This follows the launch of their first CBD-infused beverage line sold in the United States, Quatreau. In the initial phase of the agreement, Southern Glazer’s will distribute the beverage line in seven states, with plans to expand that footprint considerably in the coming months.
Being a national distributor with a strong presence throughout the country, Southern Glazer’s will be moving Canopy’s beverage line in conventional retail stores. The press release seems to credit Canopy’s partnership with Constellation Brands as the catalyst for the new distribution deal. “The agreement also showcases the benefits of the company’s strategic relationship with Constellation Brands, the global beverage leader,” reads the release.
Back in 2018, Constellation Brands made a $4 billion bet on Canopy, but immediate profitability did not come to fruition. This new deal with Southern Glazer’s, as well as the launch of the Quatreau beverage line, seems to prove Constellation’s bet is beginning to pay off, or at least showing signs of a long term play for market share.
In a press release sent out this morning, a new coalition announced their launch to “end the prohibition, criminalization, and overregulation of cannabis in the United States.” The Cannabis Freedom Alliance (CFA) says their core values include federal descheduling, criminal justice reform, “reentry and successful second chances,” promoting entrepreneurship in free markets and reasonable tax rates.
Who’s Behind the CFA?
The organizations that founded the CFA are Americans for Prosperity (AFP), Mission Green/The Weldon Project, the Reason Foundation, and the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce (GACC). Take a look at that list and see if you recognize the names. AFP is a well-known conservative and libertarian political lobbying group founded and funded by the Koch brothers. The Reason Foundation, another Libertarian think-tank and an advocate for prison privatization, also listed the Koch brothers as some of their largest donors in disclosures filed in 2012.
The Koch family business, Koch industries, makes hundreds of billions of dollars a year in the oil and gas industry and has held massive political influence for decades. They regularly donate hundreds of millions of dollars to Republican campaigns. Historically, they’ve played a major role in opposing climate change legislation. They’re widely known as conservative advocates for lower corporate taxes, less social services and deregulation.
Interestingly enough, prominent criminal justice reform advocate Weldon Angelos and rapper Snoop Dogg appear to have joined forces with the Koch-backed group, CFA, following a Zoom meeting where Charles Koch told them he thinks all drugs should be legalized, according to Politico. “We can’t cut with one scissor blade. We need Republicans in order to pass [a legalization bill],” Angelos told Politico. The tie between cannabis legalization and traditional Republican and Libertarian values is obvious: their free market, personal liberties and small government ideology fits well within the legalization movement.
Big Oil, Alcohol and Tobacco, Oh My!
The Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education and Regulation (CPEAR) is a group that was founded in March 2021. Two of the founding members are Altria, the company that makes Marlboro cigarettes, and Molson Coors, a multinational alcohol company. The CPEAR website says that they want to work on responsible federal reform. “We represent a vast group of stakeholders — from public safety to social equity — focused on establishing a responsible and equitable federal regulatory framework for cannabis in the United States.”
Founding members of CPEAR also include: The Brink’s, a private security firm, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers and the Convenience Distribution Association. In other words, the group is made up of large and powerful corporate interest groups that represent the alcohol, tobacco, insurance and security industries.
Both NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) have spoken out against CPEAR. Erik Altieri, executive director of NORML, says it’s a matter of corporate interests coming in and working to change laws for their companies to capitalize on legalization. “We’ve seen how big corporate money and influence have corrupted and corroded many other industries,” says Altieri. “We can’t let the legal marijuana industry become their next payday.”
The DPA also released a statement opposing CPEAR. Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the DPA, says that she urges caution to elected officials in taking counsel from these corporate powers. “We have long been concerned about the entry of large commercial interests into the legal marijuana market,” says Frederique. “Big Alcohol and Tobacco have an abysmal track record of using predatory tactics to sell their products and build their brands – often targeting low-income communities of color and fighting public health regulations that would protect people.”
While their motives and desired outcomes remain unclear, it is apparent that we’re reaching a new age in the cannabis legalization movement, one where powerful corporations outside of the cannabis space want in. Whether its oil and gas, insurance, security, tobacco or alcohol, these groups are using their power and money to influence cannabis policy reform.
