Tag Archives: invest

By Richard Naiberg

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a series by Richard Naiberg where he discusses how cannabis businesses can protect their intellectual property in Canada. Part 1 introduced the topic and examined the use of trade secrets in business and Part 2 went into how business owners can protect new technologies and inventions through applying for patents. Part 3 raised the issue of plant breeders’ rights and in Part 4, below, Naiberg discusses trademarks and how cannabis businesses should go about protecting their brand identity in Canada.

Trademarks: Protections For Brands And Goodwill

Cannabis businesses must not only protect their investments in their technical creations, but also must protect their brand identities. A cannabis producer can invest heavily in making a desirable, high-quality product, and can advertise and sell this product so as to generate customer interest and goodwill, but if the customer cannot distinguish the producer’s product from that of its competitor, this investment is for not. Trademarks become unenforceable when they are no longer distinctive.

A trademark provides its owner with the right to have the Court stop another entity from using the trademark, or using a similar trademark in a way that confuses the public. When the trademark is infringed, the Court can also make a monetary award in favor of the trademark owner.

Trademarks are identifiers of a particular source of manufacture and they can take virtually any form. Trademarks can be words, phrases, symbols, names, designs, letters, numbers, colors, three-dimensional shapes, holograms, moving images, modes of packaging, sounds, scents, tastes, textures, or any other distinguishing element. What a trademark cannot be is a mere descriptor of the goods or services themselves because such a trademark would prevent other entities from describing their products in their ordinary terms.

Trademarks can be registered, but they do not have to be. In choosing a trademark, the cannabis producer must balance competing impulses: the desire to choose a trademark that is suggestive of the product itself so as to have an immediate meaning to customers without need of an expensive marketing campaign; and the desire to coin a unique and striking trademark which is instantly eye-catching and memorable, but which must be advertised before customers can understand the product to which it refers.

For example, a depiction of cannabis leaf or a word that plays on the ordinary terms used to refer to cannabis will not make a strong mark that can be enforced against those who adopt something similar. On the other hand, a coined word, such as “Kodak”, may have no independent association with cannabis but, after a time, use of this mark in association with a cannabis product can create a very strong mark with a wider ambit of exclusivity.

All that said, even a very suggestive mark can serve as a trademark where the use of the mark is so longstanding and ubiquitous that the suggestive mark acquires a secondary meaning as an indicator of its source of manufacture. Cannabis producers can and should also consider adopting specific colors, scents or tastes of their products as trademarks, where appropriate.

Trademarks become unenforceable when they are no longer distinctive. For this reason, trademark owners must keep abreast of any use of trademarks similar to their own by third parties, and must act quickly to either license such uses or to restrain them.Cannabis businesses have been very busy applicants for trademarks. More than 1700 such applications are now on file, though a comparative few have yet been registered.

Trademarks can be registered, but they do not have to be. When a company’s product or service becomes known to its customers or potential customers with reference to a mark through ordinary business use, a trademark has been created.

Registration does however provide certain advantages. Under the amendments to the Trademarks Act coming in 2019, a registered trademark can be obtained for without any proof of use or goodwill. By contrast, and as noted above, an unregistered mark must be used and possess goodwill before it can be said to exist at all. A registered trademark provides protection for its owner across Canada. An unregistered trademark can only be enforced in the geographical area in which its owner has established its reputation. A registered trademark is protected from those who use it in a manner that is likely to depreciate the goodwill of the trademark. An unregistered trademark only protects against consumer confusion.

Registration under the Trademarks Act also makes it an offence to sell goods or services on a commercial scale in association with another’s registered trademark, or to traffic in infringing labels. Further, a trademark owner can request that the import or export of such goods in Canada be arrested. No similar rights accrue for unregistered trademarks.

Finally, a registered trademark is published at the CIPO web site, providing notice of its existence to new market entrants before these entrants commit to using a similar trademark. Unregistered marks are not always easily discovered and a new market entrant may commit to a mark before having any opportunity to discover that it is the unregistered trademark of another.

Registering a trademark is straightforward. The applicant prepares an application that identifies the applicant, the trademark and the goods and/or services with which the trademark is being used or is intended to be used. Once satisfied that the application complies with the Trademarks Act, CIPO publishes the application to allow potential opponents of the registration to come forward. If there is no opposition, or if an opposition proceeding is brought and dismissed, the trademark is issued.

There is an interaction between the Trademarks Act and the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act. As discussed above, when a denomination has been adopted for a plant variety under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act, nothing similar can be adopted or registered as a trademark. This is so other traders may use the denomination in their sale of the variety after expiry of the plant breeder’s right.

Cannabis businesses have been very busy applicants for trademarks. More than 1700 such applications are now on file, though a comparative few have yet been registered. Trademark applications in this area are likely to increase further with the coming changes to the Trademarks Act and the removal of the requirement that applicants show use of the trademark prior to registration. Companies will be encouraged to apply for trademarks they may only be considering using, and for any trademarks that they think their competitors may be planning to use. There is some concern that the changes to the Trademarks Act will lead to the rise of trademark trolls.

Before adopting a particular trademark, the producer must do what it can to minimize the likelihood that a third party will assert that the trademark infringes the third party’s prior rights. Searches of Canadian and international trademarks, particularly United States trademarks, are advised. National intellectual property offices, such as CIPO and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, maintain easily searchable databases of registered and applied-for trademarks that should be reviewed. Search professionals can also assist in identifying trademarks that have never been the subject of a trademark application. With the result of the searches in hand, the cannabis producer can determine whether or not to proceed to adopt the contemplated mark and invest in its promotion.

