Tag Archives: civil

Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies: Part 2

By Brent Salmons, Yuefan Wang
No Comments

Part 1 of this series discussed the lack of bankruptcy protections for cannabis companies, since bankruptcy in the U.S. is an exclusively federal procedure and cannabis remains illegal under federal law and proposed a number of alternative options for businesses struggling in the current environment. Part 2 of this series focuses on one of these alternatives: state law receiverships.

Background

A cannabis operation facing financial difficulties may try to avail itself, on the one hand, of the contractual remedies described in Part 1 of this series, but these remedies may be flimsy given their narrow scope and reliance on voluntary negotiation between parties whose relationship is already likely tense; on the other hand, the statutory remedies described in Part 1 of this series may be too rigid and absolute, necessitating the disposition of a business as a collection of assets, instead of its continued operation as a going concern. An alternative is receivership, a flexible but powerful quasi-judicial approach paralleling federal bankruptcy able to be administered by state courts. Compared to federal bankruptcy, state receivership is both over and under-inclusive: while receivership can be used in many more situations than insolvency, such as a financially healthy business that is nonetheless subject to regulatory action, receivership provides less comprehensive protection for an insolvent business.

Receiverships have their roots in English and Welsh courts of equity, which were seen as offering fairer remedies than their contemporary common law courts, bound as they were by ponderous precedent. In contrast, courts of equity had more discretion to apply remedies which could be more tailored and “equitable” to an individual petitioner, even if such remedies were not codified. While this separation of equitable and common law courts does not generally exist in the modern U.S. legal system (except for a few hold-out states, most notably, Delaware), the legacy remains in the type of civil remedy available: while most remedies are awarded as monetary redress for a past wrong suffered by a plaintiff (e.g. liquidated damages for the discloser of confidential information or the “benefit of the bargain” for the seller of a company), equitable remedies often require prospective action (or forbearance of an action) by the defendant (e.g. an injunction on disclosure by a recipient of confidential information or specific performance by a purchaser of a company). To draw the analogy out, bankruptcy is a “legal” process to address insolvency since it is governed by a comprehensive regime of federal statutes and rules in the Bankruptcy Code (which is, ironically, applied by specialized federal courts), while receivership is the “equitable” side of the same coin: a judicially-created remedy to manage or liquidate a business, among other actions, where it would not be equitable (or, most importantly for cannabis businesses, not possible) for a bankruptcy action.

Some states with legalized cannabis have cannabis-specific receivership statutes, usually providing that the receiver either be temporarily or fully licensed similar to any other operator of a cannabis business.As an equitable remedy used by various states and federal entities, generalizations about the receivership process are difficult to make. However, broadly speaking, a typical receivership process begins with a complaint filed against the entity for which receivership is sought in state court. This filing can be made by a variety of parties outside of the standard debtor-creditor relationship (reflecting the equitable nature of receiverships), including by regulators and disputing owners of a business. After this filing, a motion to appoint the receiver (which is usually but not always a third party) is filed with the court; consent of the opposing party is generally not required in appointing a receiver but can often make the process easier. The complainant must then establish standing and the occurrence of certain events, including insolvency, but also mismanagement of a corporation or a foreclosure. The requirements of such events are fact-specific and may often be governed by statute or the contractual relationship between parties. The order appointing the receiver usually sets out the specific powers the receiver has in any given case to oversee the disposition or operation of the assets subject to the receivership (called the “receivership estate”) for the benefit of its’s creditors.

Receivership laws generally fall into two categories: some states provide for a broad general statute, sometimes accompanied by statutes specific to industries which are heavily regulated, entity types, or process, while in other states the power is an extension of the court’s powers, set forth in the state’s rules of civil procedure. States also differ as to whether a receivership is considered an independent remedy, a standalone legal action which can be pursued in and of itself (e.g. a petition by a creditor to appoint a receiver to resolve settle an unpaid debt), or an ancillary remedy, a legal action that supports a primary claim (e.g. a request to appoint a receiver in connection with a dispute over the ownership of a business). Some states provide for general receiverships, which allows receivers to take control of an entire business, while other states also allow limited receiverships, which allows the receiver take control of a portion of a business, while the owner operates the remainder. Some states with legalized cannabis have cannabis-specific receivership statutes, usually providing that the receiver either be temporarily or fully licensed similar to any other operator of a cannabis business.1

Below is an overview of the laws and rules governing receiverships in certain states which have legalized cannabis.

Arizona
In Arizona, receivership is governed by statute, with a general statute and specific statutes for certain industries and type of receivership. Arizona law recognizes that principles of equity apply to all matters relating to receivers, providing the court overseeing the receivership with additional power to decide the remedies available to the receiver. In addition, Arizona has enacted a specific statutory framework for the appointment of receivers for commercial real property and personal property related to or used in operating the real property. Arizona also uses a separate receivership statute to provide for corporate dissolution receiverships, in which a court in a judicial corporate dissolution proceeding may appoint one or more receivers to wind-up, liquidate, or manage the business and affairs of the corporation.

There are no specific statutes governing receiverships of cannabis businesses, so the general receivership statute applies to cannabis businesses, subject to Arizona’s rules governing the operation of a cannabis business. For example, Arizona cannabis regulations that require anyone volunteering or working at a medical or recreational cannabis dispensary to be registered with the cannabis regulator similarly apply to a receiver appointed over a licensed cannabis business.

California

California does not have significant entity-specific or industry-specific statutes for receiverships; rather a California court’s power to appoint a receiver is granted under the state’s rules of civil procedure. Receiverships in California are solely an ancillary remedy; a receivership is commenced once a complaint is filed and any party to the action may seek to appoint a receiver. Circumstances that allow for the appointment of a receiver are fact-specific and at the discretion of a judge, although contractual provisions for the appointment of a receiver are given weight under the rules. Sales of assets in the receivership estate must be submitted to, and approved by, the appointing court.

While the rules of civil procedure provide for the general powers of a receiver, the specific powers a receiver possesses in any given case is granted by the judicial order appointing the receiver; this appointment order is therefore, along with the court itself, the primary authority for the parties in any given receivership. California explicitly disqualifies certain persons, such as parties to the lawsuit, an attorney of a party, a person interested in an action, or any person related to any judge of the court within the third degree, as receivers.

While California’s receivership rules do not explicitly contemplate cannabis businesses, receiverships for cannabis companies have taken place, but in our experience are less common in California than assignments for the benefit of creditors (which we will address in a later article). Like other licensed businesses in California, cannabis companies must provide notice to the state regulatory agency which granted the license. It is up to the agency’s discretion whether the business may be operated under the existing license or whether the receiver must secure a new or temporary license.

