Tag Archives: program

CARES Act – Stimulus Package Won’t Aid the Cannabis Industry

By Steve Levine, Megan Herr
No Comments

On Wednesday, March 25, the United States Senate approved an estimated $2-trillion stimulus package in response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. The legislation, formally known as the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (or the CARES Act), was approved by the Senate 96-0 following days of negotiations. One of the most highly anticipated provisions of the CARES Act, the “recovery rebates” for individuals, will provide a one-time cash payment up to $1,200 per qualifying individual ($2,400 in the case of eligible individuals filing a joint return) plus an additional $500 for qualifying children (§6428.2020(a)). The CARES Act, which remains subject to House approval, also prescribes an additional $500 billon in corporate aid, $100 billion to health-care providers, $150 billion to state and local governments and $349 billion in small business loans in an effort to provide continued employment and stabilize the economy. The legislation further provides billions of dollars in debt relief on existing loans.

CARES Act – Paycheck Protection Program 

Under the CARES Act, small businesses who participate in the “Paycheck Protection Program” can receive loans to cover payroll expenses, group health care benefits, employee salaries, interest on mortgage obligations, rent, and utilities (§1102(F)(i)). To qualify for these small business loans, businesses must employ 500 employees or less, including all full-time and part-time employees (§1102(D)). Eligible recipients must also submit the following as part of their loan application: (i) documentation verifying the number of full-time equivalent employees on payroll and applicable pay rates; (ii) documentation verifying payments on covered mortgage obligations, payments on covered lease obligations, and covered utility payments; and (iii) a certification that the documentation presented is true and the amounts requested will be used to retain employees and make necessary payments (§1106(e)). The CARES Act delegates authority to depository institutions, insured credit unions, institutions of the Farm Credit System and other lenders to provide loans under this program (§1109(b)). The Treasury Department will be tasked with establishing all interest rates, loan maturity dates, and all other necessary terms and conditions. Prior to issuing these loans, lenders will consider whether the business (i) was in operation as of February 15, 2020, (ii) had employees for whom the business paid salaries and payroll, or (iii) aid independent contractors as reported on a Form 1099-MISC (§1102(F)(ii)(II)).

What Does This Mean for Cannabis Businesses?

Due to the continued Schedule I status of cannabis (excluding hemp) under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis businesses are not eligible to participate in the Paycheck Protection Program intended to keep “small businesses” afloat during the current economic crisis. Because federal law still prohibits banks from supporting marijuana businesses, financial institutions remain hesitant to service the industry, as anti-money laundering concerns and Bank Secrecy Act requirements (31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.) are ever-present. As a result, even if cannabis businesses technically qualify to receive federal assistance under the Paycheck Protection Program, they will face an uphill battle in actually obtaining such loans.

Cannabis Businesses Are Also Precluded from “Disaster” Assistance

Moreover, the conflict between state and federal law continues to prevent cannabis business from receiving assistance from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 6201). In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, the SBA revised its “Disaster Loan” process to provide low-interest “Disaster Loans” to eligible small businesses. To qualify for these loans, a state must submit documented business losses for at least five businesses per county. The problem, however, is that the SBA still refuses to assist state-legal cannabis businesses in equal need of small business loans. Specifically, in a 2018 Policy Notice, the SBA reaffirmed that cannabis businesses – and even some non “plant-touching” firms who service the cannabis industry – cannot receive aid in the form of federally backed loans, as “financial transactions involving a marijuana-related business would generally involve funds derived from illegal activity.” The 2018 Policy Notice clarified that the following business are ineligible to receive SBA loans:

(a) “Direct Marijuana Business” — a business that grows, produces, processes, distributes, or sells marijuana or marijuana products, edibles, or derivatives, regardless of the amount of such activity. This applies to personal use and medical use even if the business is legal under local or state law where the applicant business is or will be located.

 (b) “Indirect Marijuana Business” — a business that derived any of its gross revenue for the previous year (or, if a start-up, projects to derive any of its gross revenue for the next year) from sales to Direct Marijuana Businesses of products or services that could reasonably be determined to support the use, growth, enhancement or other development of marijuana. Examples include businesses that provide testing services, or sell grow lights or hydroponic equipment, to one or more Direct Marijuana Businesses. In addition, businesses that sell smoking devices, pipes, bongs, inhalants, or other products that may be used in connection with marijuana are ineligible if the products are primarily intended or designed for such use or if the business markets the products for such use.

