New York State Cannabis Control Board (the “Board”) approved draft regulations under the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (“MRTA”) that address, among other subjects, the scope of “municipal rulemaking,” or the authority retained by cities, counties, towns, and villages to enact “time, place, and manner” restrictions on the operation of adult-use retail dispensaries and on-site consumption sites within their jurisdiction.

Short of opting out from the marijuana retail market altogether, the MRTA permits municipalities to exercise control over the market by passing “local laws and regulations governing the time, place and manner of the operation of licensed adult-use cannabis retail dispensaries and/or on-site consumption site,” so long as the law does not make the operation of such facilities “unreasonably impracticable” as determined by the Board.  But while “time, place, and manner” restrictions have a long history in First Amendment jurisprudence, see City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41, 46 (1986), what do they mean in the context of regulating the marijuana retail market? Continue reading “New York Approves Draft Rules regarding Local Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions”

Could the NY conditional adult use retail dispensary program (CAURD) be in jeopardy?

A Maine law requiring all owners of medical marijuana businesses to be residents of the state was recently struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which ruled that the statute is a violation of the “Dormant Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from passing legislation that restricts interstate trade. In its opinion (Northeast Patients Group et al. v. United Cannabis Patients and Caregivers of Maine, the Appellate Court upheld a lower court ruling that the residency requirement is an unconstitutional restriction on interstate trade.
Under the Maine’s medical marijuana program, all directors or officers of a licensed medical cannabis dispensary are required to be residents of the state. Interestingly, Maine had already dropped its residency requirement for its adult-use market following an earlier legal challenge that was also based on the Dormant Commerce Clause but it sought to keep it in place for its medical cannabis program.
This could be a problem for NY’s new adult use cannabis program, as of the requirements is that the potential licensees must have been arrested (or are related to someone who was arrested) for a marijuana related crime in New York and must also have been a New York resident at the time of the arrest. This could like be deemed a residency requirement and thus lead to challenges not only to any individual licenses grants but the entire CAURD program.
Equally or possibly even more problematic is the fact that this ruling could also open the door to legal challenges to a variety of other State laws banning the exporting or importing of cannabis from other states, as the same rationale invalidating the residency requirements could come, as disallowing cannabis exports and imports between states could be construed as similarly placing unreasonable restrictions on interstate commerce.

 

Cannabis Product Safety Is Paramount

Last week, my colleague Seth Goldberg and I published a client alert highlighting a series of cases filed in Oregon federal court against Curaleaf for allegedly mislabeling THC products as containing only CBD, which allegedly caused consumers of those products to experience and unwanted “high” resulting from ingestion of the products. A consumer class action lawsuit seeking $200 for each consumer who purchased the products was filed by the same Plaintiffs’ counsel. This class action lawsuit further highlights the fact that cannabis manufacturers need to ensure that proper SOPS, protocols, and measures of compliance are in place to ensure the safety of their products, and it demonstrates the types of claims that can be asserted when cannabis product safety issues, such as labeling discrepancies, arise. Class action claims, given the number of potential class members who may potentially recover, raise the stakes of litigation resulting from product safety issues. In addition, there also may be regulatory action taken and statutory fines imposed.

Webinar: Big Money Meets Big Government: Greenlighting Mergers as State and Federal Regulators Step Up Scrutiny

Duane Morris is hosting the webinar, “Big Money Meets Big Government: Greenlighting Mergers as State and Federal Regulators Step Up Scrutiny,” on June 15, 2021, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern.

Join Duane Morris’ Brian Pandya, former Deputy Associate Attorney General, who will discuss the M&A landscape and other regulatory enforcement challenges and opportunities; American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH) co-founder Michael Bronstein; and Paul Josephson, former chief counsel to the New Jersey governor and director of the NJ Division of Law and advisor to trade associations and several leading MSOs, for a discussion on how acting and new government personnel affect the policies, landscape and issues related to the big deals that are currently in process.

For more information and to register, visit the event website.

Cannabis Industry Ramps Up Efforts to Obtain Covid-19 Financial Assistance

In an April 28th letter authored by the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH) and the Policy Center for Public Health and Safety, 24 state-level cannabis trade associations from across the country called on Congress to end the Small Business Administration’s exclusion of cannabis businesses from COVID-19 federal funding relief.

Although a number of states have deemed medical marijuana companies- and in some cases adult use marijuana companies- “essential” businesses, the SBA has excluded them from the Economic Injury Disaster Loans because marijuana is still a prohibited Schedule 1 Controlled Substance. Even worse for the industry, SBA has included ancillary cannabis companies in its prohibition. The cannabis industry is also ineligible for the Paycheck Protection Program and the Employee Retention Credit.

