Tag Archives: financial

Making the Cannabis Industry SAFER for America

By Melissa Kuipers Blake, Osiris Morel
No Comments

After nearly a decade of conversation and education on the Hill, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee finally held a markup on the Secure and Fair Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act. Previously known as the SAFE Banking Act, the “R” was included to account for Sen. Jack Reed’s (D-RI) concerns with Section 10. The senator shared his concerns publicly on May 11 during the “Examining Cannabis Banking Challenges of Small Businesses and Workers” hearing. Sen. Reed said that Section 10’s language “would make it more difficult for federal regulators to raise the alarm about relationships with any customer that presents significant risks to the bank” and shared that such a provision is “not limited to the marijuana industry or the cannabis industry,” but that it “could allow pyramid schemes or all sorts of other interesting activity to go on without an effective response by the regulator.” Since then, he and a group of bipartisan members, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), have worked endlessly to develop language to resolve such concerns while maintaining GOP support, leading to the SAFER Banking Act.

Number of Depository Institutions Actively Banking
Cannabis-Related Businesses in the United States
(Reported in SARS)

The difference between the SAFE Banking Act and the SAFER Banking Act can mainly be found in Section 10. Changes focus on and determines:

  • How regulators terminate bank accounts;
  • How the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) develops guidance for financial institutions serving state-licensed cannabis businesses;
  • How income derived from state-legal cannabis business activity is managed;
  • That personal and political beliefs cannot impact a financial regulator’s decision making;
  • That federal banking regulators and state banking supervisors and their secretaries of Commerce and Treasury would create rules to increase access to deposit accounts and how such individuals would enhance customer relationships with rural, low- and moderate-income, unbanked and tribal communities; and
  • How the FDIC would conduct a biennial survey and report on barriers for small- and medium-sized businesses.

During the markup on Wednesday, members introduced and discussed a range of amendments related to criminal justice reform, the racial wealth gap, federal regulators and their processes, rescheduling and the opioid epidemic. In total, there were six amendments, one by Chairman Brown, as well as Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and two by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). Sen. Brown’s amendment, which would make technical changes to the bill, was the only amendment to prevail on a 17-6 vote.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (center), Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (right) and Senator Cory Booker (left)

To begin the markup, Chair Brown said that propelling this legislation is a critical step in reversing the damage done by the war on drugs and clarified that the SAFER Banking Act would create a better financial system for small and medium-sized cannabis businesses that lack access to such traditional banking services. Sen. Daines, who served as the committee ranking member in place of Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who was in California preparing for the Republican presidential debate, shared that although he opposes legalization or decriminalization, he agreed to sponsor and support the SAFER Banking Act because it would fix the current banking system for cannabis businesses nationwide. After hearing remarks from Sens. Lummis, Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sinema, the committee voted on the bill, and approved its passage to the Senate floor on a 14-9 vote. Senators voting in favor of the bill were Brown, Tester, Warren, Reed, Menendez (by proxy), Smith (by proxy), Warner, Fetterman, Cortez-Masto, Sinema, Van Hollen, Lummis, Cramer and Daines, and voting against the measure were Sens. Warnock, Scott (by proxy), Crapo, Tillis, Kennedy, Haggerty, Vance and Britt.

After the vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) thanked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Republican Sen. Cory Gardner (CO) for their early efforts and for bringing the legislation and issue to the chamber’s attention and concluded that he hopes to have a robust discussion with the full Senate chamber.

With the bill out of committee, it heads to the Senate floor for additional input, discussion and potentially a vote. Majority Leader Schumer has said he intends to bring the SAFER Banking Act to the floor “with all due speed” and noted that he is committed to attaching Rep. Dave Joyce’s (R-OH) Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act and Rep. Brian Mast’s (R-FL) Gun Rights and Marijuana (GRAM) Act to the final legislation. Sen. Schumer also shared that such provisions would address the war on drugs, bolster social equity and criminal justice reform and protect Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients.

When the SAFER Banking Act will receive floor time remains unclear, but Leader Schumer has made numerous representations that he would like to see it done this year.

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.

Desperate California Cannabis Vendors Seek Credit Protection

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes
No Comments

Cannabis companies representing 45% of California’s cannabis sales are pushing a bill that will crack down on non-paying customers. Well known operators, including Kiva, Lowell Farms, Nabis and Sunderstorm, recently formed Financial Stability for California Cannabis (FSCC) and moved to support Assembly Bill 766.”

The bill, nicknamed “The Cannabis Credit Protection Act,” would require a cannabis licensee to pay for goods and services sold or transferred by another licensee no later than 15 days following the final date set forth in the invoice. If full payment is not received by that date, the seller would be required to report this to the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), which in turn would notify the delinquent buyer and begin disciplinary proceedings. The buyer would be prohibited from purchasing any other cannabis products on credit until the delinquent invoice was paid. In addition, the DCC would be empowered to issue a penalty (unspecified), taking into account “the frequency and gravity of the licensee’s [past] failure to pay outstanding invoices”.

In a letter of support for AB 766, the FSCC stated, “This culture of nonpayment that has emerged in California’s cannabis market leaves businesses across the entire industry and supply chain – as well as ancillary businesses that support legal cannabis operators – with outstanding balances and unpaid invoices sometimes totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars…This ballooning debt bubble in the cannabis industry will only continue to grow without proper oversight, putting the entirety of the state’s supply chain at risk of collapse and impacting state revenue decline even further.”

Opponents of the bill acknowledge the problem of non-payment in the industry, but feel AB 766 is too heavy handed and is “ripe for abuse.” In a blog post for the international legal firm Harris Bricken, cannabis attorney Griffen Thorne writes, “[L]icensees who are reported would be legally prohibited from buying goods or services on credit from other licensees until they pay the invoices for which they were reported in full … The person making the report has to give the DCC almost no information in order to make the report. There is no hearing. There does not even seem to be an opportunity to contest the report. The second a report is made, the other side loses its rights to buy goods on credit – presumably even under preexisting contractual arrangements with third parties. This seems like an obvious due process concern and ripe for abuse.”

The number and amounts of unpaid cannabis product invoices have ballooned over time and have driven California cannabis vendors to take such extreme measures. Collections and outstanding receivables are a symptom of an industry struggling under heavy taxes and competition from illegal operations that pay no taxes whatsoever, and which now account for over 60% of all cannabis sales within the state.

In order to ascertain the current status of AB 766, 420CPA reached out to Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), co-sponsor of the bill along with FSCC, the Cannabis Distribution Association, California Cannabis Industry Association and the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association. We corresponded with Tania Dikho, Ting’s Legislative Director. Ms. Dikho informed us that the bill was heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 18, but it was not passed.

“It’s a 2-year bill meaning we can’t act on it until this legislative year is over, so the bill will not have another hearing [and we] can’t make any changes to it until next year,” explained Ms. Dikho.

The 2-year status is a tenuous one. The bill must be approved by the Assembly and make its way to the Senate between early January 2024 and January 31, 2024 or it may no longer be acted upon and will die a legislative death.

Businesses that would like to voice their opinion for or against AB 766 should contact their state legislative representatives.

Rise of the Machines: The Case for Automation in the Cannabis Industry

By Kyle Loucks
No Comments

The Case for Automation in the Cannabis Industry

History has shown that if companies fail to innovate when new technology emerges, even household name brands with enormous market share can squander their success if they are blind to anything that could ever unseat them from the top.

Kodak developed digital camera technology in the 1970s but didn’t envision a world where the film market wasn’t dominant. Toys R’ Us failed to adapt to the changing retail landscape, and Amazon became the chief source of online toy sales. Blockbuster famously laughed Netflix out of the room when the now-$149 billion behemoth sought to sell for a measly $50 million.