More recently, the SBA provided further clarification that cannabis businesses are not entitled to receive a cut of the federal dollars being appropriated for disaster relief because of the CSA’s continued prohibition of the sale and distribution of cannabis. Last week, the SBA reiterated that:

“With the exception of businesses that produce or sell hemp and hemp-derived products [federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill], marijuana related businesses are not eligible for SBA-funded services.” (@SBAPacificNW)

Consequently, because of the continued Schedule I status of cannabis under federal law, cannabis businesses will not be entitled to receive Disaster Loans from the SBA, regardless of whether they qualify as a struggling small business.

Resolving the Issue

While the federal government has been considering legislation, such as SAFE Banking and the STATES Act, to create a more rational federal cannabis policy, neither of these bills are likely to pass any time soon given the current COVID-19 pandemic.

At the end of the day, until Congress passes some form of federal cannabis legalization, these small businesses will remain plagued by the inability to receive financial assistance, as evinced by the Paycheck Protection Program.

Cannabis Labs / Food Labs 2020 Agenda Announced

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

EDGARTOWN, MA, March 11, 2020 – Innovative Publishing Co., the publisher of Cannabis Industry Journal and organizer of the Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo is announcing the agenda release for the Cannabis Labs Conference. The event will address science, technology, regulatory compliance and quality management as they relate to the cannabis testing market. It will take place on June 3–4 at U.S. Pharmacopeia in Rockville, MD.

Two keynotes for the Cannabis Labs Conference are listed in the agenda: Rowing in the Same Direction: The Biggest Safety Issues Facing the Cannabis Industry & How We Intend to Tackle Them – this talk will be delivered by Andrew Kline, Director of Public Policy at the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA). The second keynote is titled Cannabis Testing in Maryland: Protecting Patient Safety – this talk will be delivered by Lori Dodson, Deputy Director of the Maryland Medical Cannabis Control Commission.

The event will begin on June 3 with an opening general session with Charles Deibel speaking to both the cannabis and food lab testing industries: The Evolution of the Lab Testing Market: A History of Food and Cannabis Testing & How Far We’ve Come

Other notable presentations include: Building a Comprehensive Analytical Testing Program for Hemp by Grace Bandong, Global Scientific Strategy Leader at Eurofins; FDA Compliance for Cannabis- Stories from a Cannabis Public Health Investigator by Kim Stuck, Founder of Allay Consulting; Evaluation of Cannabinoids Reference Standards by Shiow-Jyi Wey, Reference Standard Scientist at the US Pharmacopeia; and more.

The event is co-located with the Food Labs Conference, which will focus on regulatory, compliance and risk management issues that companies face in the area of testing and food laboratory management. More information about this event is available on Food Safety Tech. Some of the critical topics include a discussion of FDA’s proposed FSMA rule, Laboratory Accreditation Program for Food Testing; considerations in laboratory design; pathogen testing and detection; food fraud; advances in testing and lab technology; allergen testing, control and management; validation and proficiency testing; and much more.

“By presenting two industry conferences under one roof, we can provide attendees with technology, regulatory compliance and best practices that cannabis and food might share but also focused topics that are unique to cannabis or food laboratory industry needs,” said Rick Biros, president of Innovative Publishing Co., Inc. and director of the Cannabis Labs Conference.

To learn more about the agenda, speakers and registration pricing, click here. The early bird discount of $395 expires on March 31.

Innovative Publishing Company, Inc., the organizer of the conference, is fully taking into considerations the travel concerns related to the coronavirus. Should any disruption occur that may prevent the production of this live event at its physical location in Rockville, MD due to COVID-19, all sessions will be converted to a virtual conference on the already planned dates. More information is available on the event website.

Illinois Raises Over $10 Million of Tax Revenue in January

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments

After just one month of legalized recreational cannabis, Illinois is already seeing a massive return on their investment. According to the Chicago Sun Times, Illinois has raised roughly $10.4 million in tax revenue from their newly legal market ($7.3 million in cannabis tax revenue and $3.1 million in retails sales tax revenue).

When Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker first announced their estimated budget before the market was legalized, he predicted that Illinois would generate about $28 million in tax revenue in the first six months. The totals from January more than doubling the predicted per month revenue indicates that his office’s estimates were significantly lower than reality.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker

In total, dispensaries in the state did just under $40 million in sales in January, which makes it the second-largest first month rollout in the country. For reference, Illinois did $39.2 million total sales in their first month which, whereas Nevada took the #1 spot with $39.8 million.

About 35% of the tax revenue that Illinois generates will be used in the state’s general revenue fund, 10% will be spent on previous expenses, 25% goes to the Restore, Reinvest and Renew Program, an initiative for unemployment and preventing violence and recidivism, and the last 30% of that revenue goes towards mental health services, substance abuse services, public education and awareness campaigns as well as a police grant program.