This piece is intended to provide some considerations that current and potential license holders should think about as they work with advisors to make entity selection decisions or consider potential tax elections. Please note that this article is a high-level overview and is not intended to declare the best type of entity structure for a license holding entity. Although there are numerous tax variables that should be contemplated, tax issues are not the only concerns relevant to determining entity type. In addition, some states may tax entities differently than how the entity is taxed for federal purposes.
First, let’s look at the legal entity types that may be set up to hold a license, operate a business and what that may mean for how an entity is taxed. Often, entities are set up as either limited liability companies or corporations.
If a limited liability company is organized and the entity is owned by only one owner, a single member LLC, the default tax treatment would be that the entity is disregarded for tax purposes. In other words, it would not file a separate federal income tax return, except in some states including CA, TX, TN and RI. All the tax consequences of the activities within the legal entity are reported on the tax return of the owner of the entity.
If a limited liability company is set up and the entity is owned by more than one owner, a multiple member LLC, the default tax treatment would be that the entity is taxed as a partnership. An entity taxed as a partnership reflects the tax consequences of the activities within the legal entity on a partnership return. The partnership generally does not pay tax on the activity, but rather the taxable income and loss are passed through to the owners of the LLC. The owners of the LLC reflect the taxable income or loss on their tax return and are responsible for paying any resulting tax. In the rare instance of an entity being audited, there is a possibility that the entity may have to pay tax on the partners behalf, depending on the ownership structure. Either a single member LLC or a multiple member LLC may elect to treat the LLC as a C-corporation or an S-corporation for tax purposes.
The Taxation of C-Corporations & S-Corporations
The default treatment for an entity set-up as a corporation is the entity will be taxed as a C-corporation. An entity taxed as a C-corporation, including an LLC electing to be taxed as a C-corporation, pays the tax on any taxable income generated by activities within the entity. Additionally, any distributions of earnings from the C-corporation to the owners of the entity are generally considered dividends which are required to be reported as taxable income by the owners when received. In other words, the earnings of an entity taxed as a C-corporation are potentially taxed twice. Once, as they are earned within the entity, and then again upon distribution to the owners of the entity.
An entity set-up as a corporation, a single member LLC or a multiple member LLC may elect to be treated as an S-corporation. Like an entity taxed as a partnership, an S-corporation does not pay tax at the entity level, but rather passes the taxable income and loss through to the owner or owners. Additionally, like a partnership, distributions from an S-corporation are not taxable as dividends to the owner when received.
Since we covered how different entities are taxed based on how they are set-up, and what elections they may or may not make, we will explore some of the issues that should be considered when making an entity selection. We will also address potentially electing to treat an entity one way or another for tax purposes.
Advantages: The advantages of an S-corporation are limited to the avoidance of double taxation associated with C-corporations, as well as some potential benefits of lower Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Disadvantages: The primary disadvantage of an S-corporation for a license holding company is any non-deductible expenses resulting from 280E are passed through to the owner(s), which then reduces the ownership’s tax basis in its investment in the entity. A reduction in tax basis is determinantal to owners of an entity because the basis is used to reduce taxable income when/if the owner liquidates ownership in the entity.
Other disadvantages of S-corporations include but are not limited to restrictions on ownership of the entity, a requirement for reasonable compensation paid to owners and a lack of flexibility in the allocations of earnings among owners.
Advantages: The advantages of a partnership include but are not limited to the avoidance of double taxation associated with C-corporations, flexibility in the allocation of earnings and losses among owners, and flexibility in the type of owners of the entity.
Disadvantages: Like S-corporations, the primary disadvantage of a partnership is any non-deductible expenses resulting from 280E are passed through to the owner(s).
Other disadvantages of partnerships include potential self-employment taxes on earnings allocated to active owners, potential complexity in the allocations of taxable income and losses among partners in entities with many owners or different classes of ownership.
Advantages: In contrast to S-corporations and partnerships, the tax basis resulting from the ownership’s investment in the entity is not subject to reductions from non-deductible expenses being passed through to owners. This protection of tax basis is particularly important to owners of license holding entities.
An additional advantage of C-corporation tax treatment may be a lower tax rate applied to taxable income.
Disadvantages: The most significant disadvantage of C-corporation tax treatment is the potential double taxation of earnings that might be applicable if the entity does have earnings that are distributed.
In addition to the items address above, the advantages and disadvantages of the entity type and related tax elections, additional considerations include:
How much of the 280E nondeductible expenses will the taxpayer be subject to?
How much earnings will the entity be distributing to the owners?