A “knockbox”-style unit for producing prerolls

Brands in the cannabis landscape can also fall victim to this same misstep. New technologies are driving the industry forward, yet many brands are still standing by sub-par processes. Whether due to misplaced beliefs around automation or an unwillingness to invest, cannabis brands could suffer the same fate as many of these bygone-era brands.

The Financial Argument: Automation Reduces Overhead 

The financial argument for automation is at the top of the list of motivators for most cannabis businesses. A great example of this is with pre-roll production. For cannabis brands still employing a “dexterous approach” to their pre-roll manufacturing, staying afloat to keep up with demand is a constant battle. Rebel Spirit, currently the number one pre-roll brand in Oregon, was burning through eye-welling amounts of money in labor costs to produce 300,000 pre-rolls per month. With a crew of 22 full-time pre-roll manufacturers, the team at Rebel Spirit quickly realized their process was unsustainable, and they were headed for an economic crisis if they didn’t cut costs.

The Blackbird atuomated system

They were using a knockbox-style unit which they had modified themselves in an attempt to force it to fit their needs. But this “semi-automated” solution simply wasn’t working. Rebel Spirit then turned to our team at RollPros to clean up and fully automate their production process, helping them to create quality pre-roll at scale with a fraction of the labor costs. (We are the Vancouver, WA-based designer and manufacturer of the Blackbird automated joint rolling system.) For them, it wasn’t a matter of greed, as some opponents of automation sometimes claim; it was simply a choice of going out of business or not. In competitive markets like the Beaver State, where every dollar counts, the case for automation was a no-brainer.

The Remote Argument: Automation Reduces Risk Of Human Error 

It’s a basic concept: the more human interaction in your processes, the more risk for error. We, as flawed humans, are simply not capable of being as precise or consistent in our work as a machine can be. Consider the cultivation process. Most experienced cultivators will tell you that growing cannabis is easy, but growing quality cannabis is very difficult, with a lot that can go wrong.

Enter one of the most valuable automation tools for cannabis cultivators – automated irrigation systems. With your irrigation systems and nutrients on autopilot, cultivators can ensure plants get the ideal mix of nutrients regardless of whether you are on-site, remote or facing a staffing crunch. Sensors can provide real-time data so that water, nutrients or even light can be adjusted as needed. In many cases, even these adjustments can be automated. (Think AI hasn’t entered the cannabis space yet? Think again!) Sure, there is always a potential for issues no matter how advanced a system you use. But when you compare this to a farmer using a manual watering and nutrient system, there are far fewer opportunities for mistakes. Does a human feel the difference between .94 gallons of water and 1 gallon of water? No. But a well-calibrated irrigation system can tell the difference and even alert you if it goes outside of whatever tolerance limits you set.

When the cost of flower is high, human errors that lead to damaged or inferior product are often overlooked. But when flower prices drop as markets mature, success versus failure can be balanced on a knife-edge, and cultivators can’t afford to make mistakes.

The Skynet Argument: Automation Increases Productivity Without Taking Your Job 

Whether AI is coming for our jobs or will destroy human creativity as we know it has been argued ad nauseum since the release of AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney. The good news? Automating your business doesn’t mean enlisting the T-1000 from Terminator 2 to terminate your 9-to-5. Think of automation as Arnold Schwarzenegger telling you to come with him if you want to live.

The Green Vault automated packaging system

The truth is that any task that needs to be completed frequently or on a set schedule is ripe for automation. Automation eliminates tethering your most talented employees to cog-in-the-machine work that wastes their time and abilities. Freeing them up to focus on more high-value tasks like customer service, marketing, or new product development will likely make your business more profitable long term, and make your employees happier with their work.

No industry has been spared from the impacts of industrial automation, says Amar Olgeirsson, CEO and founder of Green Vault Systems, but, “labor is typically not reduced as a result of automation.” Instead, “production is increased, and workers’ value increases because of higher production in terms of units produced per labor time. By increasing worker efficiency, companies and corporations are able to pay their workers a higher salary,” says Olgeirsson.

The Performance Argument: Automation Guarantees Consistent Quality Every Time 

Expansion across state lines means consumers know they can buy the same quality product whether they buy it on the East Coast or West Coast. You know that you can buy your favorite Red Blend wine whether you’re in Denver or Atlanta and expect to enjoy the same tasting glass (barring any unintended oxidization). If a customer purchases that same glass of wine, and it doesn’t meet their expectations of what it should be (it’s inconsistent with the last time they had it), a brand is essentially breaking a promise to that customer. When a customer doesn’t get what they want and expect out of a product, they’ll quickly move on to a competitor. Consistency builds loyalty… inconsistency destroys it.

A preroll infusion automated system

The cannabis industry is notorious for producing inconsistent products. It’s not surprising, considering the near-total ban on state-to-state commerce, (thanks federal government!) And, of course, the variation that can occur from crop to crop, batch to batch or facility to facility. There are so many variables to just the cultivation process; the amount of light a crop gets, the type and dosage of nutrients, the growing medium that’s used, the amount of air flow in the facility… The list goes on, and that’s just the first of many processes needed before a product ends up on shelves! It’s nearly impossible for humans to manually manage and ensure consistency of all these variables without the help of some level of automation.

Nohtal Partansky, ex-NASA-JPL engineer and CEO of Los Angeles-based Sorting Robotics, teamed up with fellow NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory colleagues Cassio Santos and Sean Lawlor to found their firm that creates next-generation hardware and software for cannabis industry producers.

“Automation in the cannabis industry plays a crucial role in maintaining product consistency by reducing human error and standardizing processes across cultivation, extraction, and packaging,” says Partansky. “If brands are going to expand across states, consistency is a requirement if customer loyalty is ever going to be a market driver for sales.”

The Contamination Argument: Automation Limits Human Error & Contamination Risk and Improves Product Safety

Our industry demands very strict safety standards. Our customers deserve safe products, but beyond that, the testing requirements mandated by regulations in most markets are very, very strict. Each and every human touchpoint in your processes carries with it additional contamination risk. Even with stringent protocols, mold, mildew and other unwanted crits can more easily venture their way into final products as the human variable increases.

Automation minimizes these risks and improves the safety of the product for consumers, and reduces the risk of recalls or other regulatory issues. Consider that for many cannabis businesses in hyper-saturated, competitive markets, a significant product recall can be the end of the road. Automating production processes provides a reliable and consistent solution in an industry that demands the highest safety and quality standards.

“The new and burgeoning Cannabis industry and its consumers are no exception and possibly benefit it more than other industries.  The medicinal qualities of Cannabis products make consistency, quality, safety, and traceability paramount to the consumer.  Cannabis products are most often consumed by ingestion into the lungs which means product cleanliness and quality are essential to safety.  Chemically derived oils and extracts would not be possible without automation equipment. Again, industrial automation is a huge benefit to the Cannabis space, to the producers, their employees, and maybe most importantly to the consumer”.

Amar Olgeirsson, CEO & Founder, Green Vault Systems

Olgeirsson’s take on products created on specialized automation equipment? “Products produced on purpose-built machinery are more consistent and of a higher quality which lends itself to better oversight, enhanced traceability, and improved product safety.”

The Physical Argument: Automation Eliminates Tedious & Overhead-Heavy Tasks

In an increasingly competitive marketplace like cannabis, streamlining processes and reducing the liabilities that come with human labor – like being sidelined from Carpal Tunnel – is key. Let’s consider the trimming component of the post-harvest process. Manual trimming is monotonous, low-paying for workers, and an unrealistic way to harvest cannabis at scale. Also, it’s hard to be successful when team-wide prescriptions for night-time wrist splints are a threat.