Toi Hutchinson, senior adviser on cannabis control to Governor J.B. Pritzker, told the Chicago Sun Times that the tax revenue from legalization is to be spent on social equity and helping communities adversely impacted by the war on drugs. “Revenue raised in this first month will soon begin flowing back into those communities to begin repairing the damage done by the failed policies of the past and creating new opportunities for those who have been left behind for far too long,” says Hutchinson.

Product Safety Hazards: Looking Beyond Food Safety in Cannabis

By Radojka Barycki
No Comments

I think that we need to start changing the terminology around the hazards associated with cannabis from food safety hazards to product safety hazards. These hazards have not only been associated with harmful effects for those that ingest cannabis infused products, but also for those that consume the cannabis products in other ways such as inhalation (vaping or smoking). So, when we refer to these hazards as food safety hazards, the immediate thought is edibles, which misleads cultivators, manufacturers and consumers to have a false sense of security around the safety of products that are consumed in other ways.

Food processing and sanitation
By standardizing and documenting safety procedures, manufacturers mitigate the risk of cannabis-specific concerns

There are several product safety hazards that have been associated with cannabis. These hazards can become a public health problem if not controlled as they could harm the consumer, regardless of the method of consumption.

Let’s take a look at the different types of hazards associated cannabis:

Biological Hazards refer to those microorganisms that can cause illness to the consumer of a product that contain them. They are not visible to the naked eye and are very dangerous when their metabolic by-products (toxins) are ingested or their spores are inhaled. The symptoms for illnesses caused by these microorganisms will vary. Consumers may experience gastrointestinal discomfort (vomiting, diarrhea), headaches, fever and other symptoms. The ingestion of these pathogens, allergens or their by-products may lead to death, if the illness is not treated on time or if the consumer of the product is immunocompromised. In addition, the inhalation of mold spores when smoking cannabis products, can lead to lung disease and death. Some of the biological hazards associated with cannabis are: Salmonella sp., E. coli, Clostridium botulinum, Aspergillus sp. and Penicillium sp.

Chemical Hazards refer to those chemicals that can be present in the plant or finished product due to human applications (pesticides), operational processes (extraction solvents and cleaning chemicals), soil properties (heavy metals), environmental contamination (radiological chemicals) or as a result of occurring naturally (mycotoxins and allergens). Consuming high concentrations of cleaning chemicals in a product can lead to a wide range of symptoms from mild rash, burning sensation in the oral-respiratory system, gastrointestinal discomfort or death. In addition, long term exposure to chemicals such as pesticides, heavy metals, radiological contaminants and mycotoxins may lead to the development of cancers.

Physical Hazards refer to those foreign materials that may be present in the plant or finished product. Foreign materials such as rocks, plastics or metals can cause harm to the consumer by chipping teeth or laceration of the mouth membranes (lips, inner cheeks, tong, esophagus, etc.) In the worst-case scenario, physical hazards may lead to choking, which can cause death due to asphyxiation.

These hazards can be prevented, eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level when foundational programs (Good Agricultural/Cultivation Practices, Good Manufacturing Practices, Allergen Management Program, Pest Control, etc.) are combined with a Food [Product] Safety Plan. These lead to a Food [Product] Safety Management System that is designed to keep consumers safe, regardless of the method of consumption.

Comparable to Organic: How This California Company Aims to Certify Cannabis

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Cannabis that contains more than 0.3% THC is not eligible for USDA organic certification, due to the crop’s Schedule I status. While some hemp farmers are currently on the path to obtain a USDA organic certification, the rest of the cannabis industry is left without that ability.

Growers, producers, manufacturers and dispensaries that utilize the same practices as the national organic program should be able to use that to their advantage in their marketing. Ian Rice, CEO of Envirocann, wants to help cannabis companies tap into that potential with what he likes to call, “comparable to organic.”

Ian Rice, CEO of Envirocann & co-founder of SC Labs

Rice co-founded SC Laboratories in 2010, one of the first cannabis testing labs in the world, and helped develop the cannabis industry’s first testing standards. In 2016, Rice and his partners at SC Labs launched Envirocann, a third-party certification organization, focused on the quality assurance and quality control of cannabis products. Through on-site inspections and lab testing, Envirocann verifies and subsequently certifies that best practices are used to grow and process cannabis, while confirming environmental sustainability and regulatory compliance.