Colorado

Like California, no generally applicable receivership statute exists in Colorado; instead, receiverships are governed by the state’s rules of civil procedure. Under these rules, a receiver can be appointed under a court’s general equitable powers. Appointment of a receiver is an independent remedy in Colorado, but is contingent on a lawsuit having commenced and the court having deemed the receivership as necessary and proper. In addition to the court’s general equitable powers to appoint a receiver, and unlike California, Colorado has receivership statutes that are entity and industry specific. The entity-specific statutes permit the appointment of a receiver for the judicial dissolution of for-profit corporations, non-profit corporations, limited liability companies, and cooperatives, and the industry-specific statutes permit the appointment of a receiver for the windup of failed insurance companies and the closure of long-term care facilities.

Similar to California, the court order appointing a receiver governs the entire receivership process and any disposition of the assets of the receivership estate must be submitted to and approved by the court.

As befitting the first state to legalize adult-use cannabis, Colorado’s cannabis regulations specifically address receiverships: the rules create a notice and application requirement for all court appointees, including receiverships, and require receivers to register with the regulator as a “temporary appointee” of the court.

Illinois

Illinois does not have a comprehensive receivership statute; instead, the state has industry-specific statutes, including for regulated industries such as nursing home facilities and telecommunication carriers. Illinois also provides for “equity receiverships”, which are used as an ancillary remedy in business disputes in order to stabilize a business that is adversely affected by fraud, neglect, waste, dissipation, or other misconduct during the pendency of the underlying proceeding. If the underlying matter is within the general or statutory jurisdiction of the court, then such court has jurisdiction over the receivership.

There are no specific statutes governing receiverships of cannabis businesses, but the governing statute does contemplate operation of a cannabis business by a receiver, so regulations promulgated thereunder should apply to receivers as well, including with respect to licensing.

Maryland

Adult-use cannabis sales only began in Maryland July 1, 2023. Maryland has a general receivership statute.

Receivers in Maryland are generally appointed by the person seeking appointment, including the court, and must meet certain qualifications, such as not having any material financial interest in the outcome of the receivership, and not having any debtor-creditor relationship with or equity interest in any party to the receivership. While the general receivership statute provides for broad powers of the receiver, including general management of receivership property, hiring professionals, and issuing subpoenas, the court may modify or expand the powers of the receiver via the appointment order.

While there is no cannabis-specific receivership statute, Maryland’s medical cannabis rules contemplate and authorize the transfer of licenses to a receivership; similar rules have been proposed for adult-use cannabis licenses as well.

Nevada

Nevada has a broad receivership statute, in addition to both entity and industry specific statutes. Case law is not well-developed and mostly predates the current statutory scheme, but there is support for a receiver being appointed outside of a statutory context, specifically when the situation is governed by contractual agreement.

The general receivership statute provides that a receiver may be appointed in a variety of situations, such as fraudulent property purchases, foreclosure of mortgages, or the dissolution or insolvency of a corporation.

Nevada has a statutory regime for receiverships for cannabis companies. Unlike the general statute, there are significant requirements for who can be a receiver for a cannabis business. A receiver must first secure a cannabis establishment agent registration card for a cannabis receiver issued by Nevada’s cannabis regulator. In addition, the receiver must submit an application to the regulator accompanied by, among other requirements, a statement saying the receiver has not previously had an agent registration card revoked. The receiver must also provide proof that she has (1) experience or knowledge of the cannabis industry, (2) experience as a receiver appointed by a court, (3) knowledge and skills necessary to make reasonable financial decisions, and (4) adequate financial capacity to fulfill the duties of a receiver. If the regulator is satisfied with the receiver’s application, it will issue the receiver an agent registration card which must be renewed two years after issuance. It is worth noting that Nevada’s statute governing the non-transferability of certain agent registration cards for cannabis allows the regulator to adopt regulations that give priority in the processing of transfers of licenses for transferors subject to receivership. To date, however, no such regulations allowing priority for receivership processing have been adopted.

Washington

Washington has a general receivership statute, but not any entity or industry-specific receivership statutes. Washington’s receivership structure with overhauled in 2004 with the passage of a new law, so it is not completely settled whether receivership is now an independent or ancillary remedy; however, the language of the statute language suggests that it is an independent remedy.

To be appointed a receiver in Washington, the individual must meet certain requirements, including not being a party to, or be closely controlled by a party to, the underlying action and not having materially adverse interest to the person against whom receivership is sought. The general statute specifically outlines the powers of the receiver. Certain actions by the receiver require court approval before being finalized, including the assumption or rejection of executory contracts, and sales of property outside the ordinary course of business.

Washington law specifically provides for receiverships for cannabis companies. To be a receiver, the person must satisfy the requirements of Washington’s receivership law, and either be preapproved by the cannabis regulator or else be approved post-application. In order to qualify for the regulator’s preapproved receiver list, or be approved post-application, the putative receiver must (1) submit an application, (2) have been a Washington resident for at least six months prior to submission, (3) submit to and pass a criminal background check, (4) provide financial disclosures as requested by the regulator, and (5) disclose any interests in the cannabis licensees. Once a person is appointed as receiver for a cannabis licensee, she shall not have a financial interest in, or simultaneously serve as receiver for, another licensed cannabis retailer. The receiver may not also serve as a receiver for, or be a party of interest in, more than five cannabis retail licensees or more than three cannabis producer and/or processor licensees at the same time. Finally, any person who files a receivership action involving a cannabis licensee must provide notice to the regulator.

Part 3 of this series on Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies continue our review of receivership in various states and other bankruptcy alternatives, including assignments for the benefit of creditors.

Reference

  1.  As cannabis legalization continues to spread, more robust industry-specific receivership rules may be promising given the heavily regulated and specialized nature of the business, similar to how a number of states have industry-specific rules for other heavily regulated industries.

Product Liability in the Cannabis Industry: Insights From 2022 & Looking Forward

By Andrew Solow, David Kerschner, Alessandra Lopez
No Comments

In 2022, product liability lawsuits in the cannabis/cannabidiol (CBD) industry continued to focus on levels of THC and the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, while federal agencies continued issuing warning letters for CBD products (including CBD-infused food and dietary supplements) that made misleading medical claims. Against this backdrop of ongoing litigation and regulatory enforcement, 2022 showed that at the Federal level, there is more recognition that marijuana is becoming increasingly normalized. For example, President Biden pardoned federal offenses of simple marijuana possession and requested a reassessment of marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug under federal law. Additionally, Congress passed its first standalone piece of cannabis reform with the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) which, among other things, will ease restrictions on cannabis research and allow for more clinical trials. And even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declined to act on CBD products, the agency announced that it will work with Congress to create a new regulatory framework for CBD products (2023 FDA Announcement).