The Mobius M108S Trimmer

Leaning into “hand-trimmed” as a differentiator for your brand? Many connoisseurs will argue that hand-trimmed bud is superior because buds stay aesthetic and trichomes aren’t lost. That may have been true in the early days of automated trimming machines, but with today’s crop of super-sophisticated trimming technology, it is now nothing more than a myth. (Yes, myths and misled traditions can be difficult to overcome in our industry, but I digress…)

The Mobius M108S Trimmer, for example, allows operators to reduce the staff required to process thousands of pounds of product every year without compromising quality. It’s next-gen tech not found on traditional trimmers can produce hand-trim quality buds with minimal trichome loss.

When flower prices are high, especially in the case of newly-legalized markets, it can be easy for operators to overlook the cost of trimming, and pay their employees higher wages to offset the physical risks to their bodies. But what about when product prices inevitably fall once the post-legalization honeymoon period wears off? It’s unrealistic (and unethical, I believe), to pay employees minimum wage while putting their health and safety at a significant risk. In the above example, at some point, your operations will grow to a point where hand-trimming will dig you further into a fiscal hole every time you harvest.

The Future Argument: Automation Isn’t Going Away (and Your Competitors Know It)

Automation could cause you to lose people, just not in the way you might think. Ultimately, competitors in any space will invest in new technology to streamline people, processes and tools to establish a competitive advantage. This investment puts them in a better position to attract talented employees that stick around for the long term.

Automation is like a boat motor in the 21st century, and companies that don’t use it are paddling against the current. Sure, you can use a wooden oar, but your competitors know paddling is too much work and will strap a motor to theirs. The truth is that companies that drag their feet out of stubbornness or inability to see how the current situation could ever change will often find their employees jumping ship to go elsewhere.

An automated vape cart filling system

“I strongly believe that automation not only propels our industry forward but also sets the stage for a more profitable future in cannabis production for those that embrace technology rather than fight it,” says Ryan Hoitt, CEO, developer & founder of Vape Jet in Portland. “I can confidently say that it enables businesses to fine-tune operations, improve product quality, and achieve unmatched consistency.”

Saying that you will eventually be forced to automate sounds harsh, but it’s largely true. As soon as your competitors deploy automated processes, they gain an advantage. If you don’t do the same, it will become more difficult to compete, stay profitable and stay in business.

The Consumer Argument: Automation Provides Consumers More Options

Automation isn’t going away, and it’s certainly not a fad like pogs or planking. Automation drives lower production costs, which means lower-priced products for consumers. This process has been behind the dramatic increases in global living standards and population growth since the birth of the Industrial Revolution and is not likely to change anytime soon.

Automation allows producers to manufacture a broader range of products and focus on providing the consumer with more options. Consumers want to be in control of their purchasing decisions, and companies that deliver variety will be the ones to reap the rewards.

Embrace the Future with Automation

History has shown us time and again that failure to innovate can lead even the most prominent brands to fall victim to their inability, or unbelief, in the necessity to evolve. Automation is a no-brainer in crowded and competitive markets.

No doubt, the future of the cannabis industry will trend toward automation. Businesses embracing it will have a significant advantage over those that do not. Companies that drag their feet in the face of disruptive automation risk resigning to the same fate as those brands that underestimated technology at the expense of their own existence. No industry is immune from disruption, and there will be dynamic entrepreneurs who will come along and see to it. Embrace the change, embrace automation and technology, and you’ll increase your chances of winning in the cannabis industry!

Compliance as a Revenue Center: Banking & Cannabis, More Similar Than You Think

By Kevin Hart
No Comments

Have you ever been to the DMV, only to be turned away because you didn’t have the countless forms of identification needed? Sometimes it feels like no amount of ID or proof of residence is enough, whether it’s your 2nd grade report card or an electric bill from 25 years ago.

That feeling is what it’s like for anyone working in compliance; regardless of industry. Banks are no different. They need to possess compliance documents such as Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income and other Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) reports that work like the laundry list of documents you need to get a driver’s license or get your car registered.

The same can be said for newly licensed and legal cannabis companies. They often need state and local inspection documents, federal background checks and a list of other documents that make a CVS receipt look minuscule in comparison.

Historically, across all industries, the whole process of gathering and providing these sorts of documents can turn into a bit of a charade. Many companies do the bare minimum to check the compliance box and achieve certifications. Various teams and stakeholders try to skate through the compliance process by providing answers that reflect what they think the enterprise customer wants to see (vs. the reality).

In order to achieve long term growth, financial institutions (FIs) and cannabis companies alike need to start executing compliance plans. FIs are always seeking new growth and revenue opportunities, and cannabis companies are constantly under the scrutiny of regulators. Identifying new solutions that can help companies grow quickly while also maintaining compliance should be an essential part of the roadmap.

Financial Institutions and Cannabis

Many think that financial institutions and cannabis businesses would be on opposite ends of any spectrum. Banking is a mature and established industry, while legal cannabis is a new, fast moving and constantly evolving space. So, on one side, there is a risk averse fiscally conservative and traditional business model, and on the other side is an industry that is outside of the mainstream.

Let’s look at this perception from a different angle though. What is true is that both industries are highly regulated and must comply with the rules placed upon them by regulators; and if their house isn’t in order, the consequences can be disastrous (Read: Massive fines or even losing the ability to operate). CRBs and FIs deal with the security and dual control of inventory, and making sure customers are properly identified and of legal capacity to conduct business. In most cases, both are small businesses within their respective communities. ‍

Moreover, each of the industries are forced to navigate nearly-constant regulatory change, making the act of complying with applicable regulations a moving target. For most of these types of businesses, regulatory compliance is cited as one of the largest (and most expensive) challenges they face in day-to-day operations.

Compliance as Revenue Protection 

When financial institutions make the decision to offer services to the cannabis industry, they naturally look at the market opportunity to determine whether the effort associated with the increased compliance obligations outweigh the potential benefits. Traditionally, compliance is viewed as a cost center, but in reality, it’s a revenue protection center. As the old saying goes; “an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.” Compliance is that prevention.

Cannabis companies need to demonstrate reliability and a history of compliance in order to attract investors and accumulate capital

Failing to fully comply and meet regulatory compliance standards can cost organizations billions. Having a trusted system of compliance established should not be looked at as a cost-sucking measure for businesses, when it really is negligible when the cost of getting it wrong is far more substantial. Setting up a truthful and transparent compliance program isn’t just the right thing to do, it also protects revenue.

As the cannabis industry continues to grow, navigating around pain points is becoming increasingly expensive for the companies participating in it, many of whom are still struggling to turn a profit. Specifically, an IDC forecast shows global revenue from GRC solutions growing from $11.3 billion in 2020 to nearly $16.2 billion by 2025. And the average business hires and spends upward of $50,000 to $200,000 on consultants to manage compliance. It’s not uncommon for companies to dedicate five to 10 people working on compliance every week for hours and months on end.

Many in the banking industry are worried about forging into a stigmatized stream of revenue like cannabis, but with the right compliance solutions in place, they can have peace of mind. These solutions guarantee that revenue from cannabis is done legally by analyzing where each dollar came from, and denying those that don’t meet the minimum criteria. Having visibility into cannabis-related business (CRBs) accounts that do the enhanced due diligence is the only way to operate.

By implementing purpose-built compliance management solutions, financial institutions are able to unlock new revenue streams and scale cannabis banking operations. Meaning that as cannabis continues to gain mainstream momentum, and becomes less scrutinized locally and federally, these FIs that take part will be ahead of the curve. 

Looking Ahead

With recent movement towards legalization in the House, cannabis investors are optimistic about the industry’s future. So how can the cannabis market overcome these hurdles and remain highly profitable?