“Our backyard in Santa Cruz and the central coast is the birthplace of the organic movement,” says Rice. California Certified Organic Farms (CCOF), founded in Santa Cruz more than 40 years ago, was one of the first organizations in the early 1990s that helped write the national organic program.

“What we came to realize in the lab testing space and as the cannabis market grew, was that a lot of cannabis companies were making the organic claims on their products,” says Rice. “At the time, only one or two organizations in the cannabis space were making an attempt to qualify best practices or create an organic-type feel of confidence among consumers.” What Rice saw in their lab was not cannabis that could be considered organic: “We saw products being labeled as organic, or with certain claims of best practices, that were regularly failing tests and testing positive for banned chemicals. That really didn’t sit well with us.”

Coastal Sun Farms, Enviroganic-certified

At the time, there was no real pathway to certify cannabis products and qualify best practices. “We met with a few people at the CCOF that were very encouraging for us to adopt the national organic program’s standards for cannabis. We followed their lead in how to adopt the standards and apply a certification, building a vehicle intended to certify cannabis producers.”

Because of their background in lab testing they added the requirement for every crop that gets certified to undergo a site inspection, sampling, as well as a pesticide residue test to confirm no pesticides were used at all during the production cycle. One of their clients is Coastal Sun Farms, a greenhouse and outdoor cannabis producer. “They grow incredible products at a high-level, commercial scale at the Enviroganic standard,” says Rice. “They have been able to prove that organic cannabis is economically viable.”

The Envirocann certification goes a bit beyond the USDA’s organic program in helping their clients with downstream supply chain risk management tools (SCRM). “Because of the rigorous testing of products to get certified and go to market, we are getting way ahead of supply chain or production issues,” says Rice. “That includes greater oversight and transparency, not just for marketing the final product.”

A good example of using SCRM to a client’s advantage is in the extraction business. A common scenario recently in the cannabis market involves flower or trim passing the pesticide tests at the lab. But when that flower makes it down the supply chain to a manufacturer, the extraction process concentrates chemical levels along with cannabinoid levels that might have previously been acceptable for flower. “I’ve witnessed millions and millions of dollars evaporate because flower passed, but the concentrated final product did not,” says Rice. “We’ve introduced a tool to get ahead of that decision-making process, looking beyond just a pass/fail. With our partner labs, we look at the chromatograms in greater detail beyond regulatory requirements, which gives us information on trace levels of chemicals we may be looking for. It’s a really rigorous audit on these sites and it’s all for the benefit of our clients.”

Envirocann has also recently added a processing certification for the manufacturing sector and a retail certification for dispensaries. That retail certification is intended to provide consumers with transparency, truth in labeling and legitimate education. The retail certification includes an assessment and audit of their management plan, which goes into details like procurement and budtender education, as well as basic considerations like energy usage and waste management.

Fog City Farms, Envirocann-certified

While Envirocann has essentially adopted the USDA’s organic program’s set of standards for what qualifies organic producers, which they call “Enviroganic,” they also certify more conventional producers with their “Envirocann” certification. “While these producers might not be considered organic farmers, they use conventional methods of production that are responsible and deserve recognition,” says Rice. “A great example for that tier would be Fog City Farms: They are growing indoor with LED lighting and have multiple levels in their indoor environment to optimize efficiency and minimize their impact with waste and energy usage, including overall considerations for sustainability in their business.”

Looking to the future, Ian Rice is using the term “comparable to organic” very intentionally, preparing for California’s roll out of their own organic cannabis program. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is launching the “OCal Comparable-to-Organic Cannabis Program.” Envirocann is obviously using the same language as the CDFA. That’s because Envirocann aims to be one of the verifying agents under the CDFA’s new program. That program will begin on January 1, 2021.

U.S. Hemp Authority Names FoodChain ID Official Certification Body

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to a press release published last week, the U.S. Hemp Authority (USHA) announced that FoodChain ID, a global leader in food safety, testing and sustainability, is now the exclusive certifying body for the USHA certification seal.

FoodChain ID’s claim to fame is their widely-recognized Non-GMO Project Verification labeling standard, but they also offer services in the food, beverage and ingredient industries, including the entire food supply chain, as well as being a leader in USDA Organic certifications.

The effort to provide quality standards and guidance for best practices in the hemp and CBD markets is led by a coalition of organizations with the same goal: to legitimize the industry and gain consumer trust. The effort is funded by the U.S. Hemp Roundtable and joined by the Hemp Industries Association, the U.S. Hemp Authority, testing laboratories, agronomists, quality assessors and other industry-leading firms.

In order for a hemp company to get the certified seal, they must prove that they can meet strict standards, pass an independent third-party audit as well as enter a licensing agreement. The certification seal is an attempt to provide some legitimacy to the ever-changing hemp and CBD markets in the United States.

