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.
Although the cannabis reform movement has made incredible strides over the past 25 years, our industry and the medicinal potential of the plant are still not recognized at the federal level. The COVID-19 pandemic is drastically altering our lives but difficult times are able to expose many truths, including the understanding that legalization and safe access to cannabis is critical, especially during a crisis.
Thankfully, many states already have come to the realization that cannabis, especially medicinal use, is not a luxury but a necessity. Although states are restricting access to public places and prohibiting gatherings, many governors have designated cannabis dispensaries as an “essential service.” […]
“Opponents of federal legalization are likely to argue the categorization was merely a natural extension of the law in states that have already legalized medical marijuana to treat certain conditions, and that the uniqueness of the COVID-19 situation limits the ‘essential’ designation to that very urgent and unprecedented fact pattern,” Seth Goldberg, attorney and partner at Duane Morris LLP told mg.
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.
Just days after the NJ Senate and Assembly close in on expansion of medical use Cannabis, the New Jersey Department of Health (“Department”) published notice of a Request of Applications (“RFA”) for an additional 108 alternative treatment center (“ATC”) permits which authorize holders to cultivate, manufacture, and/or dispense medicinal marijuana. The Public Notice is available here, while the RFA is summarized below and available in full here.
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
In a recent decision approved for publication on March 27, 2019, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed an issue of first impression: whether an employee can state a claim for disability discrimination based on an employer’s refusal to accommodate legal, off-duty use of medical marijuana, as permitted by the New Jersey Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (Compassionate Use Act).
In Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., et al., A-3072-17T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2019), the plaintiff was a licensed funeral director for Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (Carriage). His duties included, among other things, driving the funeral home’s hearse and other vehicles. After working for Carriage for approximately three years, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident in the course of his employment. At the time of the accident, he was driving one of Carriage’s vehicles during a funeral when another driver ran a stop sign and struck the vehicle driven by the plaintiff.
Just weeks after Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo) introduced bi-partisan legislation to make marijuana lawful under a state’s marijuana laws also lawful under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation removing marijuana from the CSA altogether on Wednesday, June 27. Schumer’s bill also comes just one day after Oklahoman’s passed legislation legalizing medical marijuana in their traditionally red state, and one day before the U.S. Senate passed legislation legalizing hemp for all purposes, including extracts from hemp, such as cannabidiol.
By removing from the purview of the CSA, state-legal cannabis and proceeds derived therefrom, the Warren/Gardner legislation, if passed, would likely have the effect of nationwide legalization, but state operators and consumers would still need to be concerned about marijuana’s Schedule 1 status under the CSA, whereas the Schumer bill, if passed, would eliminate those concerns by removing marijuana from the CSA.
Yesterday, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Cory Gardner introduced bipartisan legislation that, if passed, would make the regulation of marijuana a state issue. Comments by Senator Gardner show public safety issues resulting from the dearth of banking providing services to the industry are a focus of the newly-proposed legislation. The Hill reports Gardner stating when introducing the legislation:
“This city of Denver, the state of Colorado, can collect taxes … they can take it to the bank,” Gardner said. “But if you’re in the business, if you work for the business, you can’t get a bank loan or set up a bank account because of the concern over the conflict between the state and federal law. We need to fix this public hypocrisy.”
It was widely reported on April 13, 2018, that President Trump promised to Senator Gardner that he would support a states’ rights approach to marijuana, which promise appears to have resulted in this proposed legislation. A lot has to happen before this bill reaches Trump, but if it does, a veto may be unlikely. Such states’ rights legislation could then pave the way for more banks to service the industry.
While the Cole Priorities were in place, that guidance provided a clear path for banking cannabis industry participants adhering to the Cole Priorities. FinCen’s guidance is still in place, and banking cannabis is still possible, but confusion about how to do so without the Cole Priorities as guideposts has caused greater reluctance on the part of banks.
Enter proposed legislation in California, SB-930, which passed in the California Senate yesterday. Not a complete solution to the banking problem by a long shot, but progress nonetheless. If it becomes law SB-930, would result in the establishment of a California-chartered bank that would permit California cannabis industry participants to deposit the proceeds of their state-lawful cannabis activities, and would provide to them limited banking services that would allow for payment of taxes and vendors by check.
As reported in the Sacramento Business Journal, the Bill’s sponsor, Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), characterized SB-930 as an attempt alleviate the public safety concerns resulting from the federal government’s current hands off approach to banking cannabis. As Herzog stated, “It’s not only impractical from an accounting perspective, but it also presents a tremendous public safety problem. This bill takes a limited approach to provide all parties with a safe and reliable way to move forward on this urgent issue.”