To start with, CRBs must have greater access to accredited financial institutions like banks and credit unions. Owning bank accounts, obtaining credit cards, and applying for small business loans is essential to growth. Providing CRBs with access to proper financial support and compliance control is crucial for the cannabis market to continue to thrive.

Federal legislation such as the SAFE Banking Act is currently thought of to be the silver bullet that will open the floodgates for CRBs and FIs to work together. But in reality, this is a myth, as the SAFE Banking Act will simply make the current compliance rules stricter.

To be a first mover FI in your area, businesses must start by implementing a scalable, verifiable cannabis banking program. The real customers and financial opportunities are out there, and are even greater than what you might have modeled given the growth of the industry. The ability to do this today is real.

Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

A Q&A with Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments
Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

As the former CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union (PCCU), Sundie Seefried has been in the credit union space for 39 years. Established in 2015, Safe Harbor Financial is now a leading provider for banking and financial services in the cannabis industry.

Seefried founded Safe Harbor as a cannabis banking program for PCCU, and since then it has withstood scrutiny of 16 separate federal and state exams. Entering its ninth year as a cannabis banking program, they have almost 600 accounts in 20 states and have processed over $14 billion in transactions for the cannabis market. In September, Safe Harbor began trading on Nasdaq under the symbol SHFS. The company has also announced a definitive agreement to acquire Abaca, an industry-leading cannabis financial technology platform.

Seefried has seen it all in the cannabis banking world. We wanted to get her thoughts on some current events, the future of cannabis banking and lending, and what the next few years might hold in store for an industry ready to grow.

Cannabis Industry Journal: Tell us a bit about yourself. What is your background and how did you find yourself in the cannabis industry? How did you get to become president and CEO of SHF?

Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

Sundie Seefried: I’ve been in banking in the credit union space since 1983. I became CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union in 2001 and stayed there for 21 years. Everything I do, I have a very conservative nature just from being in the banking world and doing things methodically and building good foundations that endure long term. In 2014 when FinCen issued guidance, I was supposed to retire, and I had dinner with some old friends that were attorneys who couldn’t get bank accounts for their clients in the cannabis industry. They asked me to help and I looked into it for them. I assumed the regulator would shut me down but he didn’t; he actually encouraged me to move forward and look further into things. As I educated the board, we saw just how unsafe Colorado was and the serious need for the community to figure things out with respect to banking and cannabis. Coming from that credit union perspective, I said I think we can do this, let’s try and I’ll go through the third parties necessary. And that’s how we got into this, just looking to try and help solve Colorado’s problems and get banking access for cannabis companies. 

CIJ: Tell me about your company’s mission. What is your financing strategy in cannabis and of the companies you do business with, what do you look for most?

Seefried: Our mission remains the same, and that is to normalize banking in the cannabis industry as much as possible. Because the black market still exists, the issue becomes sorting the legal entities out from the illicit actors in the industry. We know that the illicit market is trying to hide amongst the legal environment, which really makes things difficult for upstanding cannabis businesses. We can normalize banking by making sure we help legitimize the compliant entities and sort out the bad actors. We really only want to work with legitimate players with licenses, who are fulfilling expectations on the regulatory level and have no problems with compliance. We have been able to do that on the depository side.

We have always been a low-cost provider and our clients count on that. As we move into the lending part of the industry, we’re looking to do the same thing. There are lenders who charge one-to-three percent per month, 18 to 36 percent per year. We, on the other hand, are targeting more of an eight to thirteen percent annual rate. More of a conservative approach. Real debt underwriting. No extremely high interest rates. We look for the collateral, we look for well-organized businesses and solid documentation. Those are the businesses we are trying to bring into the fold and offer them normal loans. Cannabis will always have a premium on it simply because it is illegal at the federal level and there are additional hoops we have to jump through. Because of the potential forfeiture and seizure, if there are bad actors, etc., it really behooves any clients coming to us to also place their depositary services with us so we can prove their legitimacy and provide loans to them.

CIJ: Let’s talk about the Canopy Growth news. They announced they are pulling the trigger on acquiring Wana Brands, Acreage Holdings and Jetty Extracts, under the Canopy USA holding company and ahead of federal legalization. On the surface, it looks like they are bypassing a lot of the hurdles American cannabis companies currently face with financial red tape. As a foreign company trading on the NASDAQ dealing with a schedule 1 substance, do you expect Canopy to have a significant, some would say unfair, competitive advantage with their early entry? Or is this perhaps more of a rising tide lifting all boats scenario? What effect will this have on the current market landscape?

Seefried: I find it a very interesting move on their part. Certainly, they have a big advantage in comparison to other companies. The consolidation in the industry is moving so quickly. Other players will keep up with this just as fast as Canopy is moving in. That’s my opinion in terms of what I see in the consolidation area of the market. I think what it really hurts is small businesses. My heart goes out to them. So many of them worked so many years to build excellent small companies with boutique shops, and this whole move will really change that part of the industry.

I see a lot of these small players, non-vertically integrated companies, being impacted in a negative way due to such mass consolidation and the entry of foreign businesses. We need to get more competitive on a global level in order for our companies to grow and thrive. This happened back in 2018, when so many companies started doing those reverse takeovers onto the Canadian Securities Exchange and suddenly, they were putting tens of millions of dollars into the U.S. market. People didn’t see that as a competitive disadvantage for American companies, but now this move by Canopy may really show that we have to look at things more globally.

CIJ: Biden’s announcement regarding the scheduling review for cannabis has a lot of industry folks very hopeful that federal legalization is closer to a reality than before. Do you share their optimism?

Seefried: Closer than before, yes. But how close? I am not convinced it will happen quickly. If they are really going to consider rescheduling or descheduling, everything happens in Washington very incrementally. Eight years and seven attempts at the SAFE Banking legislation and still no movement on that front. Tomorrow, we’re going straight to legalization? I have a hard time swallowing that one. I just don’t see that big of a jump all at once. I think it is interesting coming just before the midterms and votes are really needed now more than ever.

What Biden did was a great start. Especially for those people in prison for possession. The interesting part of it is, we are very serious about people who have used it, but the people who have sold it and are in prison might be in the same situation. Given how the laws worked for so long, just based on the amount of cannabis you had could get you automatically labeled as a dealer, which isn’t the case for a lot of incarcerated folks.

The fact is, the social equity and justice issue, who do you free or who do you not free from prison, is a very difficult issue to get through. I think it is a great step forward and it will help some people who were treated unjustly, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

“I believe we’ll start seeing pressure from the global market on the United States to move things along a little faster in our own country.”As far as rescheduling, if they go from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II drug, that will do no good, but it certainly is a bone to throw to the industry if you want to look like you are making some progress. Schedule II is still subject to 280E tax code so it will only do so much. If they want to make things more equitable and actually level the playing field, they have to do something about the 280E issue hindering every cannabis business in the country.

As far as full legalization, I am not optimistic because of all the players that need to be involved. Full legalization will require a change to the IRS tax code 280E as well as other tax issues. I think there are too many players: The DOJ, FinCen, the DEA, the FDA, the IRS. All of these agencies will have to agree on full legalization and moving forward in unison. The DEA is trying to fight illicit actors and illicit drugs. FinCen is trying to follow the money to find illicit actors. As long as there is an illicit market it will make their job tough, and on top of all of that, we have politics in play. That is just my take on legalization. It is going to be a much more complex problem than just legalizing the plant and moving on. Rescheduling seems like lower hanging fruit, but they will have to move it higher than a Schedule II.

CIJ: With the midterm elections here, there are a number of legalization measures in a handful of states, along with political control of Congress on the ballot. How do you think a Republican or Democrat controlled Congress will affect cannabis legalization progress?