These events of the past year provide a glimpse into what the future may hold for cannabis and CBD companies when it comes to product liability risks. This article looks at the types of product liability actions that the cannabis and CBD industry faced in 2022 and may encounter in the future, and provides some basic guidance on how to best mitigate, and if necessary, defend these potentially costly litigations.

Focus on Cannabis and CBD Risks

FDAlogoA central part of any product liability lawsuit—regardless of whether brought under a design defect and/or adequate warning theory—is that a product caused or was a substantial contributing factor to a Plaintiff’s injury or illness. Thus, any potential safety concerns over cannabis/CBD could end up as the subject of litigation in the future. In the 2023 FDA Announcement, the FDA recognized that “the use of CBD raises various safety concerns, especially with long-term use,” including potential harm to the liver and negative interactions with certain medications. The agency also noted that questions still exist on how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. Furthermore, on December 2, 2022, President Biden signed the MMCREA into law, which is intended to advance research on the potential risks and medical benefits of cannabis and cannabis products.1 This additional funding will not only help researchers learn more about possible safety risks that may lead to future product liability claims, but will also allow for better exploration of the benefits of these products to possibly expand product indications and help reach new customers.

Given the FDA’s statements and the increased funding for new research, CBD and cannabis companies should ensure that they are properly monitoring both regulatory communications and new research regarding risks that may be associated with their products. As new information is released, companies should evaluate how their product labels and marketing messages should be altered. Announcements like this one by the FDA can be seen as providing industry participants with knowledge about certain risks, and how companies react could be analyzed, post hoc, in any litigation down the road.

2022 Product Liability Actions  

Over the last year, misbranding/mislabeling issues presented some of the most prevalent litigation risks for industry participants.

An example of a warning letter the FDA sent to a CBD products company making health claims

For example, at the Federal level in 2022, the FDA issued thirty-three warning letters to CBD companies, a nearly 400% increase from 2021. These letters generally focused on CBD products that made medical claims. Some of these warning letters addressed misbranding, where the product labels provided inadequate directions for consumer use. In one letter, the FDA noted that because the CBD products were “offered for conditions that are not amendable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners,” ranging from cancer to diabetes, labeling compliance was only possible if the product was an FDA-approved prescription drug with FDA-approved labeling. Other companies received warning letters in March of 2022 for making misleading representations that their CBD products were safe and/or effective to prevent or treat COVID-19. Many of these representations were made via companies’ websites and social media platforms. The warning letters—often triggers for product liability actions, as well as consumer protection/fraud actions—serve as a reminder that companies cannot make medical claims on non-FDA approved drug products and must otherwise present accurate information to consumers not only on product packaging, but any form of marketing or advertising, including company websites and social media platforms.

Turning to state-level regulatory actions, Oregon’s Liquor and Cannabis Commission fined a cannabis company $130,000 and suspended the company’s license for 23 days over an alleged label mix-up between its CBD and THC products. According to the state’s investigative report, a company employee allegedly confused two product buckets with similar identification numbers, one that contained THC and the other CBD, and accidentally switched the labels of the two products. In addition to the fine and license-suspension, the state agency also issued a mandatory recall on the CBD drops based on the alleged undisclosed levels of THC.

This same incident also spurred a string of civil lawsuits, resulting in several settlements by the company in 2022.2 Numerous customers reported experiencing “paranoia,” “mind fog,” and feeling “extremely high,” with at least five people going to the emergency room with serious health issues due to use of the CBD drops. One lawsuit, which was publicly settled for $50,000 in January of 2022, alleged that the company failed to warn the plaintiff that the CBD drops contained THC or that the product may have been contaminated with foreign substances like THC, and that the company failed to exercise quality control standards that would have detected the THC.3 Nine other lawsuits made similar failure to warn allegations based on the same batch of CBD drops and were settled by January of 2022, although those settlements were not disclosed.4 In October of 2022, the company agreed to pay a settlement of $100,000 in a class action suit, which alleged that the company failed to disclose that the CBD product contained substantial amounts of THC.5 The class action focused on unlawful trade practices claims, including that the company falsely represented that the product had the characteristics, uses, and benefits of a CBD product that did not contain THC.6 Also in October 2022, the company settled a wrongful death lawsuit—alleging that the company failed to warn the plaintiff that the drops contained THC and had negligent quality control standards—stemming from the same CBD drops,7 where the plaintiff suffered stroke-like-symptoms, allegedly due to the tainted CBD product, and ultimately died.8

Other recent lawsuits have also focused on mislabeled cannabis products, alleging that companies failed to inform customers that products contained THC. For example, in Kentucky, a man who drove into a bus after using a CBD vape sued both the CBD manufacturer and retailer on December 14, 2022, claiming that he was not warned that the vape contained a substance that would make him intoxicated.9 According to the complaint, the store employees told the man that the vape was “all natural” but made no mention that the product contained THC.10 The man alleged that the vape actually contained Delta-8 THC and brought negligence, failure to warn, and state consumer protection law claims.11

As noted above, in addition to traditional product liability actions, companies are likely to face increased consumer fraud and false advertising actions in the absence of personal injuries. Two class actions brought in December of 2020 against a hemp tea maker alleged that the company’s website and the product’s packaging fraudulently stated that a tea contained zero THC.12 Plaintiffs claimed that they tested positive for THC after drinking the tea and that product testing similarly revealed that the tea contained some THC.13

Potency inflation marketing communications from a laboratory

Last year also saw a rise in cases focused on potency inflation, alleging that cannabis companies knowingly overstated the amount of THC in their products to charge higher prices.14 Again, while these actions focused on consumer fraud allegations rather than product liability claims, these cases underscore the importance of accurate labeling. Due to potency inflation concerns, states have started investigating licensed cannabis testing labs within their respective jurisdictions, resulting in product recalls and fines. Some states have also updated their regulations, requiring cannabis companies to test their products through two separate labs.

Finally, contamination and the existence of impurities and other byproducts has been a recent focus of several product liability lawsuits across the life sciences space, and this trend is something that cannabis and CBD companies should be aware of and take steps to mitigate.