How complex is the entity’s ownership?
The lack of certainty regarding whether or not the qualified business income deduction (QBID) enjoyed by pass-through entity owners is allowable as a deduction by owners receiving pass-through income from an entity subject to 280E.
Are there plans for selling the entity and if so, what is the time horizon for doing so?
At Bridge West, we advise taxpayers to consult with cannabis advisors who have experience in the industry, can help navigate the complexities of tax compliance and Code Section 280E and are experienced with entity structures.
Information economics has existed for decades and drives much of how products, including cannabis, are marketed and purchased. One of the essential frameworks that guides information economics are the search, experience, and credence properties of a product (Patterson, 2017). Understanding these different product attributes is key to setting up a sustaining cannabis product, corporation, and industry.
The search attribute of a product is largely what we see prior to the purchase of a product. Images, claims, and packaging may all contribute to the search attribute of a product. You’ve got a good-looking, flower, pre-roll or edible, and it shows well on your insta page. Information is seemingly symmetrical between agency and consumer, what you see is what you get. In the developing cannabis industry, firms are investing a tremendous amount of resources into search attributes.
What is the effect of the product? There are two aspects of the experience attribute in information economics. Testimonials may be also considered experience attributes, as they give a user knowledge of how a product tastes, how long it takes to kick in, how long it lasts and descriptions of how others perceived the product’s deliverables. Despite testimonial power, experience is largely personal and occurs only after the product is consumed. Information is seemingly symmetrical; you get the experience that the agency planned and you anticipated. Advances in genetics, homogeneous production methods and potency testing demonstrate that the cannabis industry is investing in experience attributes.
A level playing field where transparency is at the forefront of all transactions will help solidify trust and drive sustainable growth. So, your product looks good, tastes good, and has very positive reviews. Customers can’t get enough; they are voting with their wallets for your product. But there is a third part of information economics you may be missing.
Credence attributes rely on information asymmetry. Think of used cars as a textbook example: sellers of used cars rely on asymmetry to motivate purchases. Highway miles, adult driven, oil changes every 3,000 miles, etc. are claims that can only be verified by the seller, the buyer has no way of knowing if these are true or not. Credence attributes can’t be verified by the seller due to lack of knowledge or expertise (Ford et al, 1988). The same goes for a consumable good like cannabis, only the grower or manufacturer knows what occurred in the “back of the house.” Product safety, therefore, is a credence attribute of cannabis products.
Investing in credence attributes in a young market may seem cost prohibitive. Many in the cannabis industry simply want to follow whatever the state they operate in dictates as the minimum allowable. In hemp we see states that require QR codes on each product that link to a COA, but many do not. Does the cost to produce the COA and QR code make a product more eye-catching or enhance the experiences? No, but those producing it may pay a hefty price if and when the product makes someone sick.
If a firm relies on fragmented, disparate regulatory bodies to dictate their investments in product safety, they will eventually face credence issues. Is smokable flower grown in Texas safer than that grown in Maine? We don’t have data to support either regulation’s effectiveness, so a firm or industry must dictate what the standard is and stick to it.
We need only look at the leafy green industry to see an example of a product that did not break any regulatory guidelines yet continued to sell a good with very negative credence attributes. How long were folks getting sick from leafy greens prior to them identifying the source? No one knows and that is what makes credence attributes so hard to pin down and develop an ROI formula for. Inputs that yield not-sick people aren’t known until someone gets sick. For leafy greens, they had an advantage – years of studies showing that they were good for you. Cannabis, unfortunately, doesn’t have that leg to stand on and faces an uphill battle gaining public trust.
As soccer moms (and dads) across the nation start to work cannabis into their play date wine sessions, the industry must ensure that they are investing in all avenues of information economics. A level playing field where transparency is at the forefront of all transactions will help solidify trust and drive sustainable growth.
Patterson, M. (2017). The economics of information. In Antitrust Law in the New Economy (pp. 39-60). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved February 7, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc2rkm6.6
Ford, G., Smith, D., and Swasy, J. (1988), An Empirical Test of the Search, Experience and Credence Attributes Framework, in NA – Advances in Consumer Research Volume 15, eds. Micheal J. Houston, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 239-244.
