medical cannabis – Cannabis Industry

May 31, 2019 by Brad A. Molotsky

NJ Senate and Assembly close in on expansion of medical use Cannabis – Brad A. Molotsky, Esq. – Duane Morris

The New Jersey Senate voted 33-4 yesterday (Thursday) to advance a bill that is intended to increase medical marijuana sales and likely create new business opportunities in the state.

Per Marijuana Business Daily, before the vote, the Senate amended Assembly Bill 10 to allow marijuana workers to become union members.

The Bill will now return to the NJ Assembly for a vote to approve the Senate’s modification.

If the Bill is ultimately signed, the measure will:

– Create a new regulatory commission for medical marijuana.
– Pave the way for the state to issue additional business licenses.
– Allow cannabis home delivery.
– Ease restrictions on the process for recommending medical marijuana.

Currently there are 12 vertically integrated medical cannabis licenses that have been granted in NJ.

We will continue to track this development and report back as it get’s closer to passage in the Assembly. -Brad

January 19, 2019 by Brad A. Molotsky

Bill 420 – It’s “That” Time Again!

On 1-9-19, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced H.R. 420, the “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act.” Blumenauer, the co-sponsor of the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment, better known as the on-going appropriations provision that prohibits the Justice Department from spending federal funds to enforce federal law that is in conflict with state medical cannabis laws.

Proposed Bill 420 is a total overhaul of the federal government’s treatment of marijuana. Among other things, the bill:

1. Decriminalizes marijuana by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act;
2. Amends the Federal Alcohol Administration Act to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to issue permits to those who want to to manufacture, distribute, or sell marijuana;
3. Transfers jurisdiction from the DEA to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
4. Prohibits widespread advertising for marijuana; and
5. Grants to the FDA the same authority for marijuana as it has for alcohol.

Rep. Blumenauer noted: “Congress cannot continue to be out of touch with a movement that a growing majority of Americans support. It’s time to end this senseless prohibition.” In this vein, per a Pew Research Center study released last fall, nearly 66% of Americans support legalization at the federal level.

The new co-chairs of the 2019 bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Conference are Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Dave Joyce (R-OH), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Don Young (R-AK).

March 12, 2018 by Seth A. Goldberg

Sessions Draws Lines for US Attorneys in Terms of Marijuana Prosecution

In speaking at the Georgetown Law Center on March 10, 2018, AG Sessions said the following: “We’re not going to be able, even if we desire, to take over state enforcement of routine cases that might occur. Federal agents are highly paid, highly trained. They work on cases involving cartels, international organizations, major distribution networks, large amounts of cash. They deal with criminal organizations, RICO type cases, and we’re not out there prosecuting those types of cases everyday.”

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.

February 2, 2018February 22, 2018 by Seth A. Goldberg

Contingency Fees and Commercial Litigation Hit the Cannabis Space

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”

January 12, 2018February 22, 2018 by Seth A. Goldberg

Adult-Use Marijuana Bill Introduced in New Jersey

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.

December 22, 2017 by Seth A. Goldberg

2018 Should Be The Year Cannabis Ends The Opioid Crisis…. Fingers Crossed!

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!

October 6, 2017 by Seth A. Goldberg

Insuring Cannabis Businesses

As I note in the linked article, insurers only stand to gain, and in big ways, from underwriting cannabis businesses. Growers, processors, dispensaries and ancillary businesses need a full range of coverage, and are ready to obtain it! Just as in any industry, insurance is a critical component to success in the cannabis space and will hasten the growth of markets already expanding at warp-speed. There are ways for insurers to cover the medical and recreational marijuana markets notwithstanding the regulatory uncertainty. It may require some creativity, but given the financial upsides, it should be well-worth the time and effort it takes to find the optimal pathway.

July 11, 2017July 11, 2017 by Seth A. Goldberg

The Federal Antitrust Laws May Not Protect Competition and Consumers In The Cannabis Industry

To assert a federal antitrust claim, a plaintiff must have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution and must also have suffered an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants acts unlawful. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977). The Brunswick standard generally benefits consumers who have paid artificially high prices as a result of a defendant’s anticompetitive conduct, or a competitor of a defendant that abused its market power to compete unfairly.