Seefried: I just finished doing some lobbying in September in DC and spoke to some Senator offices in person, and I heard a lot of interesting topics being discussed. One of the things that keeps popping up is that social equity and justice is a huge issue. If we can’t solve this injustice in our system that has been going on for decades and decades, maybe they’ll hold banking legislation hostage. You can’t correct 50-60 years with one piece of legislation. Everything has to be incremental, unfortunately, so there will be some give and take there. I think that was a primary focus, especially with the Democrats and I do think it is a worthy cause.

On the Republican side, economically improving our competitive advantage as a country. They are starting to see the jobs being created and the tax revenue coming in and the growth of the industry. They will have to make that decision at some point in time whether they are going to leave the American cannabis industry behind or allow them to compete on a global level. I really think everything will move slowly and continue as it has happened in the past.

I believe we’ll start seeing pressure from the global market on the United States to move things along a little faster in our own country.

CIJ: As we inch closer to 2023, what do you expect the next year to offer for the cannabis financing market?

Seefried: I would say, with or without legislation, they’re finding greater access to banking. And the reason they are getting better access to banking is because none of us have been prosecuted for simply engaging in cannabis banking. I think we have set a precedent over the past eight years, not only us but other service providers in the industry and that we are not being prosecuted.

I see more financial institutions entering the market slowly. The second reason access to capital and banking will increase is because every financial institution in the country wants that lending relationship. In order to get there, they want to start with the depository relationship, and they don’t want smaller players presently doing it and getting all of those relationships before they enter the market. I think the competitive nature of the financial industry to land that lending relationship is going to force them into the game sooner than later.

Financing the Cannabis Industry Part 3: A Q&A with Matt Hawkins, Founder of Entourage Effect Capital

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Businesses often require outside capital to finance operating activities and to enable scaling and growth. Financing in the cannabis industry is notoriously challenging with regulatory obstacles at the local, state and federal levels. Recent market dynamics pose additional challenges for both financiers and cannabis operators.

We sat down with Matt Hawkins, Founder and Managing Partner of Entourage Effect Capital (EEC) to learn more about EEC and to get his perspective on recent market trends.

Aaron Green: In a nutshell, what is your investment/lending philosophy?

Matt Hawkins, Founder & Managing Partner at Entourage Effect Capital

Matt Hawkins: Entourage Effect Capital’s long history and experienced leadership allow us to access and construct high potential later-stage growth investments with sought-after industry leaders. We want to get ahead of what is happening on the regulatory and federal level to build scale with our investments.

Green: What types of companies are you primarily financing? What qualities do you look for in a cannabis industry operator or operating group?

Hawkins: Essentially, we are focused on investing in companies that will benefit the most when legalization occurs. We are currently working on multiple such deals, and separately, we are excited by how our newly minted, early-stage focused Arcview Ventures Seed Fund will provide a pipeline to the next generation of leading growth opportunities. When evaluating opportunities, we always look for the potential for scale and a strong management team.

Green: Capital market dynamics have led to significant public cannabis company revaluations in 2022. How has this affected your business?

Hawkins: As an industry, we all want companies to be valued for what they are worth, and right now, there are a lot of companies where that’s not the case due to the downturn in valuation. For us, it works the other way, because we are now able to invest at lower valuations with the hope of more upside when valuations reset.

Green: Debt on cannabis companies balance sheets have increased significantly in recent years. What is your perspective on that?

Hawkins: Debt is at its highest in industry. Operators don’t want to take equity capital at this point because valuations have come way down. However, we are lucky to have been in this business for a long time so that we can create our own deals. Our reputation precedes us — as a result, combined with the strength of our portfolio, people want us in their capital stack.

Green: How does the lack of institutional investor participation in the cannabis industry affect your business?

Hawkins: The lack of institutional capital in the industry makes it difficult for a large chunk of companies to grow and scale. For the industry to grow, there needs to be a different type of investor, investors who are not scared to go through the peaks and valleys we go through as an industry, whereas retail investors take their losses and move on. Everybody’s competing for the same small pool of money; managing cash is the most important factor for operators, whether private or public, big or small.

Green: What would you like to see in either state or federal legalization?

Hawkins: The illicit market still has a strong presence, and until we get regulatory reform, it’s going to continue. Reducing the tax burden on legalized markets would bring more revenue to both operators and the government because they’d reduce the market share of the illicit market, with the price offset trickling down to the retail customer.

Passing the SAFE Banking Act would create consequential changes for the cannabis industry. There is also a small chance that the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq could start listing legal plant-touching businesses. If that happens, more institutional capital would enter the market and flush the industry with cash, with market caps going way up. There is a lot of unease and uncertainty with retail investors that prop up the stocks in the space, and it will continue until there is regulatory movement, even on the private side.

Green: What trends are you following closely as we head towards the end of 2022?

Hawkins: I don’t see anything happening unless the SAFE Banking Act passes. Otherwise, things are status quo, especially with public companies. For private companies, we’re going to see a lot more consolidation, especially in California.

Financing the Cannabis Industry Part 2: A Q&A with Pelorus Equity Group Managing Partner, Travis Goad

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Businesses often require outside capital to finance operating activities and to enable scaling and growth. Financing in the cannabis industry is notoriously challenging with regulatory obstacles at the local, state and federal levels. Recent market dynamics pose additional challenges for both financiers and cannabis operators.

We sat down with Travis Goad, Managing Partner of Pelorus Equity Group to learn more about Pelorus and to get his perspective on recent market trends.

Aaron Green: In a nutshell, what is your investment/lending philosophy?

Travis Goad: Our investment and lending philosophy is focused on being honest, upfront and doing what we say we’re going to do for both our borrowers and our investors. At Pelorus, we lend against cannabis-use real estate assets.

Every lender in this space is a hybrid between real estate and corporate lending. However, if you think about it as a political spectrum, with one side being pure real estate lending and the other pure corporate lending, Pelorus is as close as you can be to pure real estate lending in this sector while also being properly collateralized. What sets us apart from our recently launched lending peers is that we lend against the real estate asset value only, even though we’re collateralized by the real estate and license.

We lend between 60% to 75% of the value of the real estate, which means sponsors need to raise equity for the 25% to 40% remainder of the project cost. This allows us to be covenant-lite for our borrowers while giving them the flexibility to grow their business as they see fit.

Travis Goad, Managing Partner at Pelorus Equity Group

The other lending options in the space are much different. While our lending peers may call themselves mortgage REITs, they really are based on a business development company (BDC) lending model. While they may lend borrowers as much as 150% to 180% of the real estate value, they will require significant financial covenants, require control of major decisions and most often want a board seat. We’ve seen this model severely hamstring growth of companies.

The third option available to sponsors is a sale-leaseback. In this structure, lenders will buy your real estate for 100% of the value, but require you to enter into a 15-to-20-year lease that increases 3% each year. There is a temporary benefit to this model from a federal tax perspective, but that will go away when 280E is addressed, either by descheduling cannabis or amending the tax code.

While this structure means you don’t have to raise equity, it gives up the most valuable asset cannabis companies have in the early stages of the industry. Once you sell this asset, it hampers optionality for sponsors – and in a fast-growing industry like cannabis – optionality is the most critical thing a company has. Pelorus’ structure allows maximum optionality, as well as the ability to lower your cost of capital as the industry matures.

From an investor standpoint, they should know that the BDC and sale-leaseback models are a lot riskier than our model. While we’ve seen those models work well in mature industries, we think the cannabis industry is too early-stage and too volatile to go that far out on the risk spectrum. We have the longest history in the space of deploying capital successfully and seeing it returned. Prior to making any loans, we spend a lot of time underwriting the company we’re working with, the real estate and the projections. We look for strong sponsors, great projects and attractive markets.