For example, a Canadian cannabis producer reached a $2.31 million settlement over a class action brought in March of 2017 regarding pesticide-contaminated medical marijuana. The marijuana was recalled due to the presence of myclobutanil and bifenazate pesticides, neither of which were authorized for use on cannabis plants in Canada. The lead plaintiff experienced nausea and vomiting, allegedly from consuming the medical cannabis, and brought numerous claims on behalf of the class, including negligent design, development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales.15 In the United States, California’s Department of Cannabis Control issued a mandatory recall on January 26, 2022 for a batch of cannabis flower that was contaminated with mold. On March 25, 2022, the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division recalled cannabis products sold by a local medical cannabis company because the product contained impermissibly high levels of mold. New Mexico’s Cannabis Control Division also required the company to immediately cease and desist operations at its production and manufacturing site.

A Look at the Future and What Companies Can do to Mitigate Product Liability Risks  

The FDA’s 2023 announcement means that the industry will have to wait for Congressional action for the development of a regulatory scheme that can help standardize requirements and provide industry players additional defenses when facing product liability actions. Many of the proposed risk management tools in the FDA Announcement could help companies mitigate future litigation risks if implemented. These risk management tools may include “clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and measures, such as minimum purchase age, to mitigate the risk of ingestion by children.” Although the FDA has had regulatory oversight over CBD and other hemp-derived products for nearly four years, the agency has not developed a regulatory framework for these products aside from issuing warning letters, leaving manufacturers and distributors without much guidance. The FDA has also left the states to fill the void, resulting in a patchwork of differing—and sometimes conflicting—state laws. Additional guidance and regulation on labeling at the federal level for cannabis and cannabis-derived products will make compliance a more straightforward proposition and may provide avenues for industry participants to explore preemption defenses in the face of future mislabeling claims.

Just some of the many CBD products on the market today

In addition to following the changing regulatory landscape and understanding how regulatory changes can impact litigation defenses, cannabis and CBD companies can continue to take various steps to help mitigate future litigation risks.

Quality Control: Adequate testing procedures and effective quality control procedures can help avoid contamination issues and situations where products are mixed up during the manufacturing process. For example, the company whose license was suspended in Oregon due to the alleged mix up between CBD and THC subsequently implemented new ingredient tracking protocols, adopted a policy to retain samples from each batch of product, and now sends additional samples to an independent lab to ensure product compliance before anything is sold.

Proper documentation of testing and quality control procedures, as well as maintaining records of compliance checks, can also help companies put together a defense to state regulatory actions or lawsuits relating to contamination or manufacturing defects. Indeed, in February of 2022, an Arizona marijuana testing lab was fined $500,000 for various incomplete records and documentation as well as improperly calibrated machines for contamination testing, with an inspector also noting that one of the employees was trained to use a technique that produced inflated potency results.

Ongoing Safety & Regulatory Review: Keeping up to date with regulations and science will play a key role in making sure labels are accurate and defendable. Working directly with regulators and seeking guidance from regulators on labeling can help potential defendants present a clear and compelling labeling defense. Moreover, the 2023 FDA Announcement made clear that the agency will not pursue rulemaking on CBD’s potential use in foods and dietary substances. Thus, industry players should monitor agency announcements and engage with the FDA’s Cannabis Product Committee (CPC) and Congress to better understand the potential structure of this new regulatory pathway.

Stay on Top of the Science: A boost in cannabis research is on the horizon, as the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) will advance research on the potential risks and benefits of cannabis products and promote the development of FDA-approved drugs derived from marijuana and CBD. On the litigation front, causation is an essential element in most causes of action, and plaintiffs will have to prove that the cannabis caused their injury. Thus, industry players should be aware of the current science, including potential side effects.

Litigation Monitoring: Finally, companies will also be well served by following court decisions involving CBD and cannabis products. For example, courts in 2022 were split over the legality of Delta-8 THC, a substance typically manufactured from hemp-derived CBD. The Ninth Circuit held in AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro that Delta-8 THC found in e-cigarettes and vape products is legal under the 2018 Farm Act, at least in the intellectual property context.16 But in Kansas, a federal judge ruled that the 2018 Farm Act does not make selling hemp-derived products such as Delta-8 THC legal.17 In Texas, litigation initiated in 2021 is ongoing over the legality of Delta-8 THC.18 There, a hemp company sued the Texas Department of State Health Services for its classification of Delta-8 THC as a Schedule I drug, making the sale of this substance a felony offense. A temporary injunction was granted on November 8, 2021—temporarily lifting the ban on sales of Delta-8 THC products—but the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction remains pending.19 As these lawsuits show, the legality of different products may vary by jurisdiction, whether by regulation or a judicial decision.

References

  1. Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L. 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022).
  2. Agbonkhese v. Curaleaf Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01675, (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2022).
  3. Agbonkhese v. Curaleaf Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01675, ECF 1, 6 (D. Or.).
  4. See Crawforth v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1432 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2021); Lopez v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1465 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2021);
  5. Williamson v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-782, ECF 1, 8 (D. Or.).
  6. Williamson v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-782 (D. Or. May 30, 2022).
  7. Estate of Earl Jacobe v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00001, 19 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2022).
  8. Estate of Earl Jacobe v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00001 1 (D. Or. Jan. 1, 2022).
  9. Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
  10. Complaint at ¶ 11, Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
  11. Complaint at ¶¶ 15-33, Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
  12. Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02463 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2020); Santiago v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 2:20-cv-18581 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2020).
  13. Complaint at ¶¶ 54-59, Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02463 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2020); Complaint at ¶¶ 21-25, Santiago v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 2:20-cv-18581 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2020).
  14. See Centeno v. Dreamfields Brands Inc., No. 22STCV33980 (Cal. Superior Ct. L.A. Cnty. Oct. 20, 2022); Shanti Gallard v. Ironworks Collective Inc., No. 22STCV38021 (Cal. Superior Ct. L.A. Cnty. Dec. 6, 2022).
  15. Downton v. Organigram Holdings Inc., Hfx No. 460984 (Sup. Ct. Nova Scotia Mar. 3, 2017).
  16. AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC, 35 F.4th 682 (9th Cir. 2022).
  17. Dines v. Kelly, No. 2:22-cv-02248, 2022 WL 16762903 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2022).
  18. Hometown Hero v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services, No. D-1-GN-21-006174 (Travis Cnty., Tex. Oct. 20, 2021).
  19. Hometown Hero v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services, No. D-1-GN-21-006174 (Travis Cnty., Tex. Nov. 8, 2021).

Cannabis Receiverships: A Viable Alternative to Bankruptcy

By Oren Bitan
No Comments

Doing business in California’s legal cannabis industry remains a risky endeavor. The majority of the industry is still unlicensed, tax rates at the state and local levels are high (notwithstanding a recent reprieve from California’s cultivation tax) and there are not enough licenses to meet geographic demand throughout the state. Outside financing remains difficult to secure for equipment, tenant improvements, account receivables and working capital because, under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis remains a Schedule I narcotic. Therefore, entrepreneurs, investors and lenders who have stakes in state-sanctioned cannabis enterprises expect to see returns that justify the higher level of risk, which places additional financial pressure on cannabis businesses. In addition to the industry specific challenges, the United States economy is on the verge of a recession that may further hamper the industry notwithstanding the industry’s resiliency during the pandemic when it was deemed to be an “essential” industry that benefited from consumer spending of stimulus monies.