In Part 5, Naiberg will explain how to use a copyright to protect works of creative expression. Stay tuned for more!

August 2, 2018

British Government Agrees To Loosen Rules on Prescribing Medical Cannabis

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

After a year of embarrassing missteps and revelations, along with two well-run advocacy campaigns by the parents of children with drug-resistant epilepsy, the British government is finally throwing in the towel on medical cannabis.

Sadly, politics rather than science has driven the pace of British cannabis legalizationIn the last week of July, a mere two weeks after announcing his review of the issue against mounting domestic pressure and outrage in the media, Sajid Javid, the home secretary, announced that cannabis medications will be rescheduled by the fall, allowing doctors to prescribe them more widely.

“Fall,” it should be noted, is not only when the Canadian government moves ahead with its own fully recreational market, but also when the German bid respondents need to file their paperwork to participate in the country’s first grow bid, Round II.

A Political Embarrassment Beyond Brexit

Sadly, politics rather than science has driven the pace of British cannabis legalization, just like it has in other places. However the UK is one of the best examples of how far medical knowledge has outstripped the pace of political change, and in this case, exposed bare the banal reason.

News broke this summer, as two families mounted a highly successful battle in the public for medical access, that the Prime Minister herself has personally profited from a status quo that is only now slowly going to change.

How and why?

Theresa May, Prime Minister of the UK
Image: Annika Haas, Flickr

It was bad enough in May that the publicly anti-pot reformer Victoria Atkins, the cabinet level British drugs minister, was married to the managing director of British Sugar, the company with the exclusive right to grow cannabis in the British Isles. British Sugar is also the sole cultivator for GW Pharmaceuticals, the only company with the license to produce cannabis medications in the UK (and export them globally). In June, however, it emerged that Prime Minister Theresa May’s husband, Phillip May, is employed by Capital Group– an investment firm that is also the largest shareholder in GW Pharma. This is against the backdrop of news that broke earlier this year that GW Pharma had made the UK the single largest exporter of cannabis-based medicine annually. Globally. Even more than all of the Canadian firms combined currently exporting to Europe and beyond. Even as the drug is largely denied to British residents.

You don’t even have to be British to think the entire situation is more than a bit of a sticky wicket.

Vested, If Not Blueblood Interests

This development also came to light right as GW Pharma’s newest focal epilepsy drug faltered to failure in Eastern European trials and as Epidiolex, the company’s drug for certain kinds of childhood epilepsy, was given the green light in the U.S. by the government as the “first” cannabis-based medication to be allowed for sale in America.

No one has yet defined exactly what kind of cannabinoids will be allowed to be prescribed in the UK come fall, but here is the most interesting development of all that still hangs over the British Isles like stale smoke: Will competitors to GW Pharma be allowed to sell their products to medical customers in the UK or will this new opening for patients just create more of a monopolized windfall for one company whose profits, at least, lie in “pharmatizing” the drug rather than creating greater access to the raw plant or its close derivatives? And those profits flow to women (and men) with the greatest political control over the development of the industry in the country.

Is This Really A “Legalization” Victory?

In the short term, no matter how limited, the answer is actually yes. Rescheduling the drug is a step that has not even been taken in the U.S., and will serve, medically, to reset the needle if not the debate about the circumstances under which cannabis should be used for patients.

It will also move the punishment discussion in a way that still has not happened in places like Germany where, technically, the drug has not yet been decriminalized even though doctors are prescribing it and public health insurers cover the costs for increasing numbers of patients. Large numbers of Britons, just like everywhere else, are incarcerated every year or obtain black marks on their records for mere possession that in turn can affect lives.

Finally, it will put recreational reform in the room, even if still knocking at the door. This discussion too has been gaining in popularity over the past year in particular as reform moves elsewhere. Like Germans, like Canadians and like Americans, reform in Colorado and Washington set loose a global revolution, which will clearly not be stopped.

Even if in places like the UK, it is still moving far slower than it should be. For political and business reasons, not driven by science.

May 16, 2018

Green Relief Enters European Market Via Switzerland

By Marguerite Arnold

1 Comment

It is old news that Canadian companies are entering the European market. And it is also no stop-the-presses flash that Germany is a big prize in all of this. But there are other Euro markets to watch right now. Switzerland is one of them.

Look for the Canadian influx here too.

One of the more interesting entrants this month? Green Relief – a Canadian LP with a really unique twist. They are the only company in the world to produce cannabis oil from flower grown with aquaponics. This unique method creates unbelievably “clean” cannabis with no pesticides – and no residue of them.

It also sets the company up for a really unique market opportunity on the ground outside Canada. Especially as they have now just announced a partnership with two Swiss companies– Ai Fame GmbH and Ai Lab Swiss AG. Both companies have been leading European pharmaceutical companies since the turn of the century. The idea is to leverage all three company’s intellectual capital with Green Relief’s additional and first international investment with an eye to the entire European cannabis market. Ai Fame specializes in cultivation, manufacturing, sales and distribution to both the food and medical sectors. Ai Lab Swiss AG operates as a laboratory and testing facility.Less than three weeks before Green Relief publicized their European announcement, there were also strategic developments afoot at home.

From this unique perch in the Swiss canton of St Gallen, the three companies are setting up to conquer Europe.

Why Is Switzerland So Strategic?

