Although, in making the above comments, Sessions was clear that marijuana was still illegal in the U.S., he appears to have drawn a box around those types of marijuana-related criminal activities on which federal prosecutors are focused. The above comments are not inconsistent with the Sessions memo of January 4, 2018, and may help clarify what prosecutorial discretion looks like under that memo. Based on the above comments, it would seem that activities conducted pursuant to state marijuana programs are not the types of activities on which federal prosecutors are focused.
Another breakthrough for the cannabis space occurred on Tuesday, February 27, 2018, when Toronto-based Cronos Group Inc. began trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. (MJN:CN). This marks the first listing of a company focused purely on cannabis on a major U.S. stock exchange. The listing of Cronos comes within two months of the memorandum issued by Attorney General Sessions that rescinded the federal government’s previous guidance regarding enforcement of state-lawful cannabis activities under the Cole Memorandum. That earlier guidance is credited with providing the cannabis space with a window of opportunity for the warp-speed growth the space has seen in recent years. The Sessions memo was intended to slow the growth of the cannabis space, especially with respect to the capital markets. The Nasdaq listing of Cronos suggests that 2018 could be another strong year for cannabis-related investments; 2017 was believed to have resulted in approximately $2 billion in cannabis-related investments in the U.S.
A potentially groundbreaking federal lawsuit brought last summer was dismissed by New York judge Alvin Hellerstein today. The case, brought by five plaintiffs including two children, two veterans and former NFL player Marvin Washington, all of whom use state legal medical cannabis, claimed that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as it relates to the plant.
The judge ruled that the plaintiffs should have first complied with administrative processes by filing a petition with the Drug Enforcement Administration, and that the case was not appropriate to bring to court. He was sympathetic to the plaintiffs, however, noting that “this decision should not be understood as a factual finding that marijuana lacks any medical use in the United States, for the authority to make that determination is vested in the administrative process.”
He did, however, rule that it was “not irrational” that the Government deemed cannabis dangerous enough to be listed as a Schedule I drug, as it did for heroin and LSD. Statements by former Nixon Administration officials in the 1990s that they knew they were lying about the drugs at the time of the CSA were not considered dispositive, since Congress passed the law.
News reports indicate that the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Mike Hiller, Joe Bondy and Lauren Rudick, may appeal the decision or ask the judge to reconsider. They claim that the petition process would be futile and that there is substantial evidence that the US government has taken actions supporting the notion that there is medical benefit to cannabis.
Duane Morris partner Seth Goldberg will be one of the presenters at a National Association of Surety Bond Producers Virtual Seminar, “Seeing Green? A look at Marijuana Law and Surety Bonds,” to be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. ET. For more information or to register, please visit the event website.
As the values of transactions in the cannabis industry grow, commercial litigation is certain to follow. One reason for this is that lawyers may be more inclined to represent clients on a contingency fee basis. Where the value of a cannabis transaction is small, the expense of litigation may not be worthwhile for an individual or business feeling cheated, and any settlement or judgment would likely not cover the costs of an attorneys’ contingency fee. However, where the value of a cannabis transaction is sufficiently high, say the upper six-figures or more, a lawyer may be more inclined to take the case for a contingency fee because the lawyer’s percentage of any recovery is likely to be greater than the costs the lawyer will incur in litigating the matter. A contingency fee arrangement may also be utilized to the advantage of a party that believes threatened or actual litigation might shift the leverage in negotiations and result in more attractive commercial terms.
A recently filed action captioned Silver v. High Street Capital et al., 2:18-cv-00020 (E.D. PA. 1/3/18), appears to result from the type of high value transaction that might warrant a contingency fee in a commercial litigation. The plaintiff, industry consultant Harris Silver alleges that, in connection with their bid to obtain a license to grow and process cannabis pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Program, defendant High Street Capital and other defendants associated with High Street promised Silver a lucrative compensation package, including (a) $180,000 to prepare the license application; (b) a $150,000 cash bonus upon the granting of a license and a 4% non-dilutable equity stake in any licensee; and (c) a salaried position with the licensee. Silver claims that notwithstanding his work on the High Street application, for which a permit was granted, the High Street defendants never paid Silver the valuable consideration that was contingent on the permit being granted. Thus, based on a host of factual allegations detailing various communications he had with the High Street defendants, and other allegations detailing his efforts on their behalf, Harris asserted claims against the High Street defendants for breach of contract, common law fraud, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, securities fraud and civil conspiracy. Continue reading Contingency Fees and Commercial Litigation Hit the Cannabis Space→
With the election of Phil Murphy as New Jersey Governor in 2017, the possibility of New Jersey becoming one of the next states to pass recreational marijuana legislation became very real, as this was among the issues key to Murphy’s campaign.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2018, less than one week after AG Sessions issued guidance to all US Attorneys rescinding Obama-era policies deprioritizing the federal prosecution of state-lawful cannabis-related activities, that possibility became more of a likelihood, as New Jersey Sen. Nicholas Scutari introduced Senate Bill 830, which would allow for the cultivation, sale and use of marijuana for recreational purposes in New Jersey by those 21 and older.