Constellation Brands, the beer brewer behind Corona and Modelo, has finally admitted the obvious. Its four-billion-dollar bet on the Canadian cannabis company Canopy Growth in 2018 was a long-term play for market share, not immediate profitability. Indeed, Canopy has yet to turn a profit and its shares are down 30% from this time last year. So far Constellation has lost $71.1 million of its investment in the cannabis industry company leader. That is 19.25% of its total investment in 18 months. In other words, hardly insignificant.
That said, Canopy is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “down for the count.” If their overexpansion plans and statements over the last three years have been, at best, optimistic, they have not done anything broadly different than any of their other major competitors (see Aurora for example). And have still emerged, financial bloodbath although it has been so far, four years after entering the European market at least, with global presence that is not going anywhere. Even if in some markets overall sales are lower than hoped or anticipated.
At least two quarters of real reorganization and reshuffling in every office on every continent the country does business in have at least resulted in a major victory in Luxembourg at least that will bear fruit for years to come. That is a strategic victory worth a few dings along the way.
Starting, almost certainly, in 2021, when changing laws in Europe will also allow the company to bring together its background and reach in the spirits industry to a world that is finally opening to the blending of the cannabis world into the same.
This year, in other words, will almost certainly see the company continue to service its existing steady business in multiple countries – however unfancy that may be. And it is decidedly not glam here. In places like Germany the company is essentially only holding onto market share in the medical market by its purchase of the largest dronabinol maker in the country.
That said, beggars cannot be choosers. Aurora in contrast, is looking at a serious review of its cultivation licenses and practices. In the meantime, Canopy snagged a lucrative contract for a strategic, central country in the European debate – Luxembourg – that no matter how small, that will create at least a trickle of medical sales until the country changes its laws.
One of the things that the Canadian cannabis industry has in spades, and this is absolutely true of Canopy, is accurate business acumen about market entry timing and overall strategy.
No matter how much cannabis industry execs, in other words, have only been positive and upbeat before, this statement by Constellation also signals a change in the way Canopy presents itself externally.
Mistakes have been made. It is time to clean house and move on.
What other new industry in the lifetimes of those alive today, continues to admit its mistakes and pivots less than a decade after its global birth in continual pivot and expansion mode? The only other one that comes close is of course the internet. And these days, more specifically, Internet 2.0.
So, as the world says hello to 2020, Canopy seems to be sending its new year message. Trimming the sails after a wild, wild year, and setting course again, for a greener horizon.
As Europe swooned under record-breaking heat this summer, the cannabis industry also found itself in a rather existential hot seat.
The complete meltdown at CannTrust has yet to reach a conclusion. Yes, a few jobs have been lost. However, a greater question is in the room as criminal investigatory and financial regulatory agencies on both sides of the US-Canada border (plus in Europe) are getting involved.
As events have shown, there is a great, big, green elephant in the room that is now commanding attention. Beyond CannTrust, how widespread were these problematic practices? And who so far has watched, participated, if not profited, and so far, said nothing?
Who, What, Where?
The first name in the room? Canopy Growth.
Why the immediate association? Bruce Linton, according to news reports, was fired as CEO by his board the same day, July 3, 2019, that CannTrust received its first cease and desist notice from Health Canada.
Further, there is a remarkable similarity in not only problematic practices, but timing between the two companies. This may also indicate that Canopy’s board believed that Linton’s behaviour was uncomfortably close to executive misdeeds at CannTrust. Not to mention, this was not the first scandal that Linton had been anywhere close to around acquisition time. See the Mettrum pesticide debacle, that also broke right around the time Canopy purchased the company in late 2016 as well as the purchase of MedCann GmbH in Germany.
Reorg also appears to be underway in Europe as well. As of August, Paul Steckler has been brought in as “Managing Director Europe” and is now based in Frankfurt. Given the company’s history of “co-ceo’ing” Linton out the door, is more change to come?
Video showing dead plants at Canopy’s BC facility surfaced. Worse, according to the chatter online at least, this was the second “crop failure” at the facility in British Columbia. Even more apparently damning? This all occurred during the same time period that the second round of lawsuits against the reconstituted German cultivation bid surfaced.
Canopy in turn issued a statement that this destruction was not caused by company incompetence but rather a delay in licensing procedures from Health Canada. Despite lingering questions of course, about why a company would even start cultivation in an unlicensed space, not once but apparently twice. And further, what was the real impact of the destruction on the company’s bottom line?
Seen within the context of other events, it certainly poses an interesting question, particularly, in hindsight.
