Business
Mistakes in Oregon Cannabis Business Sales: Part 2
We have been helping people buy and sell Oregon cannabis businesses since the early days of the adult use market. Most of these sales are relatively simple asset purchase agreements—including many for naked licenses—but some have been stock sales. Others have taken place amid administrative enforcement action by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC).
This is the second of two posts on mistakes we commonly see in Oregon cannabis business sales. Last week, I covered lazy diligence, sleeping on inventory, services agreements and unclear deadlines. Today I have five more hazards for you: sale structure, landlord issues, local issues, earnest money and escrow issues.
Sale structure (asset or stock sale agreement)
Story time. We represented a minority shareholder in a sale recently where the company agreed to an asset sale (total liquidation) of an OLCC licensed vertical out of a C-corp. When alerted to the potential tax impact, the selling attorneys reasoned the C-corp “wasn’t well managed and there were outstanding liabilities.” It seems that no consideration was given to what could be accomplished in a standard, pre-close window, as well as standard options for closing conditions, indemnity escrows, promissory note offset rights for the buyer, and other types of holdbacks. A seller can also negotiate responsibility with a buyer for various liabilities during diligence, at which point the parties may negotiate related representations and warranties, indemnities, etc.
The point here is that not all Oregon cannabis businesses are LLCs taxed as partnerships, and not all sales should be asset sales. Still, I’ll be surprised if I don’t come across a few more instances in the next 12 months similar to the story above, where a selling C-corp agrees to an asset purchase proposal (as in, total business liquidation) simply because the buyer suggests it. “That’s just how these businesses are sold,” people sometimes say. “That was the best offer.” Etc. Unfortunately, sellers – and even their advisers – often fail to understand the tax implications associated with selling off everything but a company’s stock. A likely consequence: too much tax.
So why do C-corp businesses generally prefer stock sales? First, the proceeds will be taxed at capital gains rates rather than ordinary income tax rates. In the sale of a C-corporation, taxes at the company level are bypassed with a stock sale. Selling shareholders may also realize the incredibly valuable qualified small business exclusion if the stock has been held five years and other criteria are met. Finally, the selling company and its shareholders may get liability protection in a stock sale by shedding both known and unknown liabilities— at least, the ones that they do not agree to keep.
Blindly capitulating to an asset sale in every cannabis business deal is not the way to go. Talk to a cannabis CPA prior to agreeing to a sale structure, including purchase price allocation where relevant– especially if you are a seller. I hate seeing people pay too much tax.
Landlord issues
Landlords are an interesting lot. By that I mean owners of small commercial buildings—especially marginal buildings, and especially landlords willing to lease to cannabis operators—can be challenging to deal with. Griffen Thorne in our L.A. office has written a fair bit about this dynamic. See here, here and here.
When someone buys a cannabis business, they often need to take a lease assignment from the seller, or negotiate a replacement lease with the seller’s landlord. The landlord’s consent is usually required in the former scenario, and always in the latter.
Some landlords have little interest in working with a buyer— especially if things have been going well with the current tenant. Many landlords also insist on using ill-fitting leases, often cobbled together without counsel from ill-fitting forms. The landlord used that form with the seller, after all, and nothing terrible happened. In my view this is like riding a bicycle with a cracked helmet, because you’ve always used that helmet, and a new one is expensive, and you’ll probably never crash.
In any case, it’s very important that Oregon cannabis business sellers ensure their landlord will work with them, to the extent required, prior to signing a term sheet. And it’s important for buyers to diligence the lease and ownership aspects of a property sooner rather than later. This is one of the issues where transparency and cooperation between the parties is vital, in order to close a deal.
Local issues
Local issues can be cumbersome in Oregon cannabis sales. I’m not just talking about Land Use Compatibility Statements or pointless local licensing programs. When the sale of a business involves real property (real estate), any number of things can pop up, especially in a place like the City of Portland. I’ve seen state and local bodies require all manner of improvements and concessions associated with changes in use or real estate ownership, e.g.: six figure curb cuts, easement grant requirements, or mandates to add points of vehicular access to a given parcel.