Before we entered the cannabis lending space, our team at Pelorus had more than 5,000 transactions under our belt, worth $5B, and we leveraged our decades of underwriting experience when starting the Pelorus Fund. As the first dedicated lender in the cannabis space, we have more data and experience than anyone in terms of transactional volume – we’ve looked at more than 2,000 deals and have made 71 deals, worth $468M. We know the intricacies of every market, the particular ordinances, what the costs should be, and utilize the data to help our borrowers succeed. Through our deals and sustained success, we’ve made a name for ourselves as the most trusted and efficient lender in the cannabis space.

Green: What types of companies are you primarily financing? 

Goad: We finance construction and stabilized loans for a range of clients including MSOs, SSOs and ancillary companies. We don’t lend on outdoor cultivation, but are open to working with any cannabis-related business that has commercial real estate, strong financials and experience in the cannabis space. Today, our sweet spot is closing loans in the $10M to $30M per transaction range, but we can fund loans $100M+ and as low as $5M. Since 2016, we’ve financed 4.2M feet of cannabis-use properties for a total of $468M in loans – roughly 15% to 20% of the entire US market.

Green: What qualities do you look for in a cannabis industry operator or operating group?

Goad: We are meticulous in our underwriting process and underwrite the company, the real estate and the market. We’re one of the few lenders today that has capital to deploy, which has given us the opportunity to continue to take market share while also increasing the quality of our borrowers. Whether you’re an MSO, smaller state operator or ancillary business, we recognize quality across the sector. Brand affinity and shelf space are critical in this market, and we like working with companies that have a competitive edge in getting their branded product to customers. We try to target companies that offer a unique product, or have a unique position within the state they are located.

To qualify for our lending program, borrowers need to own their real estate. If the sponsors own the real estate or intend to own the real estate, we offer two main lending products: we provide construction loans that range between 60% to 75% of the project that are typically 18-month terms; and more recently implemented, we also lend on fully stabilized assets that are cash flowing and operational up to 75% of the value and up to a 5-year term.

By the time a borrower comes to us, they should already have a license (or be acquiring a license at closing), have their required equity raised to completely fund the project and have all local approvals to begin construction.

Green: Capital market dynamics have led to significant public cannabis company revaluations in 2022. How has this affected your business? 

Goad: As far as how market dynamics have impacted our fund, we’ve been pretty insulated because we are a privately held company. From our inception, we’ve worked hard to create an innovative model, and have had many firsts. We were: the first dedicated lender in the cannabis sector; the first lender to become a private mortgage REIT; the first to be issued an FDIC warehouse line of credit; the first to get an investment grade rating; the first to issue an unsecured bond with institutional investors; the first to update our fund to a billion dollars. Amid all these firsts, we made a conscious decision not to go public. This has been one of the best decisions we’ve made and has shielded us from much of the market volatility we are seeing.

As for the broader market, we’ve seen our sponsors that are publicly traded impacted pretty significantly by the recent market dynamics. We’ve also seen flow-on effects for non-publicly traded firms. Our loan book is performing excellently, but we’re in a very challenging market for marijuana-related businesses to raise equity, making debt even more attractive. For most of our competitors, who chose to go public, they’ve been unable to raise much capital to deploy, whereas our market share is increasing and we continue to grow in this tough environment. We remain bullish on the sector in the medium/long term and are finding excellent opportunities to lend in this challenging environment.

Green: Debt on cannabis companies balance sheets have increased significantly in recent years. What is your perspective on that?

Goad: Increased access to debt capital markets is a sign of a maturing market. The U.S. cannabis sector has a great tailwind with growth of new markets, but it’s facing some significant headwinds tied to tax inefficiencies and inadequate state-level enforcement. All of these issues can be solved with political action, but so far that hasn’t happened and it’s causing pain in the industry. These industry dynamics are set against a broader macro backdrop of risk-asset repricing and increased volatility, which leads to outsized volatility in cannabis due to limited liquidity. That increased volatility has made it very challenging to raise equity in this market.

For companies that have strong assets on their balance sheet, they’re still able to access capital via the debt markets. This is creating clear winners and losers, as companies that choose to sell their real estate have significantly fewer capital raising options than those that choose to keep real estate assets on their balance sheets. Overall, this increased debt trend has been great for our business – our pipeline has increased rapidly and we’re able to lend to strong operators with solid assets at attractive rates for investors. Our fund continues to have inflows, and since we’re one of the few lenders with capital to deploy, we’re still open for business and deploying capital in this challenging environment.

Green: How does the lack of institutional investor participation in the cannabis industry affect your business? 

Goad: The current regulatory environment impacts the type of investor that comes into this space. Rather than being dominated by institutions, this sector has largely been funded by retail investors and family offices. This has created challenges in aggregating large amounts of capital, both on the operator and the debt-fund side of the business. It can lead to delays in loan closings, as it takes borrowers a longer amount of time to raise the required equity to close their transaction. As we’re seeing with our publicly traded peer group, it can also lead to lenders having trouble raising capital to deploy. As for Pelorus, we’ve been very fortunate that our length of time in the industry and track record of successfully making loans and having them repaid has set us apart in fundraising. Our decision to stay private has been a critical factor in our fundraising success as well. Overall, the lack of institutional investor participation is a double-edged sword: the lack of liquidity has caused challenges broadly, but since we’ve had significant capital to deploy, it’s created great opportunities for us to make loans with attractive risk/returns in this challenging market.

Green: What would you like to see in either state or federal legalization?

Goad: Given the stalemate in the Senate and the sharp bipartisan divide, I don’t think federal legalization will happen during this administration. That said, there are incremental actions that the government should take to strengthen the cannabis sector. First of all, the Cole Memo needs to be reinstated to add additional protections for cannabis and cannabis-related businesses. As 280E has clearly been detrimental to the overall health of the cannabis industry, we also believe the tax code should be amended, or better yet, we should address the conflict between state and federal policy. We also need to get SAFE Banking approved in order to open up the cannabis sector to credit cards and potentially open up banking to the sector in a more material way. Unfortunately, there’s a choke point in the Senate to get SAFE Banking approved, since there needs to be 60 votes to be filibuster proof. And while there is some talk of SAFE Banking passing during the lame duck session, we are not holding our breath.

Green: What trends are you following closely as we head towards the end of 2022?

Goad: The biggest trends we’re following are on the legislative front (both federally and at state level), which heavily impact revenue and net cash flow growth for the industry. We’re following emerging state markets, such as Alabama and Mississippi, as well as current medical markets poised to transition to adult use in the near term, such as Missouri. The more addressable the population, the faster the industry can grow.

We’d also like to see current legal states address the often-heavy tax burdens that have led to additional challenges for legal businesses and kept illicit markets thriving. No state got everything right at the beginning, but we’re starting to see states address some of the inequities and harmful policies now. California has made some progress in this area, however there are many issues that still need to be addressed.

Federally, 280E is the other major headwind that needs to be addressed as extremely high tax rates are one of the biggest problems for the industry. We’d really like to see that addressed, as cannabis is the only new industry, I’m aware of in the U.S. that has had such disadvantages out of the gate.

M&A in Cannabis: A Guide for Buyers and Sellers

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright
No Comments

Mergers and acquisition activity in the cannabis space tripled from 2020 to 2021, and that pace is on track to continue in 2022. With big players entering the global cannabis market, we’re fielding more questions about mergers and acquisitions of cannabis businesses.

In this guide, we look at the evolution of the U.S. cannabis industry and some best practices and considerations for M&A deals in this environment.

The New Reality of Cannabis M&A Activity

The industry has evolved since adult use cannabis was first legalized in some U.S. states in 2012. More cannabis companies have a professional infrastructure—legal, financial and operational—with executive teams and board members ensuring the organization establishes proper governance procedures. Investors and private equity firms are showing more interest, and some cannabis companies have celebrated their first IPOs on the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE).