Marielle Weintraub, president of the U.S. Hemp Authority, says that through the program’s independent, third-party lab testing, the certification seal provides consumers with truth in labeling and transparency. “The U.S. Hemp Authority Certification Program is our industry’s initiative to provide high standards, best practices, and self-regulation, giving consumers an easy way to identify hemp-derived products that can be trusted,” says Weintraub. “We are striving for ingredient transparency and truth in labeling.”

Just some of the many CBD products on the market today.

According to Weintraub, the standards and best practices for the program are routinely updated and improved. There will be a public session where they discuss those standards and update industry stakeholders on their progress at the Natural Products Expo West on March 2nd.

Mark Dabroski, senior vice president, commercial services at FoodChain ID, says that hemp products are becoming increasingly common in the food, beverage and health and wellness markets. “Hemp seed oil and protein markets have been increasing exponentially over the last decade,” says Dabroski. “With the category’s expected growth at a 46% CAGR to reach $2.8B by 2023, the need for self-regulation and transparency are critical.”

“As consumers increasingly demand to know what is in the foods and products they buy, our suite of testing and verification services helps meet this demand,” says Dabroski.

USDA Announces Risk Management Programs for Hemp

By Aaron G. Biros
2 Comments

According to a press release published earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced two new programs available for hemp growers to mitigate their risk.

The first is called Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI), which is a pilot hemp insurance program designed to cover against “loss of yield because of insurable causes of loss for hemp grown for fiber, grain or Cannabidiol (CBD) oil.” The second plan is Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, which protects against losses from lower-than-normal yields, destroyed crops or “prevented planting” where permanent crop insurance is not available.

Both of the programs are now accepting applications and the deadline to apply is March 16, 2020. “We are pleased to offer these coverages to hemp producers. Hemp offers new economic opportunities for our farmers, and they are anxious for a way to protect their product in the event of a natural disaster,” says Bill Northey, Farm Production and Conservation Undersecretary.

The MCPI program is available for hemp producers in 21 states, according to the press release. Th program is available in certain counties in Alabama, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

There are a handful of requirements to be eligible for that program, such as having one year of growing under their belt and have contracts in place for the sale of their crops. Hemp growers producing CBD must have at least 5 acres and hemp growers producing fiber must have at least 20 acres cultivated.

In 2021, the press release states, “hemp will be insurable under the Nursery crop insurance program and the Nursery Value Select pilot crop insurance program.” With those programs, hemp crops can be insured if grown in containers and in accordance with federal law.

To apply for any of these programs, hemp growers must have a license and must be totally compliant with state, tribal or federal regulations, or be operating under a state or university research plot from the 2014 Farm Bill. Growers need to report their hemp acreage to the Farm Service Agency, a division of the USDA.

The press release also mentions that if the crops have above 0.3% THC, the crop becomes uninsurable and ineligible for any of the programs.

Dank Until Gone Dark: The State of Corporate Insolvency for Cannabis Businesses

By Aaron L. Hammer, David S. Ruskin, Nathan E. Delman
No Comments

Two thirds of all states and the District of Columbia have, to varying degrees, legalized cannabis. With the recent addition of Illinois, eleven states now allow adult recreational use. But cannabis entrepreneurs’ rush of excitement and dreams of cashing in is met with fierce competition and economic risks that makes the dreams, which look so dank at first, end up going dark, or in other words, out of business.

This article discusses the available options for a cannabis business that finds itself on hard times and in need of reorganizing its debts or liquidating altogether. With the federal status of cannabis remaining illegal, cannabis businesses must clear significant hurdles to achieve success. Among the many other pitfalls traditional business owners experience, a cannabis business must navigate limited access to financial institutions and its related security concerns of keeping large amounts of cash on location. Also, they cannot deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses for federal income tax purposes. Turning a profit in legal cannabis can be a big challenge.

The first thought for a business facing insolvency is bankruptcy. However, bankruptcy courts have not been welcoming to cannabis businesses. Bankruptcy courts are courts of federal jurisdiction, and the federal government is represented by the United States Trustee Program (UST), which is the division of the Department of Justice responsible for oversight of Bankruptcy Courts. Since cannabis remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) as a Schedule I controlled substance, it is unsurprising that the UST creates roadblocks for those seeking relief. In fact, the UST currently and steadfastly seeks dismissal of cases against cannabis businesses, cannabis employees and landlords of cannabis businesses.