Some of these requirements may be due to the nature of the use of a piece of property (cannabis; cannabis retail; cannabis processing; etc.), while others may ensue from regulations or policies adopted after a parcel last changed hands. It’s unfortunate, though, when a surprise like this surfaces well into a deal—especially after some portion of the purchase price has gone firm, or a buyer has made other binding commitments. This leads me to the next topic.
Earnest money issues
I like earnest money in deals, even if it’s wholly or partially refundable, and even if it’s just in the form of a promissory note or something similar. People should have skin in the game. The issue with many Oregon cannabis sale agreements, though, is that they lack basic parameters around earnest money. Most purchase agreements are not standard forms, after all, and earnest money is often something that is stuffed in along the way.
Another story. Last month, someone returned to us a redlined draft of a purchase agreement where no earnest money had been required to start (the LOI didn’t contemplate it in this case). The seller’s lawyer added a line that read “Buyer shall provide to Seller $20,000 earnest money upon execution of this Agreement, which shall serve as a credit against the Purchase Price at Closing.” There were no instructions for deposit, let alone anything about how or whether the earnest money would be refundable, or when it would “go hard.” What if the seller breached the agreement? What if buyer breached? What if the landlord refused a lease assignment? What if OLCC refused to grant a license because of this breach or that? Etc. Anytime money is going over the transom, whether and when it can come back, if at all, must be very clear.
Escrow issues
There are a few issues around escrow that make Oregon cannabis deals interesting. First, in the real property context, it’s still impossible to find a title company that will serve as escrow on a deal. (It’s hard enough to find one that will extend a title policy.) I think I first wrote about that six years ago and not much has changed. This means that cannabis business buyers and sellers need to find a different type of agent. And that escrow agent should not be one of the party’s lawyers absent special circumstances– which is another mistake we often see.
Over the years, we have always worked with third-party escrows who aren’t title companies in cannabis asset purchase, stock purchase and real property transactions. Those agents tend to schedule their fees off of title company calculators for real property deals, and may agree to flat fee a business sale agreement. Escrow is affordable in either case, and most deals should run through escrow, at least in part, under a standard escrow agreement.
_______
Let us know in the comments if you are seeing these or other common mistakes in Oregon cannabis business sales. Or feel free to email me with any thoughts. Until then, may all your deals close quickly and without stressors.
Source: https://harrisbricken.com/cannalawblog/mistakes-in-oregon-cannabis-business-sales-part-2/
Business
New Mexico cannabis operator fined, loses license for alleged BioTrack fraud
New Mexico regulators fined a cannabis operator nearly $300,000 and revoked its license after the company allegedly created fake reports in the state’s traceability software.
The New Mexico Cannabis Control Division (CCD) accused marijuana manufacturer and retailer Golden Roots of 11 violations, according to Albuquerque Business First.
Golden Roots operates the The Cannabis Revolution Dispensary.
The majority of the violations are related to the Albuquerque company’s improper use of BioTrack, which has been New Mexico’s track-and-trace vendor since 2015.
The CCD alleges Golden Roots reported marijuana production only two months after it had received its vertically integrated license, according to Albuquerque Business First.
Because cannabis takes longer than two months to be cultivated, the CCD was suspicious of the report.
After inspecting the company’s premises, the CCD alleged Golden Roots reported cultivation, transportation and sales in BioTrack but wasn’t able to provide officers who inspected the site evidence that the operator was cultivating cannabis.
In April, the CCD revoked Golden Roots’ license and issued a $10,000 fine, according to the news outlet.
The company requested a hearing, which the regulator scheduled for Sept. 1.
At the hearing, the CCD testified that the company’s dried-cannabis weights in BioTrack were suspicious because they didn’t seem to accurately reflect how much weight marijuana loses as it dries.
Company employees also poorly accounted for why they were making adjustments in the system of up to 24 pounds of cannabis, making comments such as “bad” or “mistake” in the software, Albuquerque Business First reported.
Golden Roots was fined $298,972.05 – the amount regulators allege the company made selling products that weren’t properly accounted for in BioTrack.