The legislation proposes adults would be permitted to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused products in solids, 72 ounces in liquid form, 7 grams of concentrate and up to six immature plants, and establishes a sales tax on marijuana that would rise incrementally from 7 percent to 25 percent over five years.
With New Jersey’s large population, and proximity to Manhattan and Philadelphia, the recreational cannabis market in New Jersey will likely dwarf most other states that have legalized adult-use.
Articles appearing this week in the LA Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer, among other recent articles, highlight the horrors of the opioid crisis and the need for research into cannabis as a possible solution. While the federal government warns about the spiraling toll of the opioid epidemic, it refuses to grant the applications of world-renowned scientists at major universities and research centers seeking to explore the ways in which the well-documented therapeutic properties of cannabis can alleviate the pain and suffering – physical, emotional and financial – being caused by opioid abuse. There is no shortage of deep pockets willing to fund the research, and US-based scientists are ready, willing and able to get to work, yet the federal government refuses to depart from its antiquated “reefer madness” established in the early 20th Century. 2018 should be the year the federal government stops blocking cannabis research so that scientists can determine if and how cannabis can stem the opioid crisis. Fingers crossed!
On December 15, 2017, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control granted the first license for the sale of adult use marijuana in California to a San Diego dispensary. Torrey Holistics, located in Sorrento Valley, has sold medicinal marijuana since 2015. The dispensary also received a new license to continue the sale of medicinal marijuana.
The adult use retailer license received by Torrey Holistics is one of ten licenses, including one to another San Diego dispensary, Urbn Leaf in Linda Vista, for the sale of adult use marijuana granted by the California Bureau of Cannabis Control since the agency launched its online licensing system earlier in December. The licenses received by Torrey Holistics and the other medicinal and adult use retailers are temporary though. After 120 days, a permanent license must be obtained by the businesses. The licenses also do not go into effect until January 1, 2018.
For more information or questions on licensing of retailers of medicinal and adult use in California, please contact Joe Machi in our San Diego office or another member of the Duane Morris Cannabis Group.
While most of us were hitting the beaches over the summer, California lawmakers updated California’s regulations for the cannabis industry when they passed California Senate Bill 94, or the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA” or “the Act”). MAUCRSA repeals the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act and amends the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, resulting in MAUCRSA regulating both adult use (i.e. recreational) cannabis businesses and medicinal cannabis businesses. For purposes of the Act, an adult is considered to be anyone 21 years of age or older. Bus. & Prof. Code § 26001.
While the Act provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for key segments of the cannabis industry, it also raises new questions and concerns that will require further clarification from, and coordination with, California lawmakers and agencies. The discussion below addresses some of the key provisions of the Act.
Although a member of the family of cannabis sativa that includes marijuana, hemp does not contain levels of THC that produce psychoactive effects, so it is regulated differently than marijuana. Whereas growing, processing, distributing and consuming marijuana are still federally prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, industrial hemp has seen a revival around the U.S. because its growth, processing and distribution for research purposes is permitted under the 2014 Federal Farm Bill.
Importantly, the expansion of Pennsylvania’s industrial hemp program, and the industrial hemp programs in other states that traditionally raised large tobacco crops, may be helpful to local economies that have been impacted by declines in tobacco growth.
There are more than 25,000 products and/or uses derived from industrial hemp. Research under the PA program includes, among other things, planting methods, such as seed variety trials, fiber or seed yields, optimum fertility levels, pest management; harvesting techniques or product marketing options; or conservation, remediation or biofuel.