Switzerland has been on the legalization track since 2011. As of this date, the Swiss government began allowing adults to buy and use CBD-only cannabis. Shops were allowed to obtain licenses. A trickle of sales began. However, rather suddenly, as reform hit Europe, the craze took off. Last year, for the first time, the industry generated a significant amount of revenue (close to $100 million). That is $25 million for the government via taxes- just on CBD sales. Even more intriguing for those looking for market opportunity across borders? Less than a week ago, the German-based budget discount store Lidl just announced they were carrying smokeable CBD – in Swiss grocery stores. The leap across the border is imminent.

That has opened up other conversations, including the “legalize everything” push that makes an awful lot of sense to the ever tax-aware Swiss. This is a push afoot just about everywhere across the continent, including, of course, just across the border in Germany.

The cities of Zurich and the cantons of both Winterthur and St Gallen (home of the Swiss companies behind the new venture with Green Relief) have already indicated that they will not pursue possession fines for those busted with 10 grams or less– no matter what kind and even of the THC variety.

Read between the lines, and it is clear that the cannabinoid conversation locally has begun to attract the Canadians. And not just because of the many opportunities of the Swiss CBD market – but the huge medical and THC German and European opportunities now opening beyond that.

No matter which way Green Relief and their new partners slice it, they are now in the game – and across Europe – with a unique new play and product, and further one set to enter both the medical THC and “consumer,” albeit still CBD, market now burgeoning.

A Cross Market Play

Here is the truly interesting part about this new announcement. Less than three weeks before Green Relief publicized their European announcement, there were also strategic developments afoot at home. Cannabis Growth Opportunity Corporation also just announced an investment in Green Relief. The share purchase agreement netted Green Relief $750,000 in both cash and common shares.

With this, Green Relief seems to have set sail on its European expansion. Look for more interesting turns to this developing saga soon!

March 22, 2018

Soapbox

Paradox Or Paragon? A Non-Techie Look At Blockchain and Cannabis: Part III

By Marguerite Arnold

1 Comment

Disclaimer: Marguerite Arnold has just raised the first funds for her blockchain-based company, MedPayRx in Germany (and via traditional investment funding, not an ICO). She will also be speaking about the impact of blockchain on the cannabis industry in Berlin in April at the International Cannabis Business Conference.

Part I of this series was an overview discussion of blockchain, cryptocurrencies and cannabis and Part II dove into some of the pitfalls of ICOs in the cannabis space. This is the third and final piece of this series.

Beyond raising money or tying a tradable altcoin to cannaproduct, there are many places where blockchain technology can (and will) be used to great effect in the cannabis industry.

In fact, ICOs and cryptocurrency are only part of the blockchain discussion for the cannabis industry. In general, the technology will disrupt the vertical just like it is upending other businesses right now. However, for the moment at least, it will prove most useful in the most complicated and challenging technical and regulatory areas – supply chain product tracking being the lowest hanging fruit (which is still fairly high off the ground for a number of reasons). If evaluating blockchain tech is too onerous (which it usually is for the average investor or even senior cannabis exec), there are other options. Look for innovative mobile DApps (distributed apps that use blockchain for a specific purpose) and smart business cases.

The fascinating reality is that where there are service models that can be adapted to regulatory guidelines, blockchain promises, in fact, to remove the red tape and paperwork holding the industry back internationally. The impact on research and testing will also be huge.The rules are certainly changing with regards to public companies and cannabis.

The technology, or even the regulations, in other words, is not necessarily all to blame for the many issues budding blockchain entrepreneurs currently face. This space-age techie stuff, no matter how mind-blowing, is still “just” a tool. As the late Peter Drucker famously said, the raison d’etre of every successful business is one that solves a critical need for their customer. Find one for the industry that happens to use the technology, and you might just retire early. But there is a lot of road between that reality and now. And there probably will not be an ICO on that path. Not in most jurisdictions, and certainly not without complications in every one of them.

With an internationally stock-listed Canadian cannabis business now developing, the rules are certainly changing with regards to public companies and cannabis. For all the press that Cronos recently received for getting listed on the NASDAQ, AbCann got (relatively quietly) listed in Frankfurt last summer. Canopy and Aurora have also just become two of the hottest stocks in Sweden.

That said, these are public companies with regular stock issuances. What that means for ICO issuances related to the cannabis industry in Canada specifically is anyone’s guess at the moment. In Germany presently, this is mine-strewn territory. But even here, that will be driven as much if not more by banking law than canna-reform, just like everywhere else.

Not to mention this of course: Given the choice of investing in a public cannabis company already in business with its stock conveniently listed and purchasable via a regular exchange, what would most people choose? It’s just a whole lot easier than taking a flier on a cannabis-themed ICO offering for a concept that may be a great idea, but will never materialize. Or find a bank. Even in Europe or Canada.

The End Game Is Rosy Even If The Path Is Unclear

Despite all the caveats, the impact on the cannabis industry of this technology will be large – far beyond finance in other words – and in ways that are not necessarily all understood even now. The potential impacts on research, compliance and even further reform, however, are already clear. And for the most part, potentially very positive.

For that reason, there is no such thing as a blanket “yes” or “no” at any part of this discussion. Regulatory environments regarding both cannabis and blockchain are changing everywhere. Go slow and with caution is the watchword of the day. Look for interesting beta projects and track them.This is a rapidly changing territory in every direction.

Mentioning cannabis and blockchain if not cryptocurrency in the same breath is also legit, now. As little as 2 years ago, the idea or any combination of the two terms in fact, for whatever reason, was widely dismissed as just another iteration of Silk Road.

