Tag Archives: fees

March 15, 2023

Adult Use Cannabis Begins in Compassionate Connecticut

By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright

On January 10, 2023, Connecticut joined those states in our union that have opened their doors to adult use cannabis sales. Seven dispensaries stepped through those doors and by January 31, Connecticut had recorded $5.1 million in adult use sales, plus an additional $8.2 million in medical sales for a total of $13.3 million.

Like other states now embracing adult use, Connecticut has enacted a strong social equity program, with mixed results so far. Also, perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has committed to protecting its existing medical cannabis patients and has put in place various mechanisms to guard their access to cannabis.

Slow Roll-Out of Retail Cannabis Licenses

Like other recently-legal states, Connecticut’s rollout of its retail licenses has not been rapid. The state’s initial goal has been to issue twelve retail licenses by lottery, with six reserved for social equity applicants. Also, the eighteen already-operating medical licensees were given the option to upgrade to a hybrid medical-adult use license, a process separate from the lottery.

Governor Lamont at a press conference on January 9, discussing the social equity focus

As of the end of February 2023, there appear to be only twelve current (approved to do business) retail licenses, with eleven of those twelve belonging to medical-adult use hybrids. The majority of the 39 retail licenses listed on the state website are still in the provisional phase, which allows them to “work toward securing a final license.”

Connecticut Social Equity

Connecticut has committed to a robust social equity program and provided an early application opportunity for social equity applicants ahead of non-social equity applicants. In addition, the Nutmeg State has reduced fees for adult-use licenses by 50% for Equity Joint Venture applications, which is where investors agree to partner with a social equity applicant. Further, the state has eliminated 43,754 low-level cannabis convictions.

Connecticut’s social equity requirements are less rigorous than those of neighboring New York and New Jersey, which may provide additional entry opportunities for both in-state and out-of-state entrepreneurs. Connecticut defines a social equity applicant as requiring that at least 65% of a business be owned by an individual with less than 300% of the state median household income in the past three tax years. Since the median household income was $79,855, that individual would need to have earned less than $239,565 annually.

Subversion of the Lottery Process

The lottery for the six initial social equity licenses was held in May 2022 followed by the lottery for the initial six general licenses, which took place in September 2022. Both were administered by a professor and department head at the UConn School of Pharmacy (the state law stipulated the lottery operator must be part “of the state system of higher education”).

15,605 applications were received for both lotteries. Unfortunately, many of the winning applicants flooded the lottery system with hundreds of applications, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. One example, SLAP ASH LLC, accounted for 850 of the 8,360 applications submitted to the social equity lottery, winning 2 provisional retail licenses. Another company, Jananii LLC, spent over $200,000 to submit 807 entries, receiving one provisional retail license. “There were individuals applying for licenses who submitted 50 applications or more to enter the lottery,” said House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford. “That wasn’t our intent.” Rojas and others are looking at other options for the next lottery to try and combat the problem.

Protecting Medical Cannabis Patients

Perhaps what makes Connecticut’s adult use cannabis program most unique is its outsized commitment to protecting medical patients’ continued access to cannabis. Concerned that adult use sales wouldn’t leave enough supply for patients, the state mandated a cap of ¼ ounce of cannabis for all adult use purchases. Lieutenant Governor Susan Bysiewicz commented that this action emphasized the importance of “not losing sight of a very robust medical program.”

Lt. Gov. Bysiewicz speaks to an audience on the day adult sales became legal, outside of the ZenLeaf Meriden dispensary.

With the recent strong sales of adult use cannabis, however, patients have expressed concern about access, and now the Nutmeg State is considering further action. A bill is being considered in the state legislature which would create a state cannabis ombudsman. This individual would act as a liaison between patients and the state and would, in effect, be there to put pressure on the four licensed growers. These cultivators are required to submit a medical cannabis preservation plan to “ensure against supply shortages of medical marijuana products” and are in many ways responsible for continued patient access to cannabis.

Licensing Fees

Connecticut lottery winners’ license fees will vary from $1,000 for a micro, to $25,000 for a retail, to $75,000 for a cultivator, subject to a 50% reduction if the applicant is deemed social equity. However, once the field is open to regular applicants, the fees will become sizeable.

