marijuana

Subscribe to marijuana via RSS
High detailed image of fresh cannabis cultivation

In April, I wrote about the Docklight case in Washington State. That case involved a qui tam action pursuant to the False Claims Act in which Docklight, a cannabis ancillary company, settled with the Department of Justice for having wrongfully received and been forgiven a Payment Protection Program (PPP) loan. While there was little reporting on or analysis of the case by the cannabis industry, it was clear that the federal government was looking at cannabis and cannabis ancillary businesses and, essentially, PPP fraud.

Now, there is growing concern among cannabis PPP loan recipients of potential audits related to the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General’s estimate that up to one-third of PPP loans were fraudulently secured (and forgiven). Notably, as part of the PPP, the SBA issued specific guidance in 2019 that both cannabis and cannabis-related companies were not eligible for PPP loans (though it’s likely that hundreds if not thousands of these companies applied for and received these funds anyway). And while “plant touching” businesses likely have no leg to stand on if they’re audited by the SBA, cannabis ancillary businesses potentially have a shot at surviving these audits.

As the 2024 Minnesota Legislative Session came to a chaotic close on May 20, numerous changes to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 342 were sent to the Governor’s desk to build on the already existing cannabis regulatory structure. On May 24, Governor Tim Walz signed the amendments to Chapter 342, which address social equity provisions, preapproval process for social equity applicants, the larger application and licensing process, and consumer safety.

While the cannabis industry is closely following the recently published notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), which will move cannabis from a Schedule 1 controlled substance to a Schedule 3 controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”), a very important federal cannabis litigation matter is making its way through federal court. That case is Canna Provisions, Inc., Gyasi Sellers, Wisacre Farm, Inc., and Verano Holdings Corp.v. Merrick Garland, case no. 23-cv-30113. Filed in October of last year, the Canna Provisions case is more important than ever in the context of rescheduling (in my opinion) and this post serves as an update on what’s happening in court.

On May 16, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA“) published its 92-page notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM“) to move marijuana from schedule 1 on the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to schedule 3 (ironically, the proposed rule itself only takes up a couple of paragraphs on the last two pages of the NPRM). On the same day, the DEA released an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (within the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which prepares legal opinions of the U.S. Attorney General “and provides its own written opinions and other advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and other components of the Department of Justice”) in response to questions from the U.S. Attorney General’s office about schedule 3 marijuana (the “Opinion”). While the NPRM represents the proposed DEA rule that moves marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3, the Opinion is essentially the OLC’s roadmap for fending off legal and administrative challenges to this historic move.

If you’re in house counsel at any company, you’re likely looking to cut down on the day to day, high volume minutia posed by a variety of commercial agreements and transactions that come your way time and again. Doubly so in the cannabis industry given the fact that you have bigger fish to fry with labor and employment issues, day to day operational issues, fundraising and finding more capital, and dealing with the precarious legal environment created by the current federal law conflict (even with possible rescheduling on the horizon). To alleviate some of that in house stress, general counsels should be considering instituting cannabis corporate playbooks (or alternative language libraries) to make the company’s contracting process more turnkey, predictable, and efficient while cutting down on risk.

In October 2022, President Biden asked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Attorney General to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. In August 2023, the HHS marijuana recommendation went to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In October 2023, HHS released a heavily redacted copy of its recommendation to DEA. And until last Friday, no one outside of Bloomberg News and choice government insiders had seen the totality of the HHS marijuana recommendation. However, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act legal battle by lawyer Matt Zorn, the public can now see all 252 pages of (and related to) HHS’s marijuana recommendation to DEA.

I split my time between Los Angeles and Milwaukee these days (I’m eligible to practice law in Wisconsin), and I often find myself working from my firm’s Milwaukee office depending on the month. Wisconsin is an incredibly interesting state when it comes to marijuana in that it is surrounded by states that have both adult use and medical cannabis legal regimes while it has nothing. Wisconsin’s state government is mainly controlled by Republicans who are anti-cannabis legalization. However, they seem to be alright with the concept of Wisconsin medical marijuana. It will be limited though and if the Republicans’ proposal goes through as presented (we don’t have an actual bill yet), Wisconsin will have state-run dispensaries with state-employed pharmacists.

National law firm Husch Blackwell is pleased to announce that Hilary Bricken has joined the firm as a partner in the Los Angeles office and as a member of its Food Systems industry group.

Bricken is a highly regarded cannabis law attorney who joins Husch Blackwell’s nationally recognized Cannabis practice team. She has more than a decade of experience in guiding clients of all sizes in cannabis licensing; marijuana and industrial hemp regulatory compliance; mergers and acquisitions; corporate and transactional matters, including negotiating management services agreements, fee slotting agreements, cultivation supply agreements, and intellectual property licensing agreements; receiverships; dissolution and wind downs; and financing and debt restructuring.