When combining this technology and cannabis, in other words, expect either amazing results or fantastic explosions that create a lot of heat and noise but go nowhere. There is more room, in other words, for a cannabis.io to become the industry’s NextGen Pets.com than Google or Facebook. That said, there are experiments going on now, in several countries where the banking and insurance questions are being addressed early (Germany, Canada, Australia and Israel all being such locales) where such issues have begun to be addressed up front.

In summary? Stay tuned and watch this space. This is a rapidly changing territory in every direction.

March 14, 2018

Soapbox

Paradox or Paragon? A Non-Techie Look at Blockchain, Cryptocurrency & Cannabis: Part II

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

To read the first part of this series, click here. The Paragon class action lawsuit is likely to shake up two industries – the cannabis world, which has been following this situation at least in the industry press since the company began to raise money – and the ICO space in general. Why? Just the combination of the two topics is a guaranteed conversation starter. In addition, given the focus on whether tokens are securities or not (or whether so-called “utility tokens” are as well, depending on how they are used and sold) far beyond cannabis, this case may well begin to set precedent on the entire subject. Even more worrying for Paragon in particular right now, beyond the federal government, coordinated efforts are underway by both law firms and consumer groups to recruit aggrieved investors as suit plaintiffs. Beyond the United States and far from the Paragon case specifically, banks in Europe have begun to set guidelines on cryptocurrency and ICOs too. It is not routinely hostile everywhere (see Switzerland if not many Asian countries). But the map is now being defined.

The dilemma that Paragon is now facing is also something that has been coming for some time both for the company and others like them – and from both the cannabis investment and crypto coin directions. Digitally astute cannapreneurs take note: Do you really want your dream business used to define precedent as a defendant in a class action? Or targeted by the new SEC cyber unit whose job is to regulate ICOs (and probably “crowd sales” too?). That regulatory glare is coming everywhere. And soon. Globally.In the world of cannabis, in particular, it is also very important to be careful.

If issuing tokens, particularly if you sell them to raise money – no matter what that money will be used for – realize what you are doing. Even if you state to the world that these are not “investment” vehicles” but “utility” tokens. If you sell them, they are by definition, even if not federally litigated and defined yet in the United States, a contract for future worth, services or other benefit. An IOU in other words. As such they are also derivative securities, which is why the regulatory agencies, barely 10 years out of the last global financial meltdown, are now starting to see parallels. So much so, in fact, that SEC Chair Jay Clayton warned in January that any attorneys who are involved in ICOs might be in breach of professional obligations. Other jurisdictions are following suit.

In the world of cannabis, in particular, it is also very important to be careful. Selling (soon to be federally if not internationally regulated) tokens or securities in general for that matter for certain services or products that can be illegal in some jurisdictions is also a space that cannapreneurs are going to find challenging. See the banking problems of the entire U.S. cannabis industry. Same issue.

This is also going to get even more complicated very soon. Particularly in a world of shifting regs and when it comes to “brand creation.” Right now, for example, a crowdfund or ICO (the terms can be used interchangeably, token issue or not) for a “global cannabis lifestyle brand” promoted and sold online is highly problematic just about everywhere. Why? You cannot transport cannabis across state lines in the U.S. Americans and Israelis also still cannot export anywhere. You also cannot sell what is considered “medical” marijuana to a European regulator if it is not GMP certified. It is, according to local definition, most certainly not “medical”. You may also not distribute cannabis online in countries like Germany. And of course, cannabis itself is still federally illegal in many places, including the United States. Issuing a token or security with the intent of engaging in such practices is ill advised at this juncture. No matter what it is labelled.

Those are also situations where investors could legitimately also sue the ICO or crowd sale holder for breach of securities laws or outright fraud.

Beyond the world of banking law, users face other quagmires, depending on your situation and how you use and issue tokens. Or you certainly will in the emerging future. If you use tokens in situations where members “vote” you may also run into other problems. Like civil liberties issues. Poll taxes (where you force people to pay before access to voting or weigh the impact of their votes on financial contributions) is illegal in many jurisdictions and even more specifically certain use cases that may not always be initially obvious. How that plays out in blockchained ecosystems is a discussion of the future, but it is coming. Along with other labour and regulatory issues surrounding the use of “smart contracts.” Which are also known as “utility tokens.” See, it gets confusing. And fast.

In the cannabis space, liabilities sprout more quickly than even the fastest growing strain.As a result, the first major issue that any cannabis business considering a token generation event (or TGE) will face, no matter whether it is state or federally legit in said jurisdiction, has nothing to do with cannabis but rather rather cryptocurrencies and ICOs – and for right now federal if not international financial law – but look for that to also change as the space develops.

For the present, in most places, token issues where monetary value is assigned or implied are considered securities or even defined outright as currency. Or they will be soon. This means that if you are issuing a new coin for any purpose that you intend to sell for any purpose, including an ICO, especially one that will supposedly be used to pay for goods or services, or even to “assetize” the token to give it a market value (the value of the asset it is assigned), you are now in the federal end of the swimming pool. And federal if not international law is not for novices or sissies much less non-lawyers when it comes to crypto coin. There are great white sharks everywhere in this often-strange digital ocean. That is even before you get to cannabis.

In the cannabis space, liabilities sprout more quickly than even the fastest growing strain.