Retail license fees will be $1 million and cultivation license fees will be $3 million, and even with a 50% reduction for an Equity Joint Venture application, the investment will be significant. The $1 million fee also applies to any existing medical dispensary that wishes to convert to a hybrid license without going through the lottery process. The four existing cultivation companies that wish to service the adult use market and avoid a lottery process will have to pay the $3 million as well.

Tax Issues

Connecticut cannabis-businesses are obligated to pay a sales tax of 6.35%, a gross receipts tax of 3% and a privilege tax of $0.00625-$0.0275 per mg of THC, depending on the item. Other than New York, Connecticut is the only state to have a tax based on the potency of the cannabis product.

Federal Tax Subject to Section 280E

On the federal level, cannabis businesses are subject to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which disallows deductions and credits for expenditures connected with trafficking in controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, schedule 1 or 2. As cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, cannabis companies are only permitted to reduce their sales by cost of goods sold when determining their taxable income. By example, a cannabis dispensary would only be allowed to deduct the cost of the product purchased and the cost to transport the product to the dispensary, while disallowing such significant expenses as rent and payroll. All cannabis businesses must forgo expense deductions related to selling, general and administrative expenses, as they are disallowed under the tax code.

While some states like California have not conformed to 280E and allow their cannabis businesses the same deductions as other businesses, Connecticut is not one of those states. Personal income tax starts with Federal Adjusted Gross Income while corporate income tax starts with Federal taxable income as reported on line 28. There are no provisions that say Section 280E does not apply. This will mean a significantly heavier state tax burden for cannabis businesses.

Labor and Employment Issues

Cannabis is expected to fuel significant employment growth in Connecticut, and experts project more than 11,000 cannabis jobs will be added once the market reaches full capacity. These jobs are expected to include full time and temporary positions in all cannabis verticals: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, retail, marketing, testing, finance, accounting, legal, compliance and C-suite.

As part of its social equity program, the state has made it clear it would like to see cannabis businesses employ individuals from those communities that have been disadvantaged by the war on cannabis. Connecticut has also made it a requirement that every approved licensee enter into a “labor peace agreement” with a labor union, and that such an agreement shall be an “ongoing material condition of licensure.”

The state is focused on maintaining quality control on all aspects of its adult use cannabis businesses, including the people involved. Licenses are needed for all cannabis employees along with a special license for key employees in managerial positions. Additionally, financiers must be licensed, with a Backer license required for individuals with direct or indirect financial interests in a cannabis establishment totaling 5% or more.

Connecticut cannabis employees must be pre-trained through the state’s Social Equity Council. The state also requires that each license recipient have a workforce development plan approved by the Council “to reinvest or provide employment and training opportunities for individuals in disproportionately impacted areas.”

In Summary

No adult cannabis state has come close to having a smooth opening for it adult use sales program, and Connecticut is no exception. With well-funded groups gaming the license lotteries and medical patients concerned about their continued access to cannabis, the Nutmeg State has its work cut out for it. But with its strong commitment to social equity and its outsized commitment to protecting its medical cannabis patients, Connecticut can serve as a role model for compassionate cannabis capitalism. 2023 will reveal how the state rises to its challenges and matures its cannabis marketplace.

December 18, 2018

Product Labeling Law: A Primer and a Warning for California Cannabis Executives

By Jonathan C. Sandler

No Comments

What do you get when you combine a Schedule 1 federally controlled substance with a plethora of food, beverage and cosmetic entrepreneurs marketing new products to inexperienced users and then place that combustible combination into California’s plaintiff-friendly legal environment?

A lot of rich plaintiffs’ attorneys.

California continues to be a favored plaintiffs’ lawyers’ venue for filing consumer-related lawsuits against food and cosmetic companies. These lawsuits result in tens of millions in settlements each year and hundreds of millions in judgments. Staying current on statutes and trends is critical to doing business in California and cannabis companies are no exception.