Canopy, which made the finals in the first German cultivation bid, was dropped in the second round – and further, apparently right as the news hit about the BC facility. Further, no matter the real reason behind the same, Canopy clearly had an issue with accounting for crops right as Canadian recreational reform was coming online and right as the second German cultivation bid was delayed by further legal action last fall.
Has Nobody Seen This Coming?
In this case, the answer is that many people have seen the writing on the wall for some time. At least in Germany, the response in general has been caution. To put this in true international perspective, these events occurred against a backdrop of the first increase in product over the border with Holland via a first-of-its kind agreement between the German health ministry and Dutch authorities. Followed just before the CannTrust scandal hit, with the announcement that the amount would be raised a second time.
German health authorities, at least, seem doubtful that Canadian companies can provide enough regulated product. Even by import. The Deutsche Börse has put the entire public Canadian and American cannabis sector under special watch since last summer.
By the turn of 2019, Canopy had announced its expansion into the UK (after entering the Danish market itself early last year) and New York state.
Yet less than two weeks later, Canopy announced not new cultivation facilities in Europe, but plans to buy Bionorica, the established German manufacturer of dronabinol – the widely despised (at least by those who have only this option) synthetic that is in fact, prescribed to two thirds of Germany’s roughly 50,000 cannabis patients.
By August 2019, right after the Canopy Acreage deal was approved by shareholders, Canopy announced it had lost just over $1 billion in the last three months.
Or, to put this in perspective, 20% of the total investment from Constellation about one year ago.
What Happened At CannTrust And How Do Events Line Up?
The current scandal is not the first at CannTrust either. In November 2017, CannTrust was warned by Health Canada for changing its process for creating cannabis oil without submitting the required paperwork. By March of last year however, the company was able to successfully list on the Toronto stock exchange.
Peter Aceto arrived at CannTrust as the new CEO on October 1 last year along with new board member John Kaken at the end of the month. Several days later the company also announced that it too, like other major cannabis companies including Canopy, was talking to “beverage companies.” It was around this time that illegal growing at CannTrust apparently commenced. Six weeks later, the company announces its intent to also list on the NYSE. Two days later, both the CEO and chair of the board were notified of the grow and chose not to stop it.
Apparently, their decision was even unchanged after the video and resulting online outrage about the same over the destroyed crops at the Canopy facility in BC surfaced online.
On May 10, just over a week after the Bioronica purchase in Germany, the first inklings of a scandal began to hit CannTrust in Canada. A whisteblower inside the company quit after sending a mass email to all employees about his concerns. Four days later, the company announced the successful completion of their next round of financing, and further that they had raised 25.5 million more than they hoped.
Six weeks later, on June 14, Health Canada received its warning about discrepancies at CannTrust. The question is, why did it take so long?
Where Does This Get Interesting?
The strange thing about the comparisons between CannTrust and Canopy, beyond similarities of specific events and failings, is of course their timing. That also seems to have been apparent at least to board members at Canopy – if not a cause for alarm amongst shareholders themselves. One week after Health Canada received its complaint about CannTrust, shareholders voted to approve the Canopy-Acreage merger, on June 21.
Yet eight days after that, as Health Canada issued an order to cease distribution to CannTrust, the Canopy board fired Bruce Linton.
One week after that, the Danish recipient of CannTrust’s product, also announced that they were halting distribution in Europe. By the end of August, Danish authorities were raising alarms about yet another problem – namely that they do not trust CannTrust’s assurances about delivery of pesticide-free product.
Is this coincidence or something else?
If like Danish authorities did in late August 2019, calling for a systematic overhaul of their own budding cannabis ecosystem (where both Canadian companies operate), the patterns and similarities here may prove more than that. Sit tight for at least a fall of more questions, if not investigations.
Beyond one giant cannabis conspiracy theory, in other words, the problems, behaviour and response of top executives at some of the largest companies in the business appear to be generating widespread calls – from not only regulators, but from whistle blowers and management from within the industry itself – for some serious, regulatory and even internal company overhauls. Internationally.
And further on a fairly existential basis.
EDITOR’S NOTE: CIJ reached out to Canopy Growth’s European HQ for comment by email. None was returned.
Correction: This article has been updated to show that the Danish recipient of Canntrust’s product announced they were halting distribution one week after Bruce Linton’s firing, not one day.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.