This is also easy to illustrate – even beyond the concept of an ICO. Say you are a cannabis producer in Colorado – where much of the legal cannabis industry we know today was born. You are in business, have a license and even own your grow space and the acres of real estate that it sits on. But you also want to access additional capital (including that of the international kind) and are, as an aside, overwhelmed by the demands of your cash business. You meet an energetic young blockchain geek who says she can sign you up to her service that will create your white paper, website and even hook you up to one of the several “insta-mint” crypto coin services now available for several thousand dollars (don’t forget lawyer’s fees), plus hiring a good PR firm to manage the ICO process.

Groovy.

You issue your own coins and literally mint them for the sole purpose of assigning each coin to every dried gram of your product that you produce to test the market before potentially holding an ICO. You then “sell” this bud (at wholesale prices) to a dispensary with a wallet that will accept your coin via a smart contract that only releases the funds when the right amount and quality of product is delivered to the dispensary. As a clever marketing technique, you also agree with the recreational dispensary you are working with (who happens to be in Aspen) that you both will also now offer jointly issued coins, at a higher retail price, to any tourist with a medical card or any age-appropriate recreational user who has the ID to prove it, to “pre-buy” their cannabis on the way to après ski and have it delivered, no questions asked, at the hot tub. You advertise the service with a cannabis-friendly ski package operator and travel agent, and voila – customer base is assured. If you have any celebrity friends who are willing to promote it, even better. And why not, while you are at it, do some LinkedIn outreach.

No cash needed either. ID verification happens with coin purchase.

Easy, right? So many headaches solved with one coin to rule them all. Banking issues evaporate along with a lot of work for accountants at both ends of the conversation. And the price of the coin you issue cannot be illegally pumped and dumped because the “price” is set by the state or federal market and/or supply and demand and/or another kind of asset (like a piece of real estate designed to be a startup incubator space for which people also pay entrance fees in your tokens, to enter and use). Then you can offer these “coins” for sale, at those market prices, set by the dried bud you are growing, to anyone, anywhere, to invest in too. Right?

No ICO, even. No problem. After all, you say they aren’t securities but “utility tokens.”

Wrong.

By definition, such activity is illegal in the United States if it has anything to do with the plant for the same reasons the U.S. industry remains a mostly cash-only business. There are several U.S. start-ups trying to construct “legal” payment gateways for the industry right now in the lower 48 plus 2 (see CanPay in Hawaii) and some creative efforts in Europe. However, all of those depend on the willingness of a banking institution on the other end to allow that to happen. See Uruguay if you still remain optimistic about any American efforts right now. Not to mention the newly awoken willingness of the federal DOJ to prosecute for money laundering in a post-Cole-memo world. And that includes you too, California.

But this is an issue that is not just limited to the United States.

In other places, like Canada, Australia, Israel and the Eurozone, legitimate cannabis businesses have bank accounts. And banks are absolutely involved in both the blockchain and crypto space – see Ripple. As a simplified payment gateway, the technology is imminently useful, if still forming. But banking authorities are so concerned about ICOs that they are moving, quietly, to implement policies against them even as they are still accepting cyber currency (in limited ways and via strictly controlled channels).

Given such concerns and divided loyalties, it is unlikely that authorities in Canada will sit this one out, even though (and perhaps because), to date, the most intriguing ideas about cryptocurrency and cannabis have tended to waft from this part of the world lately given what is about to happen this summer.

Most dangerous of all to the budding crypto cannapreneur is Germany – home of legal, public health insurance covering medical cannabis. Banking regulators in Frankfurt, in particular, have taken a dim view of even just regular old crowdfunding. Add a token into the mix and the Germans are even less amused. The persistent rumor in the Fintech community in Frankfurt this March is that German banking authorities are refusing to accept any funds raised during an ICO anywhere. Verboten for any purpose. Why? Even if they know who you are, and all of your investors meet their KYC requirements, they do not know the source of the cyber currency coming from those investors. No dice. And KYC in this instance does not refer to a new brand of cannabis-flavored lubricant. It is a term that means, in the most comprehensive understanding of how it must be used, not only “know your customer” but being able to verify all points of data on a chain. Including the coin issuer, purchase conditions, currency used to purchase the same and “chain of title” downstream. If you are confused by this already, you should not be engaged in an ICO right now.Not all of these models or even the ICOs that use them are scams.

Add cannabis to this recipe, and every bank in Germany, even the one at the moment who is still more or less openly participating in ICOs, if not the rest of the European financial community, will probably walk. Even if you reach your “hard cap” (the maximum amount you hope to raise) that might be in the tens if not hundreds of millions of euros. In that case, it will probably be even harder to find a bank to accept your business. Worse, you may never raise the amount you hope for. At that point, you cannot go back to traditional venture capitalists – or anyone else – for more money. You are done. You must start over from scratch. If there was an asset of any kind involved (including a license to do business) legally, everyone who holds a coin owns a piece of it. See securities law. This is precisely why you can never raise money again against that asset or with the corporate entity that owns it. Or at least not without a lot of legal fees or begging your peeved investors for more money. Legally, at that point, they could require you to sell all assets associated with the corporate entity holding the ICO. And they probably would. For investors that is the best-case scenario. ICOs for concepts with no assets or strategic partnerships in place at the time of the “token sale,” create many lose-all scenarios for investors.

There are many pitfalls to this world – and not just from the cannabis side.Issuing a “token” that someone has to pay for that acts like cash (even if to buy goods and services in the future from other members of the ecosystem and social community that crypto coins create) that also is vulnerable to market pricing, is another quagmire. In fact, it might be, beyond any techno or financial queasiness about blockchain, the biggest reason that this industry should look, and with considerable caution, at all tokenized and ICO models that also premise their worth on the idea that such coins will inevitably increase in worth over time. There is also anti-cartel, monopoly and market discrimination to consider.

Not all of these models or even the ICOs that use them are scams. There are and will be valuable alt currencies and tokens in the future (even without a cash value assigned). All of the top start-ups in the current ICO space, in fact, are finding unique ways to create a real alternative currency with values attached that are indisputable. And not all of them will succeed.

However, that is not true of the cannabis business at this juncture. The plant, much like cryptocurrency and beyond that, blockchain itself, has not reached mainstream status yet – starting with market economics and regulation that is already international. A pot-based coin, no matter where it is issued and by whom (including a federal government), would run into multiple issues with valuation just because the price of cannabis itself right now is so volatile, not to mention unevenly priced thanks to jurisdictional restrictions and barriers. For that reason, there is no way to issue a “cannabis coin” with global relevance, much less global value.

And that, of course, is beyond the issue of subsequently selling those coins on exchanges that have been repeatedly hacked, fail to give customers access to their accounts, or are, in the case of China, banned outright (which also deemed ICOs illegal last September).

There are many pitfalls to this world – and not just from the cannabis side. Part III of this series will look at some of the biggest opportunities when cannabis integrates with the DLT (distributed ledger technology).

March 7, 2018

Soapbox

Paradox or Paragon? A Non-Techie Look at Blockchain, Cryptocurrency & Cannabis: Part I

By Marguerite Arnold

2 Comments

You have probably heard of cryptocurrencies, tokens and smart contracts. You might have also heard, even if you did not understand the significance, that IBM recently suggested that the Canadian government use their form of blockchain, called Hyperledger, to track the recreational cannabusiness. Or that a large LP called Aurora is also looking at this space (as are other licensed producers large and small). Or maybe you have seen an item in the mainstream news about an ICO for a cannabis company that is now also going terribly wrong.

What on earth is going on?

These are all related issues, even if highly confusing and disjointed. Blockchain technology and cryptocurrency are hot right now and getting hotter – both in the mainstream world and in the cannabis industry globally. But for all its fans, the drumbeat for caution is also growing louder the more mainstream this technology (and the legitimate cannabis industry) becomes.

The many problems the entire cannabis vertical has with banking has make this current development almost inevitableOn the technology and finance side, that is why so many big names right now are urging caution. Nouriel Roubini, professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, is just the latest to do so – and for reasons that everything to do with history. Including recent history ten years ago, when the world stood on the brink of a financial disaster thanks to unchained derivatives. The biggest worry in fact, right now, is about the financial implications of widespread adoption of the technology, beyond the tech itself and how it may (and may not) be legitimately used. Which itself is a huge question.

So why all the fuss?

This is revolutionary technology which is also being introduced into the market at a time when decentralized processing for automation is on the horizon. But also because blockchain can be used to create tokens or digital coins that act like financial instruments. And once created, such tokens can be issued much like money or even stock, to raise additional funds – for both start-ups and ongoing enterprises. The best thing though? This technology was invented to create a decentralized form of value exchange and trust-less, anonymized auditing and verification. No traditional financial institutions or even governments needed, wanted or should apply (at least in theory).

The many problems the entire cannabis vertical has with banking has make this current development almost inevitable. Not to mention accessing investment cash (although this is certainly changing outside the United States). Compliance issues in every direction are another wrinkle this tech will help solve. Starting with tracking product but also rapidly expanding to uses including protecting users’ privacy and facilitating access to high-quality, inspected product for qualified users and buyers. Not to mention other areas that are literally space-age but coming fast. Look for cool stuff coming soon involving both AI (artificial intelligence) and IoT (internet of things).

It is a fascinating, complex space. However, one aspect of this world, in particular, Initial Coin Offerings – or ICOs are getting attention right now. Why? They can be an incredibly efficient way to raise money for companies – both ones currently in business and start-ups with little more than a whitepaper or business plan and perhaps a working prototype. More and more of the successful ICOs are, however, for an existing company or are even attached to an asset, including a license, a prototype or a fund of money (or other combinations). They also rely on blockchain and alternative currency or tokens (sometimes also referred to as smart contracts) to work.

From a technology perspective, you can “mint” new coins relatively easily these days, sourced from a variety of different kinds of blockchain. Or even combinations thereof. You also can issue tokens or altcoins without an ICO.

In a world where there is vastly expanding cannabis opportunity, and many of these hopeful entrepreneurs are both digitally astute but without access to traditional capital, what could be better?

bitcoin — Bitcoin quickly became one of the more popular cryptocurrencies

From a financial and investor perspective, ICOs are a hybrid form of an IPO meets social media. “Coins,” “tokens” and “smart contracts” –or cyber currency collectively– are digital forms of cash, contracts, membership cards, discounts or even authorizations for identity. There are many ways tokens can be used, in other words. This by way of saying there are also important differences too. Not all tokens are the same. Not all are used as “money.” Some are but have assets assigned to them (like real estate). Others, particularly smart contract tokens, are strictly functional (pay funds when product is delivered and verified). The one caveat here is that the exchange of any token or altcoin will also cost money. Why? It is the electricity cost of computer processing the request for transfer. Plus access and service fees. There is no such thing as a “free” token. How tokens are priced, sold, bought, maintain value and for what purposes, is a debate if not process function that will not be solved anytime soon. Starting with the fact that some blockchains are more energy efficient (and sourced from green energy) than others.

To add to all of this confusion, not all ICOs function the same way. Some do give investors ownership in the company or specific portfolios that even include real-world assets. Others offer to use pooled funds to buy assets (like real estate or an expensive license). Many rely on the “coin” issued as a kind of discount scheme, reward mechanism and in many cases, direct discounted payment for future goods and services, of both the digital and real world kind. Many offer banking services directly, including in the very near future, the ability to exchange cyber cash for the fiat variety at even remote ATMs. Sound futuristic? It is coming and soon.

Most ICOs in the market now, however, rely on the following supposition: Issue a token with a unique name. Put up an ICO website. Encourage investors from anyplace on the planet with an internet connection, to use either crypto or fiat currency to buy tokens in the issuing startup as an investment that will give the new company funds to operate and build out services or the application (whatever that is). Also, plan to use the tokens for an exchange of some kind in the future (either for other coins or a good or service). Watch the value of the coin increase (for whatever reason) while informing investors (or contributors) that this is not really a security but a “utility” token that is expected but not guaranteed to become more valuable. Retire early with the prospect of having brokers of expensive real estate in places like London and Dubai come calling.The public tide of opinion, even if regulations are slow to move, is on the side of reform if not outright advocacy.

That will not be the case for the vast majority of ICOs, however, no matter what returns, goods or services they offer. Even if they also have vibrant communities already using their services (whatever those are). It will not be the case for most of the cryptocurrencies upon which such ICOs are based (most at the moment are based on Ethereum, NEO, Hyperledger or combinations of the three). There will be more of those too. And not every blockchain will make it (cryptocurrencies and tokens are based on an origin protocol or blockchain much like computer operating systems are either PC or Mac or mobile phones are Android or Apple). Some speak to one another well. Most do not “exchange” easily – even between themselves – let alone back into good old cash. And while nobody wants to be the Betamax of blockchain, there will, inevitably, be quite a few of them. When that happens, any economic value of the coins and even contractual relationships created with them disappear as well. Add in extreme price volatility in the current market pricing of these tokens, and you begin to get a sense of the risk profile involved in all of this.

The real hurdle, not to mention expense, comes when transferring back from the world of crypto to the one of fiat (regular money). Being a Bitcoin billionaire (there are about 1,000 individuals who own about 40% of the entire global Bitcoin issuance) is no fun if you have no place to spend it.

A Rapidly Changing Marketplace

In the past 18 months, cryptocurrency and ICOs have gotten increasing attention because of the increasing value of all kinds of cyber currency (far beyond Bitcoin). The total market cap for all forms of cryptocurrency itself zoomed past $700 billion at the turn of the year. That is impossible to ignore. You might have heard of some of these currencies too. There is ETH, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dash, even Dogecoin (created originally as a joke on an internet dog meme). Right now, in fact, at some of the most expansive exchanges, there are literally hundreds of these coins which are constantly bought and sold if not exchanged and used.

paragon advertisement — This has red flags written all over it.

And then there are the sums ICOs are bringing in some cases, flagrantly flaunting regulatory agencies and doing end runs on the global banking system that cannot keep up with them. The top ICO of 2017, a company called Block.one and registered in the Cayman Islands, so far holds the record at $700 million and counting. Filecoin, the second largest ICO last year, raised $262 million in one month from August to September. And then, of course, there is the cannabis industry-specific case of Paragon – now headed for class-action lawsuit litigation over their $70 million pre-and ICO sale intentions.

It would be logical to assume, given the eye-watering sums potentially involved not to mention the large role a smart digital media footprint has to do with an ICO’s success, beyond its service or technology offerings, that this would be a perfect place for cannapreneurs to turn for funding. The global market is opening for cannabis reform at the same time the crypto craze meets Fintech Upheaval is occurring – in fact, these two things are happening almost simultaneously.

Thanks to regulatory realities and an ongoing stigma, there is still no institutional investment in the industry in the United States (that is rapidly changing other places). These are two new industries and dreams are large.

In the legit cannabis space, so are the expenses.

The price of opening a dispensary in most U.S. states tops a million dollars right now. In Europe, the price of entry is even more expensive. A GMP compliant grow facility in Western Europe, plus the money for lawyer’s fees and negotiations for the license itself will set you back anywhere from $20 million and up, depending on the location. Even staying afloat in the industry once the doors are opened is a challenge. And loans, even for outstanding invoices, are still tough to come by in an industry where banking services of the simple business account kind are a challenge. Particularly in the United States.

The public tide of opinion, even if regulations are slow to move, is on the side of reform if not outright advocacy. Why shouldn’t a reform-group-rooted ICO aspire to own or provide ongoing business financing to a community-minded canna farm in California, Canada, Germany, Israel or Australia? Or even Greece?

However, right now, with some noted exceptions, the cannabis business remains at minimum, a dangerous place to consider issuing altcoins that act like financial instruments or raise money with them. Why and how?

Part II of this series will look at the significant liabilities of using cryptocurrency and ICOs in the cannabis industry.

February 7, 2018

MGC Pharma Makes Its Slovenian Moves More Final

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

Right now the map of Europe, from a cannabis cultivation perspective at least, is shaping up to be very much like a game of Risk. Throw the dice, move your armies (or more accurately line up your financing), and apply for federal import and cultivation licenses.

In the process, all sorts of interesting strategic plays are popping up. And as a result, here is a new and actually pretty cool “alternative” reality that is easy to verify in several different ways. Medical cannabis is being cultivated in multiple countries across Europe as of 2018, however unbelievable this was even four years ago. Even though it is still cleary just early days. And those cultivators are already international, operating across federal jurisdictions in Europe and across both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

With all the excitement and attention paid to the American hemisphere and the European moves of big Canadian LPs (and they are pretty amazing), there are still other moves afoot that are absolutely of note. Specifically, Australian firms and MGC Pharma in particular, have been moving steadily to establish both distribution and cultivation presence on the ground in Europe.

CannEpil MGC — CannEpil, the company’s first pharmaceutical-grade medical cannabis product for the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

The latest news? MGC’s production facility in Slovenia was officially inspected by authorities and issued an interim license for its production plant in January, before presumably being given a green light of approval permanently. The company is also moving forward with the production of CannEpil, the company’s first pharmaceutical-grade medical cannabis product for the treatment of refractory epilepsy.

Refractory epilepsy affects about 30% of all those who suffer from the condition. Refractory is one of those words however, that hides its real meaning. Translation for those without an MD? This is “drug resistant” epilepsy. Resistant to all drugs before, of course, except cannabinoids.

And that is a welcome relief for patients domestically and throughout Europe. It is also a note to investors looking for savvy Euro plays right now.For all manufacturers now considering entering this market, this is a complicated environment to begin negotiating

This is a major win for MGC. Not to mention a vibrant medical market. No matter where specialty drugs are now going to be sourced from.

A Treatment-Driven “Branded” Pharma Market

What more traditional American pharmaceutical companies have known for a long time (certainly since the 1950’s) is now a fact also facing all cannabis brands coming to the European market and Germany in particular. The regulatory environment is hostile to the extreme for Auslanders in particular. Specifically, the development of “branded” or “name brand” drugs runs economically and philosophically counter to the concept of public health insurance itself even as their market accessibility is required by the same. This is even more the case for foreign firms with such ideas.

Here is the problem. Name brands are expensive. They are also usually outlier drugs for specific, relatively rare conditions. This is also the place where new drugs enter the market, no matter what they are.

In an environment where the government negotiates bulk contracts for common drugs and these can be bought at every apotheke (pharmacy) for 10 euros and a doctors rezept (prescription), the chronically ill and those with drug resistant conditions are left out of the discussion. They face steep and usually inaccessible bills up front for all meds not in bulk purchase categories. And that as of last year in Germany specifically, includes cannabis. That is the case even though technically the government is now buying cannabis in bulk and making purchase commitments to foreign companies for the same. Insurance companies, however, are still forcing patients to pay the entire out of pocket cost up front and wait to reimbursed.

“Generic” Brands For Off label Chronic Conditions

However medical cannabis is clearly not just another drug. Cannabis falls on both sides of every fence in this discussion.

The first problem is that the providers (importers and soon to be domestic cultivators) are private companies. All of them are foreign helmed at this point, with a well-developed bench of branded products. That makes all cannabis drugs, oil and flower, by definition, fall into the “expensive” branded category immediately. The German, Italian, and Danish governments appear to be now negotiating bulk buys during a licensing season that is well on the way to domestic cultivation too. That alone will affect domestic prices and new products. But again, this is now several years behind other countries – notably MGC in Slovenia, Tilray in Portugal, all things now afoot in Denmark and clearly, Greece.

Next, cannabis’s status as a still imported, speciality, semi-trial status in the EU means it is in the most restricted categories of drugs to begin with (no matter the name or strength of the cannabinoid in particular). And because it can be bought as bud, in an “unprocessed” form as well as processed oils or other medicine, this is throwing yet another spanner into the mix.

Look for distribution deals all over Europe as a result, starting with PolandThen there is this wrinkle. Cannabis (even CBD) is currently considered a narcotic within the EU and even more specifically the largest continental drug market – Germany. The German regulatory system in particular, also imposes its own peculiarities. But basically what this means in sum is that the legal cannabis community including distributors and pharmas at this point, have to educate doctors in an environment where cannabis itself is a new “brand.” Who manufactures what, for the purposes of German law, at least, is irrelevant. It is what that drug is specifically for that matters.

For all manufacturers now considering entering this market, this is a complicated environment to begin negotiating. This is sure not how things are back home.

What this also means is that low cost, speciality cannabis products will continue to be imported across Europe for the German and other developing, regulated sovereign markets here as doctors learn about cannabis from condition treatments. And that is what makes the news about MGC even more interesting.

Look for distribution deals all over Europe as a result, starting with Poland. And, despite the many well-connected and qualified hopefuls from Canada, a little competition in the German market too.

MS is the only “on-label” drug at present for cannabis treatment in Germany. As a result, particularly when it comes to paediatric treatment for drug resistant epilepsy, this is the kind of strategic presence that will create a competitive source for highly condition-branded medication for a very specific audience of patients. It is also what the German market, for one, if not the EU is shaping up to be at least in the near term.

As this interesting abstract from 2006 clearly shows, this kind of epilepsy is also high on the German radar from a public policy and healthcare-cost containment perspective. The costs of treatment per patient were between 2,600 and 4,200 euros for three months a decade ago, and not only have those risen, but so have the absolute number of people in similar kinds of situations.

Further, with indirect costs far higher than direct costs including early retirement and permanent semi disability, MGC’s market move into an adjacent (and cheaper) production market might be just what the German doctors if not policymakers now looking at such issues, will order.