But all hope is not lost. First, a change at the head of the DOJ could have a significant effect on how these cases are handled, even without a reclassification of cannabis. Second, recent caselaw shows a willingness by the courts to forge a path allowing cannabis cases to survive. Finally, if federal bankruptcy protection is not an option, other state remedies may be available to unsuccessful cannabis ventures.

The UST’s prosecutorial discretion has a strong influence in how a bankruptcy case can develop. While still very difficult to predict, a compelling analogy for cannabis cases can be seen in how the UST dealt with same-sex marriages in 2011. Nine years ago, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) governed, and Section 3 of DOMA1 defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” In In re Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales, a same sex couple filed a Chapter 13 petition in California, and the UST filed a motion to have the case dismissed. The UST sought dismissal of the joint bankruptcy case, arguing the couple did not qualify for a joint petition under 11 USC § 302(a) because they were in a same-sex marriage. The bankruptcy court denied the UST’s motion. The bankruptcy court in Balas based its opinion partially on a letter from then United States Attorney General Eric Holder, with President Obama’s support, reasoning that Section 3 was unconstitutional as it applied to legally married same-sex couples. The UST appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the UST did an abrupt about-face and dismissed its appeal. In fact, the UST took a further step by publicly stating it would not seek dismissal of any joint bankruptcy filed by a legally married same-sex couple. Similarly, if today’s executive branch decides not to enforce the CSA in bankruptcy court, cannabis businesses in compliance with state law would have access to bankruptcy courts.

Many businesses have pushed the bankruptcy courts to use a similar public policy approach to allowing cannabis businesses to seek debt relief, but it is proving to be a far stickier issue. Bankruptcy Courts have routinely dismissed cases with both direct and indirect relationships to the cannabis industry. The UST has taken a stance firmly against affording relief with any type of connection to cannabis. In an April 2017 letter to Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 trustees, the Director of the UST put it bluntly: “[i]t is the policy of the United States Trustee Program that United States Trustees shall move to dismiss or object in all cases involving marijuana assets on grounds that such assets may not be administered under the Bankruptcy Code even if trustees or other parties object on the same or different grounds.”

Indeed, one can fairly point out a significant difference between allowing a same-sex couple to file a joint bankruptcy. The practical significance of allowing same-sex couples to file jointly is the loss of a filing fee to the bankruptcy court, whereas a cannabis company’s liquidation creates a situation where a Chapter 7 trustee would have a fiduciary duty to liquidate a controlled substance, effectively violating federal law.

However, the UST shows equal hostility to cases involving downstream cannabis businesses such as landlords and even certain gardening suppliers, where there is no risk of cannabis itself becoming property of a bankruptcy estate. A Colorado District Court affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a holding company for purported CSA violations.2 The Court reasoned that since the company owned stock for a large hydroponic gardening company, it willfully aided and abetted criminal activities.

San Francisco’s United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Photo: Ken Lund, Flickr

While the federal executive branch is decidedly opposed to the cannabis debtor, one hope for reform lies with the judicial branch. To this end, the Ninth Circuit handed the biggest victory to date to a downstream cannabis business in Garvin v. Cook. Based on a microscopically close reading of the Bankruptcy Code, the Ninth Circuit held that a reorganization plan which relies partially on money from cannabis does not equate to a plan being “proposed by means forbidden by law” because the statutory text of one section cannot mean “all applicable law” or else the language in a closely related section that “the plan complies with the applicable provisions of this title” would be surplusage.

But this victory has not created much daylight for cannabis ventures seeking to utilize bankruptcy courts. Notably, Garvin could have gone a different direction if the UST had revived a motion to dismiss for gross mismanagement of the estate, which is how most Chapter 11 cannabis cases are dismissed. Indeed, in the weeks following the Garvin decision, two lower courts declined to blaze a new trail, and instead distinguished its cases from Garvin, dismissing debtors with equally indirect ties to cannabis.

Bankruptcy courts have shown significantly more latitude for legal hemp companies. In a promising decision, In re Royalty Properties, LLC, a Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court took no issue with the legality of a debtor growing hemp seeds. The court took pains to distinguish hemp from its psychoactive relative marijuana and based its ruling on the 2018 Farm Bill which effectively legalized hemp. The court even denied as unnecessary an order to approve contracts to grow hemp, stating its approval was not necessary. Ultimately, the reorganization failed for reasons unrelated to growing hemp.  Nevertheless, the case does show a step toward tolerance. Now that CBD giant GenCanna Global has filed a Chapter 11 in Kentucky, the UST’s tolerance will be put on full display.