These outside pressures increasingly lead to ownership disputes and creditor defaults that result in litigation and the need for restructuring. In some instances, business partners cannot agree about control and finances of the licensed businesses and in other instances unpaid creditors file suit to enforce their interest in a company’s assets. And sometimes a local municipality discovers wrongdoing by an operator and initiates a health and safety lawsuit to cease the illegal condition.

Bankruptcy reorganization is an option typically utilized by struggling businesses to shed or restructure debt. Cannabis businesses, however, cannot take advantage of bankruptcy remedies because bankruptcy is a product of federal law and federal law still prohibits the sale of cannabis.

As a result, stakeholders in legal California cannabis enterprises must consider alternatives to bankruptcy to collect what they can on their loans and investments in the event the enterprise becomes insolvent or requires restructuring. A well-established alternative to bankruptcy is a state court remedy – the appointment of a receiver over the assets of a business or over the entire business operations. Through the receivership process, stakeholders may obtain many of the same protections available to them through bankruptcy

A. Federal Illegality Bars Access to Bankruptcy Protection

Over the past ten years, bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited licensed cannabis businesses from seeking bankruptcy protection because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Bankruptcy trustees are typically charged with managing and operating property in the same manner that the owner would be bound to do if in possession thereof. Because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, trustees are not able to manage and operate licensed cannabis businesses.

B. Receivership as an Alternative to Bankruptcy

Under California law, a receiver is a neutral agent of the court appointed to preserve, control, manage and ultimately dispose of property that is subject to the litigation before the court.1 The receiver, therefore, holds property for the court, not the parties to the litigation.

Appointment of a receiver is a statutory provisional remedy. Other than corporate dissolutions under Code of Civil Procedure section 565, the law does not have a specific cause of action to appoint a receiver. Thus, the proponent of a receiver must have a valid cause of action in an underlying lawsuit.

1. The Appointment of a Receiver

The appointment of a receiver rests within the trial court’s discretion. Code of Civil Procedure section 564 contains the broadest statutory authority to appoint a receiver. Subdivision (b), details twelve possible situations in which a receiver may be appointed, most of which are beyond the scope of this article. The most common of these is a lender’s request to appoint a receiver when a borrower defaults on a loan and the lender seeks the appointment of a receiver over its collateral. The statute, however, clarifies that the situations listed in the statute are not exclusive: a court may appoint a receiver “[i]n all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.”

The receiver’s powers are limited by the statute under which the court appointed the receiver and those conferred by the court. The appointment order should, therefore, detail the duties the receiver owes to the court, and actions that the court authorizes the receiver to take to perform those tasks. The order should also specify the property that will be part of the receivership estate.

2. The Receiver’s Powers

The receiver has general statutory powers.2 The statutory powers include (i) commencing or defending litigation; (ii) taking and possessing property of the receivership estate, (iii) receiving rent, collecting debts, and making transfers, and (iv) acting in accordance with the court’s instruction with respect to the property.3 But the court’s authorization is necessary to sue the receiver and for the receiver to commence litigation.4 In the foregoing scenarios, the receiver is immunized personally from tort liability, but not in his or her official capacity as receiver.5

In addition to taking possession of property, the receiver may dispose of receivership property with the court’s approval.6 If the receiver is an equity receiver, the receiver may take possession and satisfy creditors from all the debtor’s assets.7

The court may further authorize the receiver to issue “certificates of indebtedness” to raise money to administer the receivership estate.8 This device permits the receiver to provide liquidity to the estate and gives the certificate holder an interest-bearing priority claim against the receivership estate.

3. Liquidating Cannabis Assets Through a Court Appointed Receiver

After the court appoints the receiver, the receiver should have sufficient powers to, among other things: (i) take over the management of the company; (ii) open bank accounts; (iii) borrow money by issuing receivership certificates; (iv) manage all of the company’s property; (v) hire counsel and other professionals; and (vi) sell the receivership estate’s assets for the benefit of the creditors. To maximize repayment to the creditors, the receiver may hold an auction to sell the assets and assist in facilitating the cancellation of company’s state license while the buyer of the assets secures its state license after the local license is transferred.

State cannabis licenses may not be sold or transferred.9 Yet, to maximize recovery for the creditors, the receiver may need to participate in the regulatory process to maintain a license during the pendency of the receivership and to assist in the amendment of a license while a prospective buyer seeks to obtain its own license. To do so, the receiver will first need to qualify as a licensee under state law to join as a licensee on the license and further the licensee as a going concern. Next, the principals of the prospective buyer will themselves need to qualify as licensees under the license. Then, once the sale of the company’s assets (including any interest in the license) to the buyer closes, the receiver and the company’s original owners will terminate their capacities as licensees of the license, leaving only the new owners as licensees. Thus, the proposed order should be written with attention to ensure the receiver has powers to further the foregoing and not diminish the value of the receivership estate.

After the conclusion of the sale of all assets, the receiver will need to obtain a discharge from the court of his or her duties as receiver. The receiver may do so by the parties’ stipulation or by motion. Together with the request for a discharge, the receiver should seek approval to pay: (i) any lenders to the receivership estate; (ii) professionals that the receiver hired; and (iii) him or herself for his or her services. Upon the court’s approval, the receivership will be terminated.

The conflict between federal and California law regarding cannabis continues to be an impediment for stakeholders in California’s cannabis market. Because of this conflict, stakeholders in California’s legal cannabis market lack access to vital traditional institutions, such as bankruptcy remedies. As a result, stakeholders must be prepared to consider alternatives such as a court appointed receiver, which can be a useful alternative to both secured creditors and unsecured creditors. Stakeholders who pursue a court appointed receiver will benefit from a long-established body of law and experienced professionals.

References

  1. Cal. Rules of Ct., r. 3.1179(a).
  2. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 568-570.
  3. Free Gold Mining Co. v. Spiers, 136 Cal. 484, 486 (1902); Steinberg v. Goldstein, 129 Cal. App. 2d 682, 685 (1954).
  4. Vitug v. Griffin, 214 Cal. App. 3d 488, 493 (1989).
  5. Chiesur v. Superior Court, 76 Cal. App. 2d 198, 201 (1946).
  6. Helvey v. U.S. Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 81 Cal. App. 2d 647, 650 (1947).
  7. Turner v. Superior Court, 72 Cal. App. 3d 804, 812 (1977).
  8. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 568.
  9. See e.g., Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5023(c).