The federal antitrust laws, including the Brunswick standard, are one of the many protections intended to keep competitors on an even playing field and striving to beat one another by offering the optimal combination of quality and price to consumers, and to protect consumers from overreaching and opportunistic manufacturers that use nefarious means to impose a price they would be otherwise unable to charge. These laws have been critical in shaping industries.

However, it may be that the federal antitrust laws are among the federal laws unavailable to cannabis industry participants, as the federal antitrust laws are limited to commerce “among the states,” i.e., interstate commerce. Because cannabis is still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, its legal manufacture and distribution is generally limited to intrastate activities. Thus, competition for legal cannabis is, by and large, necessarily intrastate. Fortunately, most states have antitrust laws that mirror federal antitrust laws, and borrow from the federal judicial precedent they have generated. However, as a general matter, the federal courts and federal judges are more experienced than the state courts in the complex economics underlying most antirust matters.

For the burgeoning cannabis industry, this may be yet another problem arising out of the federal prohibition of cannabis. It means that consumers of cannabis products, such as cannabis, vapes, edibles, and possibly ancillary flower-touching products, may not be protected from inflated prices resulting from anticompetitive conduct, such as price-fixing agreements or agreements to allocate markets, and competitors for those products may not be able to ensure a level playing field with the largest companies, allowing the powerful companies to take advantage of their position by inflating prices.

The bottom line is that as the cannabis industry continues its growth at breakneck speed, manufacturers of cannabis, cannabis-infused, and cannabis-related products, may be tempted to engage in the types of anticompetitive conduct the federal antitrust laws are best able to correct, with the help of experienced federal judges, and consumers of those products may unfortunately be exposed to artificially inflated price increases flowing from such conduct left unchecked. While not all cannabis manufacturers or cannabis-related products are limited to competing in a single state, the bulk are.

To this point, the role the federal antitrust laws (or state for that matter) can play in shaping the cannabis industry has not been tested. That day may be on the horizon, however, as some companies continue to grow into industry giants, while others struggle to compete. Cannabis space participants, especially the larger players, should be aware of the compliance measures taken in other industries to protect themselves from the possibility of antitrust claims brought by their competitors or consumers.

April 25, 2016June 14, 2017 by Seth A. Goldberg

Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act: Key Components and Potential Risks

On April 17, 2016, Pennsylvania became the 24th state to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes when Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed into law Senate Bill 3, known as the “Medical Marijuana Act” (the “Act”). While the Act will become effective on May 17, 2016, its implementation will not be fully realized until various reports and regulations contemplated in the Act are developed. The Act will be administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (the “Department”).

The Act limits the use of medical marijuana to patients suffering from one of the 17 “Serious Medical Conditions” identified in the Act, which are: cancer; HIV/AIDS; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease; multiple sclerosis; epilepsy; inflammatory bowel disease; damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with objective neurological indication of intractable spasticity; neuropathies; Huntington’s disease; Crohn’s disease; post-traumatic stress disorder; intractable seizures; glaucoma; sickle cell anemia; severe chronic or intractable pain of neuropathic origin or severe or intractable pain in which conventional therapeutic intervention and opiate therapy is contraindicated or ineffective; and autism.

The Act also restricts the forms in which medical marijuana may be dispensed to patients and caregivers to pill, oil, topical cream/ointment, vaporization, nebulization, tincture or liquid, and it makes smoking and incorporating into edible form unlawful. Continue reading “Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act: Key Components and Potential Risks”

May 13, 2015June 14, 2017 by Seth A. Goldberg

PA Senate Passes Medical Marijuana Legislation Again

Earlier this year, I wrote that 2015 might be the year that medical marijuana legislation is passed in Pennsylvania. This was because in 2014 the PA Senate approved such legislation, and, although the legislation sat in the PA House through the end of the term, the election of Governor Tom Wolf removed the additional hurdle of a veto by former Governor Tom Corbett were the PA House to pass the legislation.

On May 12, 2015, the PA Senate again passed a medical marijuana bill. It obviously remains to be seen what the PA House will do, but given Governor Wolf’s indication that he would not veto such legislation should it reach his desk, and reports that up to 88% of PA residents are in favor of legalized medical marijuana, the odds of legalization in 2015 seem to be improving. Continue reading “PA Senate Passes Medical Marijuana Legislation Again”