The United States Trustee Program is a part of the United States Department of Justice

Also, it is worth noting that the unwillingness of bankruptcy courts to take on cannabis cases cuts both ways. Creditors of cannabis businesses, already taking on a certain amount of risk for dealing with borrowers who cannot use depository institutions in a traditional way, also have been prevented from banding together and filing an involuntary bankruptcy against cannabis businesses.

Fortunately, legal cannabis businesses facing insolvency have options aside from federal bankruptcy to deal with debt issues.

An assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding (ABC) presents one very workable option. In an ABC, a distressed company selects an “assignee” to liquidate the debtor’s assets via state law and distribute the proceeds to the creditor’s benefit. Depending on whether the assets include cannabis, the assignee will likely have to comply with applicable state law to be able to legally liquidate the asset. Nevertheless, an ABC might be the best solution currently available for cannabis companies seeking debt relief.

Another option is a corporate receivership where a disinterested third party, typically an attorney, is appointed to take control of an ailing business. The receiver takes over management of the company and can liquidate the company’s assets. Receiverships present certain advantages over bankruptcy proceedings. They allow for greater flexibility in decision making because the receiver is not bound by the confines of the Bankruptcy Code. Receiverships can be more cost effective, due to less court involvement and administrative expenses. For creditors, there is the advantage of potentially deciding on the receiver. Also, the receiver, unlike a Chapter 7 trustee, does not bear the imprimatur of any government, and is not a public officer within the meaning of a constitutional or statutory provision relating to public officers. Oregon and Washington have both amended their receivership statutes to ensure that cannabis businesses can effectively manage debt without receivers running the risk of violating the law. Ideally, other legal states will follow suit to ensure this remedy is available to cannabis businesses.

Finally, another bankruptcy alternative would be a friendly foreclosure under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Unlike the Bankruptcy Code, the UCC is not federal law, but is adopted individually by each state. Again, considering the secured lender is required to comply with state law, this is another instance where amending state statutes could provide great assistance to a struggling cannabis business and its secured creditors.

Legal options for insolvent cannabis businesses is a new challenge. Society is trending in the direction of a more permissive attitude toward cannabis, so it should follow that the legislatures and courts accept this shift and afford distressed cannabis businesses the same opportunities to reorganize or orderly liquidate just like other legal business entities.


References

  1. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in 2013 US v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
  2. See In re Way to Grow, Civil Action No. 18-cv-3245-WJM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207846 (D. Colo. Sep. 18, 2019)

Practical Advice on How to Avoid a TCPA Suit

By Paul Gipson
1 Comment

Texting consumers is a very effective means to drive engagement and ultimately sales. Text messages have outpaced emails when looking at conversion and click-thru rates. In fact, 95% of texts are read in ninety seconds or less! While text messages can be a great way to engage with prospects and customers, the FCC’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is a regulation you need to be mindful of. In fact, the average cost of a TCPA settlement is over $6m dollars, which doesn’t include legal fees or reputational damage.

Over the past few years, there have been about 4,000 TCPA cases filed annually. Take a look at the growth:

Companies are being targeted for various reasons, but there are a few that I’ll cover below along with some advice on how to avoid TCPA suits.

See if you can spot the trend in these cases:

  • Papa Johns: $16.5m settlement due to texting pizza specials to consumers without their consent.
  • Abercrombie & Fitch: $10m settlement due to texting store promotions to consumers without their consent.
  • Rack Room Shoes: $26m settlement for texting their reward program members with various sales without their consent.

Do any of these campaigns sound like something your company is engaged in?

So, you’ve got someone who has signed up for a rewards program, wants to receive deals, or has provided their number to your company for other purposes, but you are concerned about the TCPA (hopefully). Based on my experience working with hundreds of clients at CompliancePoint, here’s where I think you should start. But first…

Quick assumption: Your company is using an automated system to send both informational and promotional texts. Examples include “blast campaigns” (upcoming sale) or “triggered campaigns” (signed up for rewards).

Quick point: Just because the text message says your store is having a sale but doesn’t ask the consumer to buy anything on the message, you may think it’s not considered “telemarketing”. This is wrong. Any plan to sell now or in the future through direct marketing is telemarketing and subject to the TCPA.