Cannabis Banking: The Ins, the Outs & the Unknowns

By Tamara L. Kolb, Amy Bean, Caitlin Strelioff
No Comments

As the legal cannabis market expands, banks and nonbank financial institutions (NBFIs) across the United States continue to explore how to safely provide banking and other financial services to cannabis-related businesses (CRBs) and other CRB ecosystem players. At the same time, these organizations are taking into account changes they might need to consider relative to their Bank Secrecy Act ( BSA), anti-money laundering (AML) and related compliance programs. 

Regulatory conundrum

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) identifies the cannabis plant and all its derivatives as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Schedule 1 controlled substances have a “high abuse potential with no accepted medical use,” and they cannot be “prescribed, dispensed, or administered.” Because cannabis remains classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, the CSA “imposes strict controls on possession, manufacturing, distribution, and dispensing” of cannabis.

Under the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the BSA as amended, covered banks and NBFIs are prohibited from providing financial services to businesses that are engaged in illicit activities. Because federal law prohibits the distribution and sale of cannabis, financial transactions involving CRBs are therefore deemed to be transactions that involve funds derived from illegal activities.

As of Feb. 3, 2022, 18 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to regulate cannabis for adult use. Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and four territories have approved comprehensive, publicly available medical and cannabis programs. Eleven states allow for the use of low-THC, high-CBD substances for medical reasons in limited situations or as a legal defense.

The growing divide between federal prohibition and state legalization of the cannabis industry creates a precarious position for federally regulated banks and NBFIs with the main concern involving exposure to legal, operational and regulatory risk. The situation begs the question: How might the federal government and regulators pursue and prosecute players in the legal cannabis industry?

The current economic trajectory predicts that retail sales of legal cannabis products in the U.S. will surpass an estimated $41.5 billion annually by 2025, and many banks and NBFIs are eagerly awaiting the federal green light to do business with CRBs without fear of prosecution or legal ramifications.

From 2018 forward, Congress has made several attempts to pass legislation that would protect CRBs when cultivating, distributing, marketing, and selling cannabis products in their state-legalized form. These efforts to declassify cannabis-related activity as a specified unlawful activity have thus far been unsuccessful.

The House passing the MORE Act back in 2020

Passage of the Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2021 (SAFE Banking Act) and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (MORE Act) would enable banks and NBFIs to provide financial services to CRBs. The SAFE Banking Act would provide a safe harbor for banks and NBFIs that provide financial services to CRBs. The MORE Act would deschedule cannabis from the CSA entirely.

Questions to ask

Banks and NBFIs interested in providing financial services to CRBs should ask these questions:

  • Do we adequately understand our risk, and what are the implications for our organization? How should we augment our risk assessment process and our controls?
  • To what extent are we willing to accept the risk of banking CRBs? Do we have the ability to identify CRB customers, and if so, do we have any?
  • How should we advise the board of directors about setting risk appetite?
  • What customer due diligence (CDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) will we need to safely continue with existing customers and onboard new ones?
  • How will we monitor for unusual and suspicious activity? What will be the alerting and judgmental criteria?
  • How will our resource needs change so that we stay abreast of new processes and controls?

Risk appetite considerations

In order to determine whether to accept or prohibit CRBs, banks and NBFIs should identify the level of acceptable risk they are willing to take on. Several key components need to be considered, such as:

  • The board of directors’ stance on legal cannabis, given that good governance recommends and regulators expect that the board sets risk appetite
  • Cannabis laws in states within the customer footprint and the impact on customers’ communities
  • Risk profile, customer base, geographic location, products, and services
  • Relationship with regulators and any recent deficiencies or weaknesses in the BSA and associated compliance programs
  • Ability to implement appropriate controls and staffing

 Developing a strategic road map

If the decision is made to bank CRBs, banks and NBFIs should perform an assessment of compliance maturity for existing BSA/AML program processes and controls to identify potential gaps and develop a strategic road map that helps the organization achieve its vision for future state compliance and sustainable operations. 

A well-developed and well-articulated strategic road map visualizes what actions or key outcomes are needed to help organizations achieve their long-term goals. When creating the road map, banks and NBFIs need to demonstrate a keen understanding of their desired strategy, outcomes, markets, and products for onboarding and banking CRB customers. Specifically, banks and NBFIs need to define and explain how desired outcomes and business strategies create risk and exposure.

In addition to a road map, banks and NBFIs should develop and document a detailed risk-based approach that is aligned to the organization’s risk tolerance to determine necessary compliance steps when banking CRB customers.

Specifically, the following activities should be considered when developing a CRB banking program that meets regulatory expectations:

  • Identifying BSA/AML control gaps related to CRB risk identification and mitigation and formulating a plan to address them
  • Updating a board-approved policy framework
  • Updating detailed operating policies and procedures
  • Planning for capacity, developing job descriptions, and onboarding new personnel
  • Training for all three lines of defense, senior management, and the board
  • Developing and documenting a phased or full approach to acceptance of CRB customers
  • Developing and documenting a CRB program oversight policy

CRB risk framework

A three-tiered CRB risk framework first proposed in 2016 has quickly become the cannabis industry standard. The framework has evolved and expanded comprehensively to consider many types of CRBs, and evolving legal systems continue to refine the framework.

This framework is intended to help banks and NBFIs differentiate types of CRBs and their corresponding risks, and it separates CRBs into three tiers and details risks for each tier. The following exhibit summarizes the approach:

Risk framework by tier

Level Risk
Tier 1 Direct
Tier 2 Indirect with substantial revenue from Tier 1
Tier 3 Indirect with incidental revenue from Tier 1

Source: CRB Monitor

Even the most conservative of risk appetites equivalent to outright prohibition is not devoid of significant risk considerations. Residual risk frequently encompasses a large number of indirect connections in the total CRB ecosystem. Common examples are printers, lawyers, accountants, landlords, and even utilities and taxing authorities, and all of these are subject to regulatory scrutiny and, importantly, visibility to law enforcement. Also, policies to prohibit or restrict will be audited and examined for compliance, and exceptions will require explanations.

This panorama necessitates expertise and prudence in identifying and evaluating risks within the many layers of CRBs. For example, consider a bank or NBFI that banks a CRB’s employee or vendor. If a bank fails to properly implement controls that would allow it to identify and mitigate risk associated with banking CRBs, it will be susceptible to severe violations of the BSA, including civil money penalties, criminal penalties, and regulatory enforcement actions. 