At the same time, we are seeing a kind of “market grab” by multistate operators (MSOs) looking to acquire various licenses and expand their market share. MSOs tend to understand the current state of the market. For example, in California and some other states, there is a surplus of cannabis on the market for various reasons, partially due to so-called “burner distribution”—rogue distributors using licenses to buy vast amounts of legally grown cannabis at wholesale prices and selling the product on the black market, thereby undercutting retailers and other legal cannabis businesses. Another reason for the surplus is simply the entrance of many legal cultivators into the market over the past year.

Due to these trends, MSOs are interested in acquiring the outlets to be able to sell the surplus cannabis within California and other new markets.

Transferring Cannabis License Rights

One of the biggest challenges to M&A activity in the cannabis sector is the difficulty of transferring or selling a cannabis license.

Different types of cannabis licenses in California

Cannabis licenses are not expressly transferable or assignable under California law and many other states. However, the parties involved aren’t without options. For example, a business that is sold to a new owner may be able to retain its existing cannabis license while the new owner’s license application is pending, as long as at least one existing owner is staying on board. At the state license level, a change of up to 20% financial interest does not constitute a change in ownership, although the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) must be notified and approve the change.

This process can take a while—often a year or more—since licensing involves overcoming hurdles at the local level as well as the state level with the BCC. It’s crucial to talk with legal counsel about the particulars of the license and location early in the process to best structure the terms of the agreement while complying with state and local requirements.

Seeking a Tax-Free Reorganization in the Cannabis Space

In many cannabis mergers and acquisitions, the goal is to accomplish a tax-free reorganization, where the parties involved acquire or dispose of the assets of a business without generating the income tax consequences that would result from a straight sale or purchase of those assets.

IRC Section 368(a) defines various types of tax-free reorganizations, including:

Stock-for-stock exchanges (IRC Section 368(a)(1)(B)

In a stock-for-stock reorganization, all of the target company’s stock is traded for a portion of the stock of the acquiring parent corporation, and target company shareholders become minority shareholders of the acquiring company.

Often, it’s tough to meet the requirements to qualify for this type of tax-free reorganization because at least 80% of the target stock must be paid for in voting stock of the acquirer.

Additionally, companies may be saddled with too much debt. If the acquirer assumes that debt, it may be classified as consideration paid to the seller and therefore disqualify the transaction as a tax-free reorganization.

In other M&A deals, the acquiring corporation may be unwilling to assume the debt of the target corporation—perhaps because showing these items on its balance sheet would impact its debt-to-equity and other financial ratios.

Stock-for-asset exchanges (IRC Section 368(a)(1)(C)

Rather than acquiring the target company’s stock, the acquirer may purchase its assets. In a stock-for assets exchange, the buyer must purchase “substantially all” of the target’s assets in exchange for voting stock of the acquiring corporation.

A stock-for-assets format offers the buyer the benefit of not having to assume the unknown or contingent liabilities of the target. However, it’s only feasible if the acquirer purchases at least 80% of the fair market value of the target’s assets AND all or virtually all of the deal consideration will be stock of the acquirer.

Tax Consequences Arising from Sale of Assets

If the sale price doesn’t consist primarily of the buyer’s stock, the transaction may be a standard asset sale. This leads to very different tax results.

If the seller is a C corporation, it will typically face double taxation—paying tax once on the sale of assets within the corporation and again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. If the target company has net operating losses (NOLs), it can use those NOLs to offset the tax hit.

If the seller is an S corporation, it won’t have to pay corporate tax on the transaction at the federal level. Instead, shareholders will pay tax on the gain on their individual returns.

For the buyer, the benefit of an asset sale is that the assets acquired get a “step-up basis” to their purchase price. This is beneficial from a tax perspective, as the buyer can depreciate the assets and may be able to claim accelerated or bonus depreciation to help offset acquisition costs.

Reverse Triangular Merger

Often, in practice, we come across what is termed as a reverse triangular reorganization. In this type of merger,

  1. The acquiring company creates a subsidiary,
  2. The subsidiary merges into the target company before liquidating,
  3. The target company then becomes a subsidiary of the acquirer, and
  4. The target company’s shareholders receive cash.

Structuring the deal this way may work to overcome the hurdle of transferring the license but may not qualify as a tax-free reorganization.

Bottom Line

The circumstances and motivations for mergers and acquisitions in the cannabis industry are diverse. As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to structuring the transaction. In any event, it’s crucial to start the process early and seek advice from legal counsel and tax advisors to minimize the tax burden and ensure that both parties to the transaction get the best deal possible. If you need assistance, contact your 420CPA strategic financial advisor.

An Interview with Bespoke Financial Co-Founder & CEO George Mancheril

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Founded in 2018, Bespoke Financial is the nation’s first fintech lender focused on the cannabis industry. Led by a premier team of experts in the credit, technology and cannabis industries, Bespoke Financial has financed more than $800M in GMV across the US cannabis industry and is on track to deploy $1B by end of year 2022 via their revolving lines of credit. Bespoke’s financing empowers cannabis companies to increase purchasing power, remove working capital limitations and accelerate growth in a rapidly growing industry. The company is backed by respected venture capital firms such as Casa Verde Capital, The General Partnership, Greenhouse Capital Partners and Ceres Group Holdings.

Bespoke recently entered into a milestone partnership with Blaze as the cannabis industry’s first tech-enabled B2B lending product available in CA & MA. Through this partnership, Bespoke and Blaze will be the first to bring “Buy Now Pay Later” to the industry. With just the click of a button, vendors can utilize this BNPL feature by paying directly within the Blaze platform via Bespoke’s financing with a 60-day repayment term on all vendor payments while minimizing dispensaries’ reliance on cash transactions. 

We caught up with George Mancheril, co-founder and CEO of Bespoke Financial to learn more about trends in cannabis lending and their unique partnership with Blaze. George was the company’s CFO prior to taking the CEO position in 2019. Prior to Bespoke, George was a VP at Guggenheim Partners in California. 

Aaron Green: What does it mean to be a fintech lender in cannabis?

George Mancheril: Bespoke Financial is a first mover in fintech lending for the cannabis industry, equipped with a robust network of investors, industry expertise and a multi-year track record solidifying our credibility in the space. We are focused on working with established cannabis companies who can use our financing to unlock growth, profitability, and success in the near- and long-term future.

Cannabis lenders must navigate a complex web of both cannabis and financing regulations, specific to each state, while trying to identify good borrowers in a nascent industry comprised of new companies. This has caused banks, traditional lenders, and institutional investors to avoid cannabis despite the unique growth opportunities and economic potential of the industry overall.

Green: What makes Bespoke different from other cannabis lenders in the business?

Mancheril: Unlike the few cannabis lenders active in the market, Bespoke Financial combines best-in-class technology and lending products designed to address the specific financing needs of the industry to better serve our clients. Our tech platform offers a simple interface for our clients to easily access financing, monitor loan balances, and manage payments. Bespoke’s technology allows us to service a broad array of clients in numerous markets across the US, offering our clients a reliable financing partner for their immediate and future needs.

Green: What markets do you serve in cannabis? Are you able to finance plant-touching operations?

George Mancheril, Co-Founder & CEO of Bespoke Financial

Mancheril: Bespoke works with cannabis companies across the entire supply chain within 15 U.S. cannabis markets, with the vast majority of our borrowers being plant-touching operations, Our portfolio comprises cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, dispensaries, non-plant touching cannabis brands, ancillary service providers and CBD companies. Our financing options have helped a wide variety of cannabis operations overcome working capital limitations and capitalize on new growth opportunities and increase profitability.

Green: You recently announced a “Buy Now Pay Later” partnership with Blaze. What problems do dispensaries have that you are solving for there?