The CCD has been cracking down on cannabis operators accused of selling products procured from out-of-state or not grown legally:
- Regulators alleged in August that Albuquerque dispensary Sawmill Sweet Leaf sold out-of-state products and didn’t have a license for extraction.
- Paradise Exotics Distro lost its license in July after regulators alleged the company sold products made in California.
Golden Roots was the first alleged rulebreaker in New Mexico to be asked to pay a large fine.
Source: https://mjbizdaily.com/new-mexico-cannabis-operator-fined-loses-license-for-alleged-biotrack-fraud/
Business
Marijuana companies suing US attorney general in federal prohibition challenge
Four marijuana companies, including a multistate operator, have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in which they allege the federal MJ prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act is no longer constitutional.
According to the complaint, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, retailer Canna Provisions, Treevit delivery service CEO Gyasi Sellers, cultivator Wiseacre Farm and MSO Verano Holdings Corp. are all harmed by “the federal government’s unconstitutional ban on cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, or possessing intrastate marijuana.”
Verano is headquartered in Chicago but has operations in Massachusetts; the other three operators are based in Massachusetts.
The lawsuit seeks a ruling that the “Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law.”
The companies want the case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court.
They hired prominent law firm Boies Schiller Flexner to represent them.
The New York-based firm’s principal is David Boies, whose former clients include Microsoft, former presidential candidate Al Gore and Elizabeth Holmes’ disgraced startup Theranos.
Similar challenges to the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) have failed.
One such challenge led to a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2005.
In Gonzalez vs. Raich, the highest court in the United States ruled in a 6-3 decision that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to outlaw marijuana federally, even though state laws allow the cultivation and sale of cannabis.
In the 18 years since that ruling, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized adult-use marijuana and the federal government has allowed a multibillion-dollar cannabis industry to thrive.
Since both Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice, currently headed by Garland, have declined to intervene in state-licensed marijuana markets, the key facts that led to the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling “no longer apply,” Boies said in a statement Thursday.
“The Supreme Court has since made clear that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate purely intrastate commerce,” Boies said.
“Moreover, the facts on which those precedents are based are no longer true.”
Verano President Darren Weiss said in a statement the company is “prepared to bring this case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to align federal law with how Congress has acted for years.”
While the Biden administration’s push to reschedule marijuana would help solve marijuana operators’ federal tax woes, neither rescheduling nor modest Congressional reforms such as the SAFER Banking Act “solve the fundamental issue,” Weiss added.
“The application of the CSA to lawful state-run cannabis business is an unconstitutional overreach on state sovereignty that has led to decades of harm, failed businesses, lost jobs, and unsafe working conditions.”
Business
Alabama to make another attempt Dec. 1 to award medical cannabis licenses
Alabama regulators are targeting Dec. 1 to award the first batch of medical cannabis business licenses after the agency’s first two attempts were scrapped because of scoring errors and litigation.
The first licenses will be awarded to individual cultivators, delivery providers, processors, dispensaries and state testing labs, according to the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC).
Then, on Dec. 12, the AMCC will award licenses for vertically integrated operations, a designation set primarily for multistate operators.
Licenses are expected to be handed out 28 days after they have been awarded, so MMJ production could begin in early January, according to the Alabama Daily News.
That means MMJ products could be available for patients around early March, an AMCC spokesperson told the media outlet.
Regulators initially awarded 21 business licenses in June, only to void them after applicants alleged inconsistencies with how the applications were scored.
Then, in August, the state awarded 24 different licenses – 19 went to June recipients – only to reverse themselves again and scratch those licenses after spurned applicants filed lawsuits.
A state judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Chicago-based MSO Verano Holdings Corp., but another lawsuit is pending.
Source: https://mjbizdaily.com/alabama-plans-to-award-medical-cannabis-licenses-dec-1/
-
Business1 year ago
Pot Odor Does Not Justify Probable Cause for Vehicle Searches, Minnesota Court Affirms
-
Business1 year ago
New Mexico cannabis operator fined, loses license for alleged BioTrack fraud
-
Business1 year ago
Alabama to make another attempt Dec. 1 to award medical