Implementing necessary precautions

A well-developed road map should consider and implement the following activities:

  • Understanding the most current state and federal cannabis laws and regulations to ensure the bank or NBFI’s compliance
  • Understanding the local, state, or tribal program to ensure CRB customers are compliant with the program
  • Implementing a CRB risk assessment
  • Implementing executive approval practices for direct CRBs
  • Developing adequate risk ratings (possibly through a risk-based, tiered approach) and corresponding monitoring for CRB customers that includes:
    • Integrating various customer onboarding and AML solutions at both onboarding and periodic levels
    • Scheduling regular reviews to include recurring enhanced due diligence, site visits, and transaction monitoring
    • Monitoring for suspicious activity, including red flags, via open sources for adverse information about the CRB customers and related parties such as beneficial owners
  • Performing adequate CDD and EDD that will validate that the CRB-offered products, services, and programs are compliant with most current state laws and regulations by:
    • Collecting appropriate documentation as evidence of compliance, perhaps including a comprehensive onboarding questionnaire, beneficial ownership information, and contracts for the growing, harvesting, transporting and processing of the product
    • Reviewing applications and supporting documentation used to obtain a legal cannabis state license
    • Understanding the normal and expected activity of the organization’s CRB customers and their product usage
  • Developing adequate training programs and governance and oversight programs to address this customer type by:
    • Updating existing policies and procedures to review inherent risk presented by banking CRB customers
    • Updating annual training for employees
  • Auditing initial program design and periodic operational effectiveness

Moving forward cautiously

The ins, outs, and unknowns of cannabis banking are complex, and they require banks and NBFIs to be extremely vigilant with current policy and aware of new developments. Overall, the idea of creating a cannabis program might seem like a daunting task, but with appropriate guidance and care, organizations can provide services in compliance with laws and regulations.

Crowe disclaimer: Qualified organizations only. Independence and regulatory restrictions may apply. Some firm services may not be available to all clients. Given the continued evolution and inconsistency of various state and federal cannabis-related laws, any company should seek competent legal advice relating to its involvement in the cannabis industry, including when considering a potential public offering as a cannabis-related company.

FAQs: How Cannabis Businesses Can Avoid TCPA Liability

By Artin Betpera
No Comments

As the cannabis industry continues to experience growth in markets across the country, cannabis businesses are becoming an ever-increasing target of plaintiff’s lawyers in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuits. Text messaging provides a potent channel of customer engagement, but at the same time is subject to strict regulations under the TCPA, with violators subject to steep statutory penalties of $500-$1,500 per message. While one-off cases won’t typically break the bank, that’s far from the case when many thousands of texts are bundled together in a class action. And this potential for big paydays means plaintiff’s lawyers have a financial incentive to file cases as class actions whenever they can.

Some well-known names in cannabis have been the target of TCPA class action. Cannabis delivery service Eaze has battled some fairly well-publicized TCPA class actions in the past couple of years. There has also been an assortment of dispensaries across several western states that have been the targets of similar lawsuits. Notably, these lawsuits share a common thread: they are based on marketing or promotional text messages sent to consumers.

In this landscape, firing off texts without the proper compliance safeguards is a game of roulette. At some point in time, one or more messages will invariably land in the wrong hands, sparking an expensive, high-stakes class action. In this competitive space, there are far more productive things any cannabis business can be doing than spending the time and resources on this type of lawsuit.

So how can your business avoid being caught in a TCPA trap? The following Q&A will walk you through some of the questions you should be asking if you are currently texting, or planning to text your customer base for marketing purposes. One quick note before starting: the TCPA has different rules for different types of messages (such as informational versus marketing messages). This Q&A will cover the distinction between these types of messages, but focuses on the rules around marketing messages since these are rules cannabis businesses get tripped up in most frequently when sued for TCPA violations.

Question: How do I know if the TCPA applies to me?

Answer: Are you texting your customers? If so, are you using some kind of platform that lets you send multiple texts at once? If you answered yes to both, then the TCPA most likely applies to you.

In short, the TCPA prohibits calling or sending texts to cell phones using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). Without getting into the many nuances of how courts have interpreted the legal definition of that term (and risk boring you to death), you can assume that unless you’re hitting send on each and every single text that goes to your customers, that you’re using an ATDS, and your texts are subject to the TCPA.

Q: So it looks like the TCPA applies to me. What now?

A: If you don’t have a compliance plan in place, now’s the time to implement one. To start, take stock of (a) how you’re sending texts; (b) who you’re texting; (c) where you obtained their phone number; and (d) whether you have their prior express written consent. That last part is key: under the TCPA, if you’re sending any text messages to your customers for “telemarketing” purposes, you’ll need what the TCPA calls “prior express written consent”.

Q: But I’m a cannabis business, not a telemarketer. Why should I worry about the TCPA again?

A: The TCPA’s rules requiring prior express written consent apply when the text is sent for “telemarketing” purposes, defined as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.” Put simply, if you are sending texts to market or promote something you sell, then it’s likely the message will be considered “telemarketing” under the law. In contrast, if you’re sending a text for purely information purposes, such as sending a receipt for a transaction, or advising on the status of a delivery, then those message are still regulated by the TCPA, but subject to a more relaxed consent standard (a topic for another article).

Q: What do I need to do to get prior express written consent from my customers?

A: It’s important to know that prior express written consent is a technical, legally defined term that requires the caller be provided a written disclosure containing certain information and disclosures, which they “sign.” There are three key components to prior express written consent:

First, the consent agreement has to be in a signed writing. The law affords some flexibility here, allowing callers to obtain consent digitally through a number of mediums including web-based and electronic forms. If structured properly, consent may even be obtained through a text message flow.

Second, the consent agreement has to say certain things. It must authorize the caller to deliver advertisements or marketing messages using an ATDS, it must specify the phone number to which messages are being authorized, and it must say that the consumer doesn’t have to provide their consent as a condition to receiving goods or services.

Third, the disclosures must be “clear and conspicuous”. There’s no real rocket science here, but this is a very important part of the rule. It’s challenging to enforce an agreement that’s hard for a consumer to find or see, meaning the consent disclosures can’t be hidden away, in imperceptible font, or baked into another legal document (such as terms and conditions).

Q: I have a great customer contact database, but I don’t think I check all the boxes for prior express written consent. Can I still text them with specials and promotions?

A: No. At least not with your usual automated or mass-texting platform. But with some legwork, you can leverage your existing database and obtain consent. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than taking the risk of texting in this situation.