This issue was first flagged by industry groups in early April when they wrote to governors asking them to fill the gap. The industry’s allies in Congress then took up the cause. Almost three dozen members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter to congressional leaders urging that cannabis companies be included in future federal relief packages aimed at stimulating the economy during the COVID-19 outbreak. A group of 10 U.S. senators followed on April 22nd with their own letter urging congressional leaders to include small, state-legal marijuana businesses and ancillary companies in any future coronavirus relief packages. On April 23rd, Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Ed Perlmutter introduced the Emergency Small Business Health and Safety Act which would make cannabis businesses eligible for the SBA programs.

The ATACH letter urges Congress to amend the CARES Act to make cannabis businesses eligible for all available loans tax credits and other pandemic-related assistance. The letter also suggests Congress authorize fixed block grants to each state for non-specific pandemic relief. This would leave it up to the stated to tailor relief efforts and a individual state could make funds available to cannabis businesses.

Commercial Litigation in the Cannabis Space: Resolving Disputes Like Every Other Industry Does

Seth Goldberg
Seth A. Goldberg

As a commercial litigator who has handled a broad range of claims in highly regulated industries over the past 20 years — particularly in complex matters such as class actions involving claims brought by consumers and shareholders — and given my experience spearheading the development of Duane Morris’ cannabis industry group, which has included providing regulatory and business advice to a number of businesses and individuals with cannabis-related interests, I have been expecting the maturing cannabis industry to eventually mirror other industries when it comes to using commercial litigation to resolve disputes between businesses and to address claims of injury allegedly experienced by aggreived consumers and shareholders. It appears the time has come. Now, as opposed to even just a few months ago, not a day goes by when the daily legal news outlets that report on litigation matters filed in federal and state courts around the country do not include matters pertaining to adult use marijuana, medical marijuana, and/or hemp.

Today alone, legal news outlets are reporting about a shareholder deriviative action being filed against the manufacturer of cannabinoid-containing transdermal patches, a maker of mobile hemp dryers suing a distributor for alledgedly stealing trade secrets, a publicly-traded company that owns cannabis brands being sued for breach of contract by an MSO arising out of a failed merger agreement. Claims like these are among the many product liability, stock-drop and securities fraud, tradmark infringement, FLSA, and employment litigation matters to be filed in 2020 relating to cannabis; not to mention the federal and state regulatory cannabis-related enforcement actions also commenced. Just as in other industries, COVID-19 is likely to spur litigation in the space because of strains on resources and performance caused by business disruptions and the slower economy.  To be sure, the plaintiffs’ bar has cannabis on its radar.

Thus, now more than ever, it is critically important for cannabis businesses to implement the necessary compliance measures, including making sure appropriate insurance coverage, e.g. premises, products, and D&O, has been obtained, that could protect their businesses from the cost and disruption of commercial litigation. Likewise, cannabis-specific nuances, such as the enforceability of contracts and jurisdictional questions, require careful evaluation by experienced counsel advising plaintiffs and defendants who are considering filing, or who have been brought into, a commercial litigation.

 

 

California’s Governor Proposes Changes to Cannabis Regulation and Taxation

Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, released his proposal for the State’s budget today, outlining a number of items of importance for the California cannabis industry.

The most noteworthy proposal is regulatory consolidation.  In an effort to improve and simplify regulatory oversight of commercial cannabis activity, the Governor’s office is proposing to consolidate the three licensing entities that are currently within the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health, into a single “Department of Cannabis Control” by July 2021.

Such a change would be welcomed by many operators in the State, especially vertically integrated operators who must now contend with multiple state agencies that have different regulatory requirements and interpretations.  This may also boost M&A activity in the state, given that it could lead to more consistent regulations regarding ownership changes and a more efficient regulatory approval process.  A single regulatory agency would also streamline fee collections and enforcement.  More details on this proposal are expected in the Spring of 2020 and we will be watching closely for those updates.

Additionally, the budget looks to “fix” what many consider to be a broken cannabis taxation regime. The Governor states that the goal of the proposal is to reduce the tax collection burden on the cannabis industry and simplify the tax collection process. The proposed changes move the responsibility for the cultivation excise tax from the final distributor to the first, and for the retail excise tax from the distributor to the retailer.

While no changes to the tax rates are specified, the proposed budget does state that the Governor will consider other changes to the existing cannabis tax structure, including the number of taxes and tax rates.  The California tax burden is viewed as one of the major inhibitors of the growth and success of the cannabis market in the state.

We will continue to monitor these developments as they unfold, so please check back for further updates and analysis.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress