According to a press release published on Monday, SC Labs has acquired C4 Laboratories, a cannabis testing lab located in Scottsdale, Arizona. The acquisition means SC Labs has expanded their footprint into five states total. Originally based in California, the cannabis testing company now has locations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan and Oregon.
Ryan Tracy, Founder/CEO of C4 Labs.
Ryan Treacy founded C4 Laboratories and has been a vocal advocate for product safety testing since 2016. As CEO of the company, he led the laboratory through regulatory upheaval and a lot of changes the state has seen since legalization. He also co-founded the Arizona Cannabis Laboratory Association and led lobbying efforts on behalf of patients and stakeholders to require lab testing.
He says they are excited to join forces, becoming the largest cannabis testing platform in the US. “Our combined leverage of top scientists with specialized cannabis testing knowledge and a leadership team of industry experts will allow us to do everything from harmonizing R&D efforts to improving the data experience to pushing for positive regulatory change,” says Treacy. All current employees of the C4 team will stay on, joining the new SC Labs team.
Jeff Journey, CEO of SC Labs
This acquisition represents another important milestone for the SC Labs expansion plan. Last year, they hired a new CEO, Jeff Journey, and launched their national hemp testing partnership based in Colorado. That, coupled with the expansion through Can-Lab into Michigan last year along with the C4 acquisition, SC Labs has expanded into three new states within the last twelve months.
Journey says they’re thrilled to acquire the C4 team and that they have shared values, a proven track record and good expertise. “With this acquisition, we can continue to expand best-in-market cannabis testing services and the opportunity to service multi-state growers and manufacturers,” says Journey. “It is truly an exciting time for growth, and we know that the C4 team will be an invaluable addition to our team, culture and operations.”
ASTM International has announced the approval of a new standard in development that could have potentially wide-reaching influence on the cannabis industry throughout the world. ASTM’s cannabis committee (D37) has approved the new standard (D8449) for development that aims to develop internationally aligned label specifications for all products containing cannabinoids.
According to the press release, The new labeling standard is the first of its kind, attempting to harmonize regulations throughout the cannabis industry with universally recognized labels that could be adopted by regulators anywhere in the world. ASTM member Darwin Millard has spearheaded the development of this new standard and believes it will have countless practical applications.
“Having the same information presented in the same manner across jurisdictions means consumers of products containing cannabinoids will have consistent information conveyed to them in a way they are familiar with,” says Millard. “This ensures consumers have the information they need to make an informed purchase decision, and will ultimately lead to increased consumer safety and confidence.”
ASTM International is a nonprofit, voluntary consensus-based standards development group. They are inviting feedback and input as they refine the standard and work on presenting it to the international cannabis community. “We welcome regulators, producers, and consumers from around the world to give us feedback,” says Millard. “This is intended to be a living document to remain relevant throughout this ever-changing landscape.”
On April 13, 2023, The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) announced that Curaleaf would not be able to renew their cultivation and retail licenses for adult use cannabis for violating labor rules under the state’s cannabis regulations. In a surprise reversal, the NJ CRC voted to approve the license renewals with some caveats during an emergency meeting on April 17.
According to Commissioner Krista Nash with the NJ CRC, Curaleaf did not abide by the law when it failed to recognize workers’ vote to unionize in a timely manner. She says evidence includes testimony from workers and the union. “In my opinion, Curaleaf, in several of its locations, have not complied with the mandatory labor provisions set forth in the law,” says Nash. “And that alone was reason to deny their application for renewal.”
In a press release published by Curaleaf following the reversal, the company say they will be complying with the demands set by the NJ CRC to provide documentation of its labor practices, confirm ongoing compliance and provide evidence of good faith efforts to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. “Today’s decision by the CRC Board to vacate their unprecedented action last week is an incredible victory for our 500 NJ team members and vindication for what we knew all along: Curaleaf is in good standing with the CRC and has fulfilled every requirement necessary for the renewal of our licenses,” says Matt Darin, CEO of Curaleaf in the same statement.
While the second chance comes with a number of caveats, the decision reversal is definitely unprecedented. The Board at the NJ CRC said that if Curaleaf does not comply with those demands, they have the ability to take further action at the next meeting. “Either we hold true to the law and protect the hard-working men and women of New Jersey who want fair wages and working conditions, or we can reward bad behavior and ignore these mandates for the sake of money and profits,” says Nash. “The conditions contained in these resolutions presented today offer Curaleaf a second chance to course correct.”
By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright No Comments
A little over a year ago, we at AB FinWright took a look at the newly-opened adult-use cannabis market in Montana and posed the question: Is Cannabis the Next Gold Rush for Montana? Now, with our 20-20 hindsight, we can see that cannabis sales have taken off in the Treasure State and the tax dollars are rolling in. But political infighting has arisen that threatens to derail the will of the voters who approved adult-use. In addition, arbitrary local approval has set many cannabis entrepreneurs on edge, wondering if they’ll have a business a year from now.
Sales: Predicted Versus Actual
When voters passed Initiative I-190 in 2020 and adult-use commenced January 1, 2022, the Cannabis Control Division (CCD) of the Montana Department of Revenue expected total adult-use sales in 2022 to top $130M. Montana’s imbibers blew that figure out of the water. By the end of last year, the Treasure State had notched up almost $210M of adult-use sales, alongside $93M of medical sales, for a total of almost $304M. With a state population of only 1,085,000, that translates into $280 of cannabis sales per capita. For context, Oklahoma sold $214 of cannabis per person in 2022, while California did only $135/person last year. (It’s estimated that 55% of California’s sales are made by illegal dispensaries, which would translate into a far more robust total of $301 of cannabis/person.)
How Has the Tax Situation Changed in Montana?
At the beginning of 2022, we noted that Montana charges a 4% cannabis tax on medical sales and a 20% cannabis tax on adult-use sales. A 3% maximum local tax was part of the new law, but only 3 counties had enacted it. Fast forward a year and 17 more counties have chosen to enact the local tax, all of them charging the maximum 3%. 10 states allow adult-use sales and have no local tax, which leaves 26 counties that have prohibited adult-use sales (the red counties).
The good news: wholesale sales are exempt from cannabis taxes, and there is no regular sales tax on retail sales, so there is no tax-on-tax (unlike California, which has sellers calculate and collect sales tax on the sale price of their cannabis products plus the cannabis excise tax they’re required to collect).
Montana does not follow Internal Revenue Code 280E and allows normal business deductions for licensed (legal) cannabis corporations, as well as pass-through entities and individuals with licensed cannabis operations.
As State Cannabis Tax Revenue Goes Up, Fights Break Out Over the Funds
Total cannabis tax revenue for 2022 was almost $46M and is projected to rise to $53M for the fiscal year 2023-2024, which starts this July 1, 2023.
Eyeing this revenue, Governor Gianforte (R) initiated House Bill HB 462 on February 17, 2023, whose intent is to funnel revenue away from state parks and wildlife as approved by the voters, and more towards law enforcement and the state’s general fund.
I-190, along with approving adult-use cannabis, specified that the first $6M in tax revenue would go for the state program Healing and Ending Addiction through Recovery and Treatment. All remaining funds would be split between the general fund 65%, various parks and wildlife programs (32%) and veterans and surviving spouses (3%).
HB 462 would see the general fund receiving 75%, law enforcement 7.5%, veterans and surviving spouses 5%, with parks and wildlife reduced to 12.5%. Many feel this subverts the will of the electorate.
On almost the same day as HB 462 was introduced, another bill was put forward, AB 420, which would eliminate the 4% cannabis tax and 3% local tax on medical marijuana. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Mike Hopkins, a Republican from Missoula, believes that adult-use tax revenues are “more than capable” of funding the adult-use program as well as the other addiction and parks and wildlife programs enumerated in I-190. The bill is being countered by the Montana League of Cities and Towns which believes that repealing that tax would create a $4.5M dent across those communities who instituted the local tax.
Both bills have been tabled in committee and will continue to be debated in the second half of the 2023 legislative session.
Retail, Cultivation & Manufacturing – Grandfathered Licenses Only, for Now
Original adult-use legislation stated that, from January 1, 2022, until July 1, 2023, only Montana medical licensees who were licensed on November 3, 2020 (or had an application pending with DPHHS on that date) might be issued a license for cultivation, manufacture or sale of adult-use marijuana. In an explicit effort to give current Montana-based dispensaries a temporary advantage over out-of-state players, the new law imposed an 18-month moratorium on all new licenses. Once the moratorium expires, new license holders will be limited to a small Tier 2 license, which restricts the amount of cannabis they can grow.
New license holders will need to show one year of Montana residency in order to even apply. That being said, there’s nothing stopping an out-of-state business from buying an existing business from a current Montana resident.
Near the North entrance of Yellowstone in Park County, Montana
In an update to this legislation, a rider was recently added to HB 128 that would extend the licensing moratorium two more years, to July 1, 2025. The bill was approved by committee on February 14, 2023 and will come before the House later in this legislative session. In a recent presentation on cannabis in Montana, Bozeman cannabis attorney Christopher Young commented, “I’ve talked to Jason Ellsworth (R, Senator, President of the Montana Senate), and I’ve been told HB 128 is going to pass.”
HB 128 Has Many Medical Cannabis Businesses Worried
The number of medical cannabis cardholders has dropped drastically since adult-use became legal, from 40,522 registered cardholders on January 1, 2022, to 22,325 on January 1, 2023, a reduction of 45%. For those dispensaries that initially chose to remain exclusively medical (18% of all dispensaries), as well as those that, for one reason or another, missed the boat to sell adult-use, they have seen a significant decline in revenue. Consequently, a significant number have been eagerly awaiting the July 1, 2023 to apply to sell adult-use cannabis. The possibility of having to wait an additional two years has them very concerned.
At a hearing on HB 128, Norman Huynh of Pacific Valley told lawmakers he believes he can’t continue to sell only to medical cannabis cardholders because he doesn’t make enough. “There are only a finite amount [sic] of cardholders left,” he stated.
An adjustment in HB 128 is being debated which would allow 16 medical shops to become adult-use that had applied for adult-use before January 1, 2022 but who didn’t complete the process. Without this adjustment, many of these medical dispensaries believe they’ll face bankruptcy.
Opt-In, Opt-Out – Fickle Counties Have Cannabis Companies Nervous
Initiative 190 legalized adult-use cannabis by default in the counties that voted for it. In 2021, the Montana legislature hammered out implementation of adult-use cannabis in House Bill 701, and one provision of this bill allows counties and municipalities to vote to opt-out of legalization.
Pray, a town near Livingston, Montana
Granite County, which became a green county when nearly 55% of voters approved I-190, chose to do just that, opting-out of adult-use sales on June 7, 2022. The county’s sole dispensary, Top Shelf Botanicals, had begun selling to recreational users and estimates 80% of its customers are now adult-use. It has responded to the opt-out by drafting a new initiative to get voters to opt-back-in to adult-use sales. Their struggle to re-win the hearts of Granite County’s voters is ongoing and appears to be an uphill battle.
While Granite is the first county to opt-out of adult-use sales, changing them from a green county to a red county, movement is under way to opt-out in Cascade County, Carbon County, Ravalli County and Flathead County, among others. The opt-out movement is gaining strength in the state and has Montana dispensaries concerned. “The opt-out provision is very problematic, and I think it’s more problematic than people recognized at the time,” says Kate Cholewa, lobbyist with the Cannabis Industry Association. “What other business would people accept being in the position of potentially losing their business every two years?”
Taxability of Discounted Products – Department of Revenue Parses the Details
Initially, it was thought that the Department of Revenue required cannabis tax to be assessed on the regular retail price of a product, even though that product might be discounted. However, the DOR now says this is not always the case. “If the discount is offered to all customers, as opposed to a discount that is offered to only a particular individual or group, the established retail price can change.”
Examples where the discounted price becomes the new, lower established retail price: every Friday you offer everyone a 20% discount on certain products, or, you offer discounts to medical cardholders only. An example of when you must charge cannabis tax on the original, non-discounted price: a discount offered to a particular group, such as veterans or students. (Why medical cardholders are not considered a particular group is unclear, but this information is from the state’s website.)
Tax Comparison to Other States
We stand by our original assessment that Montana is actually a low-tax state for cannabis operators. First of all, it doesn’t follow federal statute 280E, but instead allows the deduction of regular operating expenses on state income taxes. In addition, unlike some states like California, Montana does not charge sales tax on top of cannabis taxes i.e., it doesn’t charge tax-on-tax.
If one examines tax rates, while Montana’s adult-use tax is high at 20%, its medical tax of 4% is a low one. The local tax of 3% (compared with Los Angeles’s 10% adult-use local tax, for example) is quite low and is not charged by 37% of the counties that have adult-use sales.
And if AB 420 is passed and the medical and local cannabis taxes are repealed, Montana will truly enter the ranks of low tax cannabis states.
Following years of attempts by legislators and activists to get legal medical cannabis moving in Kentucky, the state just legalized medical cannabis last week, making it the 38th state in the country to legalize medical cannabis. In front of a crowd of stakeholders, advocates, patients and legislators, Governor Andy Beshear signed SB 47 into law along with a sports betting bill as the crowd erupted in applause.
Crowds cheer as Gov. Beshear signs the bill into law
“I have been pushing for medical cannabis and sports betting for years,” Gov Beshear wrote in a tweet. “Today, I signed these two bills into law. Team Kentucky delivers and we get results. Congrats, Kentucky.” The Cabinet for Health and Family Services is tasked with developing the regulations for medical cannabis, which are due by July 1, 2024. The law doesn’t go into effect until 2025 though. That agency will be in charge of implementing the medical cannabis program, operation, oversight and regulation for growing, retail and production.
Each state legalizes cannabis in its own weird way and Kentucky is no different. The bill does not allow cannabis smoking, but does allow for raw cannabis flower to be sold and vaporization. Qualifying conditions include PTSD, epilepsy, cancer, nausea, MS and pain management, but the bill allows for more conditions to be approved for medical cannabis prescriptions later on. This sort of foot-in-the-door approach has been used by plenty of other states and often carves a path for a broader, more sensible medical cannabis framework following legalization.
Rep. Jason Nemes, R-Louisville is a major proponent of medical legalization in Kentucky and has sponsored bills in the past. While he stressed the importance of the weird no-smoking provision, he also praised the legislature for finally getting this done. “There are thousands and thousands of Kentuckians who just want to be and want to feel better, and this will help them with that,” says Rep. Nemes.
By Andrew Solow, David Kerschner, Alessandra Lopez No Comments
In 2022, product liability lawsuits in the cannabis/cannabidiol (CBD) industry continued to focus on levels of THC and the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, while federal agencies continued issuing warning letters for CBD products (including CBD-infused food and dietary supplements) that made misleading medical claims. Against this backdrop of ongoing litigation and regulatory enforcement, 2022 showed that at the Federal level, there is more recognition that marijuana is becoming increasingly normalized. For example, President Biden pardoned federal offenses of simple marijuana possession and requested a reassessment of marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug under federal law. Additionally, Congress passed its first standalone piece of cannabis reform with the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) which, among other things, will ease restrictions on cannabis research and allow for more clinical trials. And even though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declined to act on CBD products, the agency announced that it will work with Congress to create a new regulatory framework for CBD products (2023 FDA Announcement).
These events of the past year provide a glimpse into what the future may hold for cannabis and CBD companies when it comes to product liability risks. This article looks at the types of product liability actions that the cannabis and CBD industry faced in 2022 and may encounter in the future, and provides some basic guidance on how to best mitigate, and if necessary, defend these potentially costly litigations.
Focus on Cannabis and CBD Risks
A central part of any product liability lawsuit—regardless of whether brought under a design defect and/or adequate warning theory—is that a product caused or was a substantial contributing factor to a Plaintiff’s injury or illness. Thus, any potential safety concerns over cannabis/CBD could end up as the subject of litigation in the future. In the 2023 FDA Announcement, the FDA recognized that “the use of CBD raises various safety concerns, especially with long-term use,” including potential harm to the liver and negative interactions with certain medications. The agency also noted that questions still exist on how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. Furthermore, on December 2, 2022, President Biden signed the MMCREA into law, which is intended to advance research on the potential risks and medical benefits of cannabis and cannabis products.1 This additional funding will not only help researchers learn more about possible safety risks that may lead to future product liability claims, but will also allow for better exploration of the benefits of these products to possibly expand product indications and help reach new customers.
Given the FDA’s statements and the increased funding for new research, CBD and cannabis companies should ensure that they are properly monitoring both regulatory communications and new research regarding risks that may be associated with their products. As new information is released, companies should evaluate how their product labels and marketing messages should be altered. Announcements like this one by the FDA can be seen as providing industry participants with knowledge about certain risks, and how companies react could be analyzed, post hoc, in any litigation down the road.
2022 Product Liability Actions
Over the last year, misbranding/mislabeling issues presented some of the most prevalent litigation risks for industry participants.
An example of a warning letter the FDA sent to a CBD products company making health claims
For example, at the Federal level in 2022, the FDA issued thirty-three warning letters to CBD companies, a nearly 400% increase from 2021. These letters generally focused on CBD products that made medical claims. Some of these warning letters addressed misbranding, where the product labels provided inadequate directions for consumer use. In one letter, the FDA noted that because the CBD products were “offered for conditions that are not amendable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners,” ranging from cancer to diabetes, labeling compliance was only possible if the product was an FDA-approved prescription drug with FDA-approved labeling. Other companies receivedwarning letters in March of 2022 for making misleading representations that their CBD products were safe and/or effective to prevent or treat COVID-19. Many of these representations were made via companies’ websites and social media platforms. The warning letters—often triggers for product liability actions, as well as consumer protection/fraud actions—serve as a reminder that companies cannot make medical claims on non-FDA approved drug products and must otherwise present accurate information to consumers not only on product packaging, but any form of marketing or advertising, including company websites and social media platforms.
Turning to state-level regulatory actions, Oregon’s Liquor and Cannabis Commission fined a cannabis company $130,000 and suspended the company’s license for 23 days over an alleged label mix-up between its CBD and THC products. According to the state’s investigative report, a company employee allegedly confused two product buckets with similar identification numbers, one that contained THC and the other CBD, and accidentally switched the labels of the two products. In addition to the fine and license-suspension, the state agency also issued a mandatory recall on the CBD drops based on the alleged undisclosed levels of THC.
This same incident also spurred a string of civil lawsuits, resulting in several settlements by the company in 2022.2 Numerous customers reported experiencing “paranoia,” “mind fog,” and feeling “extremely high,” with at least five people going to the emergency room with serious health issues due to use of the CBD drops. One lawsuit, which was publicly settled for $50,000 in January of 2022, alleged that the company failed to warn the plaintiff that the CBD drops contained THC or that the product may have been contaminated with foreign substances like THC, and that the company failed to exercise quality control standards that would have detected the THC.3 Nine other lawsuits made similar failure to warn allegations based on the same batch of CBD drops and were settled by January of 2022, although those settlements were not disclosed.4 In October of 2022, the company agreed to pay a settlement of $100,000 in a class action suit, which alleged that the company failed to disclose that the CBD product contained substantial amounts of THC.5 The class action focused on unlawful trade practices claims, including that the company falsely represented that the product had the characteristics, uses, and benefits of a CBD product that did not contain THC.6 Also in October 2022, the company settled a wrongful death lawsuit—alleging that the company failed to warn the plaintiff that the drops contained THC and had negligent quality control standards—stemming from the same CBD drops,7 where the plaintiff suffered stroke-like-symptoms, allegedly due to the tainted CBD product, and ultimately died.8
Other recent lawsuits have also focused on mislabeled cannabis products, alleging that companies failed to inform customers that products contained THC. For example, in Kentucky, a man who drove into a bus after using a CBD vape sued both the CBD manufacturer and retailer on December 14, 2022, claiming that he was not warned that the vape contained a substance that would make him intoxicated.9 According to the complaint, the store employees told the man that the vape was “all natural” but made no mention that the product contained THC.10 The man alleged that the vape actually contained Delta-8 THC and brought negligence, failure to warn, and state consumer protection law claims.11
As noted above, in addition to traditional product liability actions, companies are likely to face increased consumer fraud and false advertising actions in the absence of personal injuries. Two class actions brought in December of 2020 against a hemp tea maker alleged that the company’s website and the product’s packaging fraudulently stated that a tea contained zero THC.12 Plaintiffs claimed that they tested positive for THC after drinking the tea and that product testing similarly revealed that the tea contained some THC.13
Potency inflation marketing communications from a laboratory
Last year also saw a rise in cases focused on potency inflation, alleging that cannabis companies knowingly overstated the amount of THC in their products to charge higher prices.14 Again, while these actions focused on consumer fraud allegations rather than product liability claims, these cases underscore the importance of accurate labeling. Due to potency inflation concerns, states have started investigatinglicensedcannabis testing labs within their respective jurisdictions, resulting in product recalls and fines. Some states have also updated their regulations, requiring cannabis companies to test their products through two separate labs.
Finally, contamination and the existence of impurities and other byproducts has been a recent focus of several product liability lawsuits across the life sciences space, and this trend is something that cannabis and CBD companies should be aware of and take steps to mitigate.
For example, a Canadian cannabis producer reached a $2.31 million settlement over a class action brought in March of 2017 regarding pesticide-contaminated medical marijuana. The marijuana was recalled due to the presence of myclobutanil and bifenazate pesticides, neither of which were authorized for use on cannabis plants in Canada. The lead plaintiff experienced nausea and vomiting, allegedly from consuming the medical cannabis, and brought numerous claims on behalf of the class, including negligent design, development, testing, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales.15 In the United States, California’s Department of Cannabis Control issued a mandatory recall on January 26, 2022 for a batch of cannabis flower that was contaminated with mold. On March 25, 2022, the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division recalled cannabis products sold by a local medical cannabis company because the product contained impermissibly high levels of mold. New Mexico’s Cannabis Control Division also required the company to immediately cease and desist operations at its production and manufacturing site.
A Look at the Future and What Companies Can do to Mitigate Product Liability Risks
The FDA’s 2023 announcement means that the industry will have to wait for Congressional action for the development of a regulatory scheme that can help standardize requirements and provide industry players additional defenses when facing product liability actions. Many of the proposed risk management tools in the FDA Announcement could help companies mitigate future litigation risks if implemented. These risk management tools may include “clear labels, prevention of contaminants, CBD content limits, and measures, such as minimum purchase age, to mitigate the risk of ingestion by children.” Although the FDA has had regulatory oversight over CBD and other hemp-derived products for nearly four years, the agency has not developed a regulatory framework for these products aside from issuing warning letters, leaving manufacturers and distributors without much guidance. The FDA has also left the states to fill the void, resulting in a patchwork of differing—and sometimes conflicting—state laws. Additional guidance and regulation on labeling at the federal level for cannabis and cannabis-derived products will make compliance a more straightforward proposition and may provide avenues for industry participants to explore preemption defenses in the face of future mislabeling claims.
Just some of the many CBD products on the market today
In addition to following the changing regulatory landscape and understanding how regulatory changes can impact litigation defenses, cannabis and CBD companies can continue to take various steps to help mitigate future litigation risks.
Quality Control: Adequate testing procedures and effective quality control procedures can help avoid contamination issues and situations where products are mixed up during the manufacturing process. For example, the company whose license was suspended in Oregon due to the alleged mix up between CBD and THC subsequently implemented new ingredient tracking protocols, adopted a policy to retain samples from each batch of product, and now sends additional samples to an independent lab to ensure product compliance before anything is sold.
Proper documentation of testing and quality control procedures, as well as maintaining records of compliance checks, can also help companies put together a defense to state regulatory actions or lawsuits relating to contamination or manufacturing defects. Indeed, in February of 2022, an Arizona marijuana testing lab was fined $500,000 for various incomplete records and documentation as well as improperly calibrated machines for contamination testing, with an inspector also noting that one of the employees was trained to use a technique that produced inflated potency results.
Ongoing Safety & Regulatory Review: Keeping up to date with regulations and science will play a key role in making sure labels are accurate and defendable. Working directly with regulators and seeking guidance from regulators on labeling can help potential defendants present a clear and compelling labeling defense. Moreover, the 2023 FDA Announcement made clear that the agency will not pursue rulemaking on CBD’s potential use in foods and dietary substances. Thus, industry players should monitor agency announcements and engage with the FDA’s Cannabis Product Committee (CPC) and Congress to better understand the potential structure of this new regulatory pathway.
Stay on Top of the Science: A boost in cannabis research is on the horizon, as the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) will advance research on the potential risks and benefits of cannabis products and promote the development of FDA-approved drugs derived from marijuana and CBD. On the litigation front, causation is an essential element in most causes of action, and plaintiffs will have to prove that the cannabis caused their injury. Thus, industry players should be aware of the current science, including potential side effects.
Litigation Monitoring: Finally, companies will also be well served by following court decisions involving CBD and cannabis products. For example, courts in 2022 were split over the legality of Delta-8 THC, a substance typically manufactured from hemp-derived CBD. The Ninth Circuit held in AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro that Delta-8 THC found in e-cigarettes and vape products is legal under the 2018 Farm Act, at least in the intellectual property context.16 But in Kansas, a federal judge ruled that the 2018 Farm Act does not make selling hemp-derived products such as Delta-8 THC legal.17 In Texas, litigation initiated in 2021 is ongoing over the legality of Delta-8 THC.18 There, a hemp company sued the Texas Department of State Health Services for its classification of Delta-8 THC as a Schedule I drug, making the sale of this substance a felony offense. A temporary injunction was granted on November 8, 2021—temporarily lifting the ban on sales of Delta-8 THC products—but the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction remains pending.19 As these lawsuits show, the legality of different products may vary by jurisdiction, whether by regulation or a judicial decision.
References
Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, Pub. L. 117–215, 136 Stat. 2257 (2022).
Agbonkhese v. Curaleaf Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01675, (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2022).
Agbonkhese v. Curaleaf Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01675, ECF 1, 6 (D. Or.).
See Crawforth v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1432 (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2021); Lopez v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-1465 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2021);
Williamson v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-782, ECF 1, 8 (D. Or.).
Williamson v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-782 (D. Or. May 30, 2022).
Estate of Earl Jacobe v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00001, 19 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2022).
Estate of Earl Jacobe v. Curaleaf, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00001 1 (D. Or. Jan. 1, 2022).
Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
Complaint at ¶ 11, Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
Complaint at ¶¶ 15-33, Howard v. GCHNC3 LLC et al., No. 5:22-cv-00326 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2022).
Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02463 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2020); Santiago v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 2:20-cv-18581 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2020).
Complaint at ¶¶ 54-59, Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-02463 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2020); Complaint at ¶¶ 21-25, Santiago v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 2:20-cv-18581 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2020).
See Centeno v. Dreamfields Brands Inc., No. 22STCV33980 (Cal. Superior Ct. L.A. Cnty. Oct. 20, 2022); Shanti Gallard v. Ironworks Collective Inc., No. 22STCV38021 (Cal. Superior Ct. L.A. Cnty. Dec. 6, 2022).
Downton v. Organigram Holdings Inc., Hfx No. 460984 (Sup. Ct. Nova Scotia Mar. 3, 2017).
AK Futures LLC v. Boyd St. Distro, LLC, 35 F.4th 682 (9th Cir. 2022).
Dines v. Kelly, No. 2:22-cv-02248, 2022 WL 16762903 (D. Kan. Nov. 8, 2022).
Hometown Hero v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services, No. D-1-GN-21-006174 (Travis Cnty., Tex. Oct. 20, 2021).
Hometown Hero v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Services, No. D-1-GN-21-006174 (Travis Cnty., Tex. Nov. 8, 2021).
The New Jersey legislature recently approved legislation that would allow licensed cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses on their state tax return that they are prohibited from deducting on their federal tax return, and such legislation has been sent to Governor Phil Murphy to potentially sign into law. This relates to the universally dreaded (among those in the cannabis industry, at least) Section 280E prohibition. This legislation is important because it would change current law to allow legal cannabis businesses in New Jersey to operate on more of a level playing field with other businesses in the state.
Cannabis operators and applicants are penalized by their inability to deduct certain expenses on their state and federal tax returns. The cause for this frustration is twofold. First, under federal law, cannabis is considered a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 (CSA). Second, under IRS Tax Code Section 280E, cannabis businesses that are legal under state law are still considered drug traffickers for the purposes of federal tax law. While a related issue that is often considered along with Section 280E is whether or not it is sound public policy to continue to classify cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, that is beyond the scope of this article.
It is important to understand the history and purpose behind Section 280E. The history is unusual in that Section 280E was enacted in 1982 as a reaction to a court case in which a convicted cocaine trafficker asserted his rights under federal tax law to deduct certain business expenses, including a portion of his rent, the cost of a scale and packaging expenses. The court agreed that the cocaine trafficker should be legally able to deduct his ordinary business expenses as part of his criminal enterprise. The federal government then created Section 280E to punish drug traffickers by removing the profit out of drug deals. Section 280E provides, generally, that no deduction or credit will be allowed in running any business that consists of trafficking any controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act).1
Fast forward several decades and New Jersey has legalized medical and adult-use commercial cannabis activities. Still, because cannabis remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance, federal law prohibits legal cannabis companies from deducting ordinary business expenses and New Jersey has similarly applied the Section 280E prohibitions. New Jersey’s legislators understand the inequity in having legalized, State-compliant cannabis cultivation, processing and retail businesses, where those same businesses cannot take advantage of standard expense deductions applicable to other legal businesses.
If enacted, this New Jersey legislation would decouple New Jersey’s business tax provisions from the Section 280E rule barring deductions for cannabis businesses. Under the proposed New Jersey tax code revisions, a licensed cannabis business’s gross income would be determined without regard to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.2 The legislation was approved overwhelmingly in both chambers: by the New Jersey Senate in a vote of 32-3; and by the New Jersey assembly in a vote of 69-8. It would apply to tax years beginning on January 1 of the year following the date the Governor enacts the legislation.
The State Capitol in Trenton, New Jersey
Under Section 280E, a business may not deduct expenses unrelated to its costs of goods sold (COGS), which are, generally, the costs to a cannabis business of producing cannabis products and inventory, including transportation costs to purchase the wholesale cannabis. Virtually everything else is subject to the Section 280E prohibition and non-deductible. So, all other typical costs, such as wages and salary, overhead, advertising, insurance, travel expenses and depreciation do not reduce taxable income. These ordinary expenses are still necessary for the operation of all businesses (to varying degrees). If businesses cannot legally deduct such expenses on their tax returns, their tax liabilities will increase and they will have less money to invest in their facilities and equipment, pay higher salaries and expand their operations.
The impacts of Section 280E are dramatic. An example helps to illustrate this. Consider a hypothetical C Corp. with gross sales of $1 million, COGS of $600,000 and other expenses of $300,000. Such business has a gross profit of $400,000 and net income of $100,000. If the business is normally taxed as a C Corp. at the 21% Federal tax rate, it would pay $21,000, or 21% of $100,000 net income and also $9,000 in State taxes (applying 9% State tax rate on $100,000 net income), for a total tax liability of $30,000. However, that same business in the cannabis industry would pay $120,000 in combined Federal and State taxes, with 21% Federal tax on $400,000 gross profit plus 9% State tax on $400,000 gross profit. As this demonstrates, a cannabis business may be taxed on 100% of the expenses a non-cannabis business could write off. Instead of a 30% effective income tax rate, the cannabis business in this example would have a 120% effective income tax rate. Such business that would otherwise have a profit instead would have a deficit.
Section 280E places a significant tax burden on legal cannabis operators that does not exist for other businesses. While New Jersey’s legislators cannot change the Federal tax code, they are taking action to revise New Jersey’s tax code to level the playing field. Let’s hope the Governor signs into law the pending New Jersey legislation to decouple its tax law from Section 280E.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
References
1. The relevant text of Section 280E provides: No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.
2. The full text of the legislation provides: In the case of a taxpayer that is a cannabis licensee, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to any expenditure that is eligible to be claimed as a federal income tax deduction but is disallowed because cannabis is a controlled substance under federal law, and income shall be determined without regard to section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. s.280E) for cannabis licensees.
In New Jersey’s legal cannabis market and other states with newly legalized cannabis, a new market for security agencies has emerged. The increased demand, much like other aspects of the industry, has created a gold rush mentality with plenty of new and old security agencies looking to earn the industry’s business.
Kelly Conklin, founder and president of Superior Protection Professionals (SPP), wants to show people in the industry the difference between quality security agencies and those that simply hire guards and adjust their marketing for a new industry. Along with his son, Kelly Jr. vice president of SPP, they have developed a team of professionals that pride themselves in quality, integrity and trust.
Here, we sit down with Kelly Conklin for a brief chat to get his thoughts on New Jersey’s legalization and the need for heightened security in cannabis facilities.
Cannabis Industry Journal: How did you get into this business and how are you helping cannabis businesses stay safe?
Kelly Conklin (left) and Kelly Jr. (right)
Kelly Conklin: Thanks for speaking with us. We started SPP primarily because of the horrible uptick in mass shootings happening in all sorts of public spaces, like churches, synagogues, schools, and we wanted to do something that would make a positive and meaningful impact on people’s lives, to help people. We had a clear objective when we started. We wanted to build a premium brand and deliver a quality product.
CIJ: From licensing and planning to running a cannabis business, security is a big part of being in this market. What’s required and what do you suggest cannabis companies do to get ahead of the curve?
Kelly: The state requires security for all cannabis facilities. Theft at every step of the way, from the cultivation to manufacturing, to transportation and the dispensary, is a big potential problem. The presence of our agents helps to prevent these crimes. We also help to provide electronic security such as cameras, alarms, key FOB entry doors, monitoring and much more. Things like these are also mandatory for the facilities. You should take a good, hard look at the state’s requirements for security when developing your standard operating procedures and make sure you have every area of security covered.
CIJ:We’ve seen reports of armed robberies at dispensaries in various parts of the country. How do you staff a dispensary to help prevent those?
Kelly: Each dispensary has different needs based on their locations and foot traffic. We tailor our services to each and every client and give them exactly what they need specific to their facility. For example, at one of our dispensaries we have 2 armed guards inside and one unarmed guard at the door scanning IDs. Whatever’s needed, we provide. We like to provide an assessment done at each facility so the client knows exactly what to do to be compliant with all local and state regulations. We insist that if we work with someone, we want them to know us, and feel comfortable with us, knowing they are in good hands. We’re a quality security agency and we want our clients to understand exactly how to operate safely.
CIJ: You mentioned “quality security agency,” what do you mean by that?
Kelly: We work hard to deliver quality. To us, that means trained professionals, be it veterans of the military or federal, state and local law enforcement. Our staff are highly trained, skilled and capable, but most importantly, they care. We’re fully insured, licensed and bonded. Quality also means good customer service. Again, we tailor services to each individual client, we want people to feel comfortable, safe and happy around us. The state conducts audits with us as required by law and we pride ourselves in our ‘above and beyond’ approach. We’re looking forward to the industry’s growth and feel that we can lend a helping hand where it’s needed. Security isn’t just a state requirement that you have to comply with, it’s unfortunately necessary in the cannabis market to keep employees, customers and products safe. We welcome folks in the industry to reach out to us, by phone (908-783-1939) or email as well and we can answer any questions whatsoever.
A report issued three years ago by the Department of Treasury, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), states that the IRS will begin to increase its audit of cannabis businesses throughout the country. The report, released on March 30, 2020, states that the IRS believes that most cannabis businesses have not accurately applied IRC 280E and as a result cannabis businesses could potentially owe hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding taxes. This determination is based on an audit of tax filings of cannabis businesses in tax year 2016.
TIGTA conducted an audit of cannabis businesses in three different states, California, Colorado and Washington. Of the businesses audited, TIGTA determined, as a result of the incorrect application of IRC 280E, that 59% of those businesses required adjustments to their returns. These adjustments totaled over $48 million in unassessed taxes for 2016. The results of this audit caused the IRS to consider auditing cannabis businesses throughout the country where medical and/or adult use cannabis is sold. According to experts, cannabis (plant touching) businesses can expect an increase in tax returns to be audited now that the IRS has begun to increase their staffing resources and their ability to conduct most audits virtually.
Although the report calls for the IRS to develop guidance for the cannabis industry, the resources available are not very helpful nor does it provide the guidance that plant touching business owners need to make sure they are audit ready because audits have begun in Massachusetts, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Colorado.
As a plant touching business owner, you need to be prepared for a potential audit of your tax returns. To be prepared you should have the right tools to help you perform cannabis accounting. You will need to implement sound policies and procedures.
Preparation is Key
As a plant touching business owner, you should always be prepared for a potential audit whether by the IRS for IRC 280E compliance, or a financial state audit as a requirement by your investors. To prepare for an IRC 280E audit, you must first have an accounting and reporting system set up to perform accounting for your vertical – dispensary, cultivation or manufacturing business. This will include a chart of accounts for your business type because this is the foundation for your accounting system and help to track all transactions that are specific to your particular operation. It will simplify recordkeeping for recording revenue, inventory, cost of goods sold as well as direct and indirect labor costs. It will also help with maintaining your library of documentation that is tied to each transaction. The level of detail will enable you to perform accurate cost accounting as well as provide backup for how your accounting team arrived at their calculations. In addition to having a robust chart of accounts and a document library, you will also need to have written policies and procedures.
The 3 P’s – Policies, Procedures & Processes
The key to making sure you are always audit ready is to implement sound policies, procedures and processes. You want to make sure you have written accounting policies that provide guidance on how your business performs various accounting tasks. It should reflect requirements based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or could reference IRS requirements per IRC 280E and/or IRC 471-11. For example, you should have an accounting policy for how your organization values inventory which is important for plant touching businesses.
You should also have Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that provide step by step instructions on how specific tasks are performed. This will make sure that everyone within your organization is performing the various tasks the same. Your SOPs should be for all key tasks within the organization, especially those tasks that affect how transactions are recorded in your accounting system. It ensures accuracy and reliability of your financial statements.
Organizations should go a step further and create end-to-end business processes that go a step beyond SOPs. End-to-end processes are created from sequential steps that will allow auditors to follow each step to identify key controls, assess risks as well as potential fraud within an organization. Although having detailed end-to-end processes for your business is not a requirement, they do provide an extra layer of proof of the accuracy of your financial statements because you will have identified your key controls, mitigated potential risks associated with misstatements in your financial statements, and identified risks associated with fraud.
Although no one knows when or if their business will be audited, being prepared is the key to a less stressful and more successful audit. Being able to show an auditor items they may request but also having organized, easy to reference documentation that provides a detailed look at your accounting and reporting operations shows that you are serious about your business and you want to operate compliantly.
Like other states now embracing adult use, Connecticut has enacted a strong social equity program, with mixed results so far. Also, perhaps more than any other state, Connecticut has committed to protecting its existing medical cannabis patients and has put in place various mechanisms to guard their access to cannabis.
Slow Roll-Out of Retail Cannabis Licenses
Like other recently-legal states, Connecticut’s rollout of its retail licenses has not been rapid. The state’s initial goal has been to issue twelve retail licenses by lottery, with six reserved for social equity applicants. Also, the eighteen already-operating medical licensees were given the option to upgrade to a hybrid medical-adult use license, a process separate from the lottery.
Governor Lamont at a press conference on January 9, discussing the social equity focus
As of the end of February 2023, there appear to be only twelve current (approved to do business) retail licenses, with eleven of those twelve belonging to medical-adult use hybrids. The majority of the 39 retail licenses listed on the state website are still in the provisional phase, which allows them to “work toward securing a final license.”
Connecticut Social Equity
Connecticut has committed to a robust social equity program and provided an early application opportunity for social equity applicants ahead of non-social equity applicants. In addition, the Nutmeg State has reduced fees for adult-use licenses by 50% for Equity Joint Venture applications, which is where investors agree to partner with a social equity applicant. Further, the state has eliminated 43,754 low-level cannabis convictions.
Connecticut’s social equity requirements are less rigorous than those of neighboring New York and New Jersey, which may provide additional entry opportunities for both in-state and out-of-state entrepreneurs. Connecticut defines a social equity applicant as requiring that at least 65% of a business be owned by an individual with less than 300% of the state median household income in the past three tax years. Since the median household income was $79,855, that individual would need to have earned less than $239,565 annually.
Subversion of the Lottery Process
The lottery for the six initial social equity licenses was held in May 2022 followed by the lottery for the initial six general licenses, which took place in September 2022. Both were administered by a professor and department head at the UConn School of Pharmacy (the state law stipulated the lottery operator must be part “of the state system of higher education”).
15,605 applications were received for both lotteries. Unfortunately, many of the winning applicants flooded the lottery system with hundreds of applications, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. One example, SLAP ASH LLC, accounted for 850 of the 8,360 applications submitted to the social equity lottery, winning 2 provisional retail licenses. Another company, Jananii LLC, spent over $200,000 to submit 807 entries, receiving one provisional retail license. “There were individuals applying for licenses who submitted 50 applications or more to enter the lottery,” said House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford. “That wasn’t our intent.” Rojas and others are looking at other options for the next lottery to try and combat the problem.
Protecting Medical Cannabis Patients
Perhaps what makes Connecticut’s adult use cannabis program most unique is its outsized commitment to protecting medical patients’ continued access to cannabis. Concerned that adult use sales wouldn’t leave enough supply for patients, the state mandated a cap of ¼ ounce of cannabis for all adult use purchases. Lieutenant Governor Susan Bysiewicz commented that this action emphasized the importance of “not losing sight of a very robust medical program.”
Lt. Gov. Bysiewicz speaks to an audience on the day adult sales became legal, outside of the ZenLeaf Meriden dispensary.
With the recent strong sales of adult use cannabis, however, patients have expressed concern about access, and now the Nutmeg State is considering further action. A bill is being considered in the state legislature which would create a state cannabis ombudsman. This individual would act as a liaison between patients and the state and would, in effect, be there to put pressure on the four licensed growers. These cultivators are required to submit a medical cannabis preservation plan to “ensure against supply shortages of medical marijuana products” and are in many ways responsible for continued patient access to cannabis.
Licensing Fees
Connecticut lottery winners’ license fees will vary from $1,000 for a micro, to $25,000 for a retail, to $75,000 for a cultivator, subject to a 50% reduction if the applicant is deemed social equity. However, once the field is open to regular applicants, the fees will become sizeable.
Retail license fees will be $1 million and cultivation license fees will be $3 million, and even with a 50% reduction for an Equity Joint Venture application, the investment will be significant. The $1 million fee also applies to any existing medical dispensary that wishes to convert to a hybrid license without going through the lottery process. The four existing cultivation companies that wish to service the adult use market and avoid a lottery process will have to pay the $3 million as well.
Tax Issues
Connecticut cannabis-businesses are obligated to pay a sales tax of 6.35%, a gross receipts tax of 3% and a privilege tax of $0.00625-$0.0275 per mg of THC, depending on the item. Other than New York, Connecticut is the only state to have a tax based on the potency of the cannabis product.
Federal Tax Subject to Section 280E
On the federal level, cannabis businesses are subject to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which disallows deductions and credits for expenditures connected with trafficking in controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, schedule 1 or 2. As cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, cannabis companies are only permitted to reduce their sales by cost of goods sold when determining their taxable income. By example, a cannabis dispensary would only be allowed to deduct the cost of the product purchased and the cost to transport the product to the dispensary, while disallowing such significant expenses as rent and payroll. All cannabis businesses must forgo expense deductions related to selling, general and administrative expenses, as they are disallowed under the tax code.
While some states like California have not conformed to 280E and allow their cannabis businesses the same deductions as other businesses, Connecticut is not one of those states. Personal income tax starts with Federal Adjusted Gross Income while corporate income tax starts with Federal taxable income as reported on line 28. There are no provisions that say Section 280E does not apply. This will mean a significantly heavier state tax burden for cannabis businesses.
Labor and Employment Issues
Connecticut state flag
Cannabis is expected to fuel significant employment growth in Connecticut, and experts project more than 11,000 cannabis jobs will be added once the market reaches full capacity. These jobs are expected to include full time and temporary positions in all cannabis verticals: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, retail, marketing, testing, finance, accounting, legal, compliance and C-suite.
As part of its social equity program, the state has made it clear it would like to see cannabis businesses employ individuals from those communities that have been disadvantaged by the war on cannabis. Connecticut has also made it a requirement that every approved licensee enter into a “labor peace agreement” with a labor union, and that such an agreement shall be an “ongoing material condition of licensure.”
The state is focused on maintaining quality control on all aspects of its adult use cannabis businesses, including the people involved. Licenses are needed for all cannabis employees along with a special license for key employees in managerial positions. Additionally, financiers must be licensed, with a Backer license required for individuals with direct or indirect financial interests in a cannabis establishment totaling 5% or more.
Connecticut cannabis employees must be pre-trained through the state’s Social Equity Council. The state also requires that each license recipient have a workforce development plan approved by the Council “to reinvest or provide employment and training opportunities for individuals in disproportionately impacted areas.”
In Summary
No adult cannabis state has come close to having a smooth opening for it adult use sales program, and Connecticut is no exception. With well-funded groups gaming the license lotteries and medical patients concerned about their continued access to cannabis, the Nutmeg State has its work cut out for it. But with its strong commitment to social equity and its outsized commitment to protecting its medical cannabis patients, Connecticut can serve as a role model for compassionate cannabis capitalism. 2023 will reveal how the state rises to its challenges and matures its cannabis marketplace.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