While the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has provided very little guidance on how cannabis products should be labeled, a lack of specific regulations does not mean that there are no applicable labeling requirements for cannabis. This is particularly true in states like California that have a multitude of statutes designed to protect consumers from false or misleading advertising and labeling. Below includes a brief list to help guide companies’ labelling processes:

Look to available guidance for the relevant industries. For example, food labeling of cannabis products still requires compliance with other nutritional labeling statutes. The same goes for supplements and cosmetics. The Fair Packaging and Label Act (“FPLA”) regulates labeling of all “consumer commodities” as to net contents, product identity, and manufacturer’s, packer’s or distributor’s name and location.
Consider the intended use of the product as well as the directions. For example, is the product meant to be consumed all at once or should it be consumed over a period of time? Depending upon the product, this question can affect whether compliance with the FDA dietary supplements guidance is required or whether the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act applies.
Consider your supply chains. This can be one of the most difficult aspects for cannabis companies that are looking to expand, but need more supply. However, keeping track of ingredients is a critical aspect to being able to defend against lawsuits. In the past, cannabis companies have been sued because they have expanded their suppliers without assuring consistency in the products and then combining inconsistent ingredients into one common product that is now mislabeled. While the Bureau of Cannabis Control testing requirements should help with some of the cannabis information, all ingredients need to be tracked and the final products tested.
Cannabis companies must label their products with applicable state laws. For example, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”)is being used by the plaintiffs’ bar as a basis to sue cannabis companies.
- Prop. 65 is a statewide initiative that regulates companies that make or sell their products in California in two ways: (1) it requires companies whose products contain certain levels of chemicals to provide clear and reasonable warnings. Prop. 65 does not ban or restrict the sale of chemicals on the list or their inclusion in products, but it requires warnings if the listed chemicals are included; and (2) It prevents companies from discharging these chemicals into the state’s water supply.
- All companies doing business in California and all products manufactured or sold in California are subject to Prop. 65 with three exceptions: (1) the company has fewer than 10 employees, (2) government agencies, or (3) the products contain less than a threshold amount of the chemicals.
- Penalties for violations can be staggering. Prop. 65 is enforced both by the California Attorney General and private lawsuits on behalf of the California Attorney General. The potential penalties for violations of Prop. 65 include a fine of up to $2,500 per day. Additionally, one of the largest drivers of litigation is that the private enforcers (plaintiffs’ bar) can recover their attorneys’ fees. The total amount paid in settlements in 2017 was over $25 million and of the more than $18 million in judgments, $13 million was attributed to attorneys’ fees.
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) is another California statute that is intended to protect consumers from false advertising and other unfair business practices. The CLRA allows consumers to bring individual or California class action lawsuits to recover damages and enjoin the prohibited practices. The statute also allows a prevailing consumer to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Cannabis companies need to be mindful of their representations related to their products. California courts are filled with cases involving terms like “natural” or “healthy” or “high performing.”

Product labeling, mottos and advertisements may seem straightforward, but they form the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed every year throughout the country, and especially in California. At this stage of trying to get one’s product out the door and to the consumer, it is tempting to move quickly. However, the importance of sound research, strategy and consulting an experienced team to ensure compliance and avoid costly mistakes is critical.

November 2, 2016

Exploring Opportunities in Emerging Markets

By Aaron G. Biros

No Comments

This November 8^th, voters in five states will head to the polls to decide on legalizing recreational cannabis and another three states have ballot initiatives that would legalize medical cannabis. If any of those five states pass a measure for recreational legalization, including Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Arizona and California, (which are all leading in the polls) they could potentially create massive new market opportunities for cannabis brands that have their eye on expansion.

Nancy Whiteman, co-owner of Wana Brands and chair of the Cannabis Business Alliance Infused Product Committee, sees great potential in capitalizing on those markets early. Whiteman has been working with Wana Brands since 2010 in Colorado, starting out in the young medical market there.

Nancy Whiteman holding a batch of cannabis gummies

After expanding to the recreational market, Wana Brands saw its sales skyrocket. From January to August 2016, Wana had the best-selling candy brand in Colorado with 21% dollar share, according to BDS Analytics. Wana Brands has already expanded to Oregon and will launch in Nevada on November 15^th, with agreements signed to expand in other states as well. “The model we are pursuing is a licensing agreement where we partner with existing or new license holders in their state,” says Whiteman. “In many ways they are doing the heavy lifting, but we are providing an enormous lift by licensing our intellectual property to them.” That model for growth is becoming increasingly common in some of the more established brands, like Steep Hill Laboratories, GFarma Labs, Dixie and others. Whiteman says that Wana Brands also has a partner in Illinois, Massachusetts and a number of other states they hope to reach.