Here are my top 5 things to consider:

  1. Obtain consent. This is not achieved by simply having a number provided by the consumer. Instead, the consumer must affirmatively agree to receive promotional calls/texts by automated means. This is done through a clear disclosure and often accompanied by an unchecked checkbox.
  2. Honor opt-outs. This seems obvious right? Provide instructions on how to opt-out and look for other phrases like “stop/quit/cancel”. Opt-outs should occur immediately with most common texting platforms.
  3. Keep records. If you receive a complaint, you want to be able to respond confidently and records help you do that. The key records to maintain are your texting records (the phone numbers you texted, the date/time of the text, and the content of the text), your consent opt-in forms, and opt-out requests from consumers with dates. Ask yourself: what records do you need to prove you had consent, and what records prove you didn’t text a consumer after they opted out.
  4. Only text consumers between the hours of 8AM and 9PM according to their time zone. I always recommend going off address and not phone number due to cellphone mobility. If you text a California number at 8PM, but the phone owner lives in New York, you might get a few complaints.
  5. Monitor compliance with these items. Another one that seems obvious, yet most companies fail to do so, and you see above what happens. I guarantee you’ll find issues with most audits.

Bonus – here is a more comprehensive checklist on how to achieve a Safe-Harbor defense.

This article is not intended to be a scare tactic. The TCPA legal landscape is rampant and consumers are more aware now than ever of their rights. A quick Google search of “Cannabis TCPA” helps to illustrate the fact that this industry, like most, is not immune. However, with proper compliance parameters in place, your company can enjoy the benefits of texting with consumers with peace of mind.

Cannabis Industry Insurance Outlook for 2020

By , T.J. Frost
1 Comment

Cannabis businesses have a lot to look forward to in 2020. After a bipartisan push through the House, the Safe Banking Act currently awaits passage in the Senate and then the president’s signature. If all goes well, the bill will allow the financial sector to finally service cannabis businesses – from banking to investments and insurance.

What else can cannabis business look forward to this year? Check out HUB’s Top 5 cannabis industry predictions for 2020.

  1. Hemp/CBD products go to market in droves. The passage of the Farm Bill and the ease of shipping hemp across state lines has led to a production boom for the crop. With little federal regulation around manufacturing and distribution, hemp/CBD products from edible oils to clothing and anti-inflammatory lotions are extremely profitable. Expect final federal Domestic Hemp Production Program rules on acceptable levels of THC in hemp/CBD products to be published sometime in 2020. These will be based on the current rule draft. There’s a strong push to move industrial hemp into the federal crop insurance program, which is also likely to happen in 2020.
  2. Product liability insurance is no longer a luxury. Thanks to significant vaporizer, battery and contamination claims currently in the courts, cannabis business can expect higher product liability premium rates in 2020. Expect rates to jump as much as 30 to 40%, depending on the resolution of these cases. For this reason, carriers will be more diligent about underwriting and may even ask for certification of insurance from vendors, and additional insureds on third-party policies. Exercising more caution and oversight when selecting vendors is a must for cannabis businesses operating in 2020 under this premise. It’s critical for all organizations to take a hard look at business practices before entering partnerships moving forward.
  3. Phase II industry growing pains surface. Now that the cannabis gold rush is dying down, businesses are poised to enter Phase II of their growth.Those who failed to institute proper hiring processes, including background checks, as well as protocols to promote security and prevent theft are currently facing challenges. Significant industry consolidation is making way for cannabis conglomerates to become multi-state operators. Directors and officers that made poor investments or acquisitions are facing scrutiny at the hands of the SEC or business investors. Without D&O insurance, or adequate limits, directors and officers could find their personal finances drained. Insisting on adequate D&O protection going forward is a best practice for cannabis executives.  
  4. Product and state regulatory testing expands. High-profile manufacturers and distributors of cannabis are standardizing their cannabis, hemp and CBD ingredient labeling. However, many others are taking advantage of the lack of rules currently surrounding cannabis production by falsifying labels and misrepresenting THC content in products. This has led to recent lawsuits and claims. As a result, states will begin to administer product testing and license regulations and enforce carrying time limits, track and trace and bag and tag rules. Get ready for fines, penalties and increased non-compliance liabilities in 2020.
  5. Increased availability of policies and limits. Both the cannabis industry and the number of insurance carriers entering the market continue to grow steadily. Businesses are enjoying higher liability limits as a result – to the tune of $15M on product liability and $60M on property. Coverage for outdoor cannabis crop is now a possibility, and workers’ compensation coverage can function as a blanket policy for businesses across state lines as well. Should the Safe Banking Act pass soon, stay tuned for additional insurance opportunities as well.

2020 Growth and Beyond

The 2020 presidential election will bring the federal legalization of cannabis to the forefront of public discourse. While the law may not change yet, passage of the Safe Banking Act and increased regulatory action at the state level will highlight the successes and failures of the 33 states and the District of Columbia that have legalized cannabis in some capacity. These will serve as a guiding light for federal legalization down the road.