Let’s start with the fact that people like to get deals and specials on cannabis products, so there will likely be interest across your customer base for signing up. And with the flexibility afforded by the E-SIGN Act, businesses can try multiple avenues in obtaining prior express written consent from existing customers. This could include a call-to-action campaign, where consumers can initiate a text message consent flow by texting a keyword to a short code. The TCPA does not regulate e-mails, so businesses can consider an e-mail campaign that encourages their customers to follow a link that takes them to a web-based consent form. For businesses with storefronts, customers can be encouraged to sign up for texts on-site by filling out and submitting a form on a tablet device. Bottom line, there’s room for some creativity in designing campaigns to enrich your existing customer database with the necessary consent to send marketing texts.

Q: What happens when a consumer opts out of receiving texts?

A: You should stop all texts to their phone number unless and until they opt back in to receiving texts. Under the TCPA, a consumer has the right to revoke their consent, and any text message sent after an opt-out will violate the TCPA. This means it’s important to have clear opt-out instructions in every message you send (i.e. text stop to stop), and to ensure you have the proper systems in place to automatically suppress any further texts to the consumer’s phone number following an opt out.

Q: If I don’t follow these rules, what are the odds of getting sued for a violation?

A: Pretty high in my opinion. As mentioned, the TCPA is a very lucrative statute for Plaintiff’s lawyers. There are several thousand TCPA cases filed in federal courts each year, and lately cannabis businesses are becoming an increasing share of the defendants named in those suits. Additionally, the TCPA has a four-year statute of limitations, meaning exposure for non-compliant practices has a really long tail. It’s far easier to develop and execute a compliance plan up front, than to take on the risk that comes without one.

Q: Is there anything else I can be doing to protect my business?

Absolutely. Your TCPA compliance policy should be one layer of a holistic approach to legal compliance. Businesses have other tools at their disposal, such as arbitration provisions and class action waivers, that they can build into their consent-gathering process to further protect themselves in the event of a legal dispute.

Q: Any other tips to help keep my business out of the TCPA fracas?

A: Yes. Lots. More than I could fit into just this one article. But my goal here was to get you to think in the right direction when it comes to the TCPA, if you aren’t already. While I tried to make the basics of this as straightforward as possible, there are plenty of grey areas and nuance when it comes to compliance (especially when you inject the real world into the situation). This is where having lawyer experienced in this arena can come in really handy to vet your disclosures, review your compliance processes, and help you implement other risk mitigation strategies.

TCPA claims have become the cost of doing business when contacting consumers on their cell phones. But by being proactive, businesses have ample opportunity to mitigate their risk, and protect themselves in the event the legality of their text message campaigns is challenged.

Why Does GDPR Matter for The Cannabis Industry?

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments

The global cannabis industry is hitting thorny regulatory challenges everywhere these days as the bar is raised for international commerce. First it was recognition that the entire production industry in Canada would basically have to retool to meet European (medical and food) standards. And that at least for now for the same reasons, American exports are basically a no go.

However, beyond this, the battle over financial reporting and other compliance of a fiscal kind has been a hot topic this year on European exchanges.

As of this summer, (and not unrelated to the other two seismic shifts) there is another giant in the room.

If you haven’t heard about it yet, welcome to the world of EU GDPR (European Union General Data Privacy Regulation).

The German version is actually Europe’s highest privacy standard, which means for the cannabis industry, this is the one that is required for operations here across the continent if you are in this business.

What is it, and what does it mean for the industry?

GDPR – The Elevator Pitch

Here is why you cannot ignore it. The regulation affects bankers as much as growers, distributors as much as producers and of course the entire ecosystem behind medical production and distribution across Europe and actually far beyond it. Starting of course, with patients but not limited to them. The law in essence, applies to “you” whoever you are in this space. That is why it becomes all that much more complicated in the current environment.

While this is complex and far reaching, however, there are a couple of ways to think about this regulation that can help you understand it and how to manage to it (if not innovate with it).

The first is, to American audiences at least, that GDPR is sort of like HIPAA, the federal American privacy civil rights statute that governs medical privacy law. Except, of course, this being Europe, it is far more robust and far reaching. It touches every aspect of electronic privacy including data storage, retention, processing and security that is applicable to modern life. And far, far, beyond just “patients.”

On the marketing side, GDPR is currently causing no end of headaches. Broadly, the legislation, which came into force this year, with real teeth (4% of global revenues if you get it wrong), applies to literally every aspect of the cannabis industry for two big reasons beyond that. Medical issues, which are the only game in town right now in Europe (and thus require all importers to also be in compliance) and financial regulatory requirements.

The requirements in Germany are more onerous than they are in the rest of Europe. Therefore, they also affect the cannabis industry in a big way, especially since there is at this point a great deal of European cultivation with the German (and now British) medical market in mind. Further Germany is becoming European HQ for quite a few of the Canadian LPs. That means German standards apply.

The UK, for those watching all Brexit events with interest, will also continue to be highly affected by this. Whether it stays in the EU or not, it must meet a certain “trusted nation” status to be able to transact with the continent in any kind of favoured nation status.

Bottom line? It is big and here and expensive if you screw it up. If considering doing any kind of business with European customers, start hitting the books now. Large mainstream media organizations in the United States and Canada right now are so afraid of the consequences of getting this wrong that they have blocked readership from Europe for the present. Large financial institutions also must not only be in compliance but compliance of companies also guides their investment mandates on the regulatory front.

For all of these reasons, the cannabis industry would do well to take note.

What Does This Mean for The Cannabis Industry?

The Canadian and rest of the global industry is still struggling with compliance and this will have some interesting repercussions going forward.patient data must be handled and stored differently

Immediately, this means that all websites that are targeted to German eyes (read Canadian LPs and international, even English-only press) should hire German side compliance experts for a quick GDPR audit. There are few European experts at this point, and even fewer foreign ones. It is worth a call around to find out who is doing this auf Deutschland and bite the bullet.

It also means that internally, patient data must be handled and stored differently. And furthermore, it is not just “patients” who have this right, but everyone who transacts with your electronic or other presence. That includes consumers, subscribers to email newsletters and other stakeholders in the industry.

As the cannabis industry also starts to embrace technology more fully, it will also have highly impactful influence on what actually passes for a compliant technology (particularly if it is customer facing) but not limited to the same.

On the marketing side, GDPR is currently causing no end of headaches. Starting with PR and customer outreach teams who are trying to figure out how much of their master mailing lists they can keep and which they cannot. On this front, Mail Chimp is undeniably the go-to right now and has also implanted easy to understand and use technology that is being adopted by European marketers and those targeting Europe.

Stay tuned for more coverage on GDPR as we cover how data protection and privacy regulations will impact cannabis businesses, their marketing and outreach, plus service design efforts (in particular to patients) and other areas of interest.