Mark Slaugh, CEO of iComply

According to Mark Slaugh, executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance and chief executive officer of iComply, a compliance services provider, brands from Colorado expanding to other states need to ask themselves if their reputation is on the line with these new operators. “If you are licensing to companies that are not compliant, the penalties could be huge and they vary state to state- that could potentially hurt the overall brand image nationally,” says Slaugh. “People doing the licensing that are operating with full compliance really need to look at controlling that risk and mitigating that as much as possible.” With brand trust on the line, there are substantial risks that come with expansion. “We help clients ensure quality is consistent so, for example, an edible product would taste the same in Colorado as it would in Nevada or Arizona. They need to follow the intellectual property consistently but more importantly follow those specific regulations in that state to stay afloat.” Managing ongoing compliance in different states requires monitoring regulatory updates across multiple markets, which can get incredibly complex.

Processing SOPs vary widely stae to state

“Six years ago, it was much easier to get into the market in Colorado,” says Whiteman. “There were no capital requirements, no limits on the number of licenses, but there was still a lengthy application and vetting process- as long as you met those minimum requirements you could get a license.” Other new states put stringent limits on the number of licenses granted and some have extraordinarily cost-prohibitive capital requirements, up to a million dollars, as is the case for New York. “Anyone who becomes a license holder in Massachusetts has to be prepared to embark on three separate business models, which is a massive undertaking,” says Whiteman. Massachusetts requires license holders to cultivate, process and dispense in a vertically integrated model.

In other states, Wana Brands is working with exclusive partners who will have the capabilities to manufacture and distribute throughout the entire state, but in Massachusetts that won’t be the case. “To cover the state, we need several partnerships; the partner we are working with is a little south of Boston,” says Whiteman. But all that could change if voters in Massachusetts legalize it recreationally, opening a much larger market than the current medical program. “With no legislation drafted yet, the regulatory environment is still up in the air in Massachusetts so there is no way of telling what the recreational market will look like.” In terms of ongoing regulatory compliance, Whiteman believes that Colorado still has some of the most stringent rules. The universal symbol printed on every individual edible product serving is one example. “Every state has different lab testing and licensing requirements, but Colorado looks like the most stringent currently,” says Whiteman. “Colorado requires a full gamut of lab testing including homogeneity, potency, residual solvents, contaminants and soon pesticides too.” According to Mark Slaugh, Nevada’s lab testing regulations are fundamentally different from Colorado’s with regard to sampling procedures, but the broader inconsistencies in lab standards need to be addressed. “The lack of laboratory standardization state to state with regard to methods creates a big challenge to get consistent, proficient lab testing across the board,” says Slaugh.

Wana’s edibles come stamped with the universal symbol (THC!) in Colorado, as required by law.

A big differentiator between Colorado and other states is that it was a first mover. “When Colorado came online there were not any established brands to speak of anywhere in the country- we were all pioneers,” says Whiteman. “Because it is so difficult to get a license in another state, either the organization or investor groups are looking to partner with established brands.” The advantages to this business model are many. Expediting your entry to market gets you the advantage of being a first mover. Working with an established brand also minimizes risks and the learning curve. “Bigger players understand that building a brand from scratch is time consuming and expensive so I think we will see a lot of these partnerships.”

As those new states come online, similarities in their regulations might appear in the form of standard operating procedures (SOPs) or good manufacturing practices (GMPs). “We might start to see a standardization from state to state that models FDA GMPs or USDA GAPs, [good agricultural practices] moving toward a framework that is more consistent with the possibility of federal regulation,” says Slaugh. Another commonality among a number of states is the implementation of a statewide tracking system. According to Slaugh, California has no such mandated system in place yet. “They will probably have one eventually but the market is so localized there- we will see if California will be ready with a statewide compliance system for tracking by 2018,” says Slaugh. “With such a weird patchwork of local governments allowing or not allowing certain operations to exist, it is a tough business to be in and it’s getting tougher every day.”