Mancheril: As broader economic activity slows in the US with the threat of a recession impacting both businesses and consumers, dispensaries face supply, demand, and fundraising challenges:

  1. Consumer demand challenges:
    1. Cannabis consumers in 2022 are significantly more price sensitive than recent years for several reasons.
      1. High inflation over the past 1yr+ has reduced disposable income for consumers in the US.
      2. Post-COVID return to normalcy has allowed consumers to spend disposable income on many goods and services which were largely been unavailable since the beginning of 2020 (ie travel).
      3. Concern about a recession and slower wage growth has further reduced consumer spending.
      4. Illicit cannabis has always been the main competition for legal dispensaries with little enforcement or curtailing of black-market activity to note in the US.
    2. New cannabis consumers are gravitating towards smaller (but growing) product categories (edibles, concentrates, infused beverages, etc.) as opposed to just purchasing packaged flower. Dispensaries must carry a wide array of products and brands in order to better attract and service new and existing customers.
  2. Supply side challenges:
      1. Mature cannabis markets, such as California, have been saturated with over supply since Q2 2021 leading to inventory build ups and declining wholesale prices for cultivators, manufacturers, and brands (collectively referred to as suppliers). In this environment, suppliers are offering discounts to incentivize customers (i.e. dispensaries) who can:
        1. Purchase larger quantities more frequently to allow suppliers to move inventory before the product quality degrades.
        2. Pay COD for purchases as cashflow and capital are very important for suppliers during periods of economic stress.
      2. Dispensaries without the financial means to conform to suppliers’ preferences will be at a considerable disadvantage as they will continue to have trouble sourcing popular products at the lowest possible cost.
  1. Fundraising challenges:
    1. Cannabis’ federal illegality has resulted in a much smaller universe of potential capital providers. Once a potential lender or investor is identified, typically the application process requires time and resources to complete which puts dispensaries in an especially disadvantageous position. Large MSOs, who tend to attract most of the available capital, can rely on internal finance teams to source capital whereas dispensaries are much more constrained and require a simpler, faster, and easier application process.

Our partnership with Blaze to offer B2B BNPL to dispensaries addresses these challenges and more. With access to our financing, dispensaries are empowered with:

  1. Fast access to financing without a lengthy application process, entirely housed within the Blaze POS’ platform
    1. Dispensaries on the Blaze platform do not need to seek out lenders or weigh various financing options.
    2. No materials need to be gathered for the application.
    3. At the click of a button, dispensaries gain access to capital which they are free to use as they see fit with no obligation.
  1. Easy to understand financing
    1. No obligation: dispensaries have full discretion to use our financing only when they choose.
    2. No prepayment penalties or additional fees.
  1. Increased purchasing power, enabling dispensaries to
    1. Carry a wider array of cannabis products and brands to better service consumer needs.
    2. Purchase a higher quantity of inventory from suppliers to qualify for volume-based discounts.
    3. Pay COD for purchases to qualify for early payment discounts.
    4. Offer lower prices to cautious consumers as a result of these discounts, thereby increasing sales and gross profit while strengthening their relationships with suppliers.

Green: Can you explain your decision to launch in CA and MA first? 

Mancheril: While our ultimate goal is to offer B2B BNPL in all legal cannabis markets, we launched in CA and MA first because these states represent the largest and fastest growing markets in the US respectively. California was the first state that both Bespoke and Blaze launched in individually, so it was a natural starting point for our BNPL partnership. Massachusetts’ continued growth is compelling for any service provider and we believe our BNPL financing will be as successful addressing the needs and challenges in this newer market alongside those in more mature states.

Green: What trends are you seeing in US cannabis debt financing?

Mancheril: Since 2020, we’ve seen many MSOs increasingly rely on debt financing as opposed to equity capital. MSOs accounted for over ~80% of the debt raised over the past 2 years despite only representing a fraction of the broader cannabis market. Additionally, commercial real estate financing options for cannabis companies have increased over the same time period, driven by the growth of cannabis focused REITs. In general, by the end of 2021, we saw an increasing number of debt investors focused on higher yields participate in cannabis deals.

The recent macroeconomic volatility, increase in rates, and widening credit spreads in 2022 have slowed and slightly reversed the trends seen over the past 3 years. While banks and traditional lenders continue to wait for federal legalization, the vast majority of cannabis companies continue to have very limited access to debt financing options. Over the past quarter, we have seen debt investors leverage the recent illiquidity to negotiate higher interest rates and equity components in new debt deals, a trend we expect to continue until the broader economy strengthens or federal legalization gains traction.

At Bespoke, we empower entrepreneurs to grow their businesses without having to surrender control of their companies or visions. We are excited to continually be market leaders addressing this very vital need for cannabis companies of all sizes in all market environments.

Green: What trends are you following in US regulations and emerging markets?

Mancheril: The most recent headlines have been mixed for US cannabis regulations. Federal legalization is a huge point of focus with SAFE Banking failing (again) to survive the US Senate while the introduction of the revised CAOA offers a glimpse of hope. We believe federal regulatory changes will continue to be debated and discussed without any meaningful progress over the next 2 years but the current discussion of the CAOA revisions will provide the best insight on lawmakers’ priorities. On the local level, the list of states with adult-use sales continues to expand and we would expect to see a handful of new markets ushered in by voters in 2022.

Green: What would federal legalization mean for the cannabis lending industry? How do you stay ahead of the curve?

Mancheril: Federal legalization can occur in a variety of ways, including rescheduling cannabis (currently Schedule 1), descheduling cannabis entirely from the CSA, deferring to state specific regulation, implementing a national cannabis regulatory framework, or some combination of all of the above. The complexity of future regulatory changes makes the timeline for legalization difficult to forecast but we believe that the path forward will be comprised of multiple legislative changes over a number of years as opposed to a comprehensive reform addressing all the relevant points at once.

Based on the interests and goals of all stakeholders in this conversation, we believe that:

  1. Cannabis de-scheduling or rescheduling is unlikely to occur before 2025
  2. Any federal legislation which is approved will require long transition periods for new rules to be finalized, implemented, and adopted by relevant stakeholders (state regulators, courts, cannabis operators, financial institutions, etc.)
  3. Federal lawmakers may allow for financial institutions to service the cannabis industry prior to de-scheduling through limited scope legislation like SAFE banking
  4. Federal legislation will have a difficult time balancing deference to state specific cannabis regulation while enabling federal agencies such as the FDA and Treasury department to issue guidelines and rules for the broader industry. Too much federal agency interference will jeopardize existing & functioning cannabis markets while too much deference will impede vital oversight and consumer protection.
  5. We believe interstate commerce will not be allowed immediately following federal legalization. Interstate commerce will benefit larger MSOs and states with mature cannabis markets (which are hampered by oversupply) at the expense of smaller single state operators and new markets. State governments are motivated to legalize cannabis in the pursuit of tax revenue and economic opportunity for their constituents, both of which would be significantly reduced for newer markets competing with out of state operators.

Regardless of which path federal legalization takes in the coming years, the net benefit for the industry overall will be clear. Setting aside the societal benefit from expunging criminal records for non-violent offenders and freeing enforcement agencies to focus on more serious issues, any progress towards legalization would significantly reduce the challenges that cannabis operators face today. Cannabis companies will see a reduction in operating expenses, a wider array of options for basic business services like insurance and marketing, and an increase in consumer demand as the stigma of illegality fades into memory. Allowing banks to service the industry would remove cash as the primary form of payment, entice larger pools of capital to enter the cannabis market, and in general de-risk the industry tremendously. Bespoke will continue in our role as market leader and cannabis industry advocate in this new paradigm by empowering our clients with even greater access to the capital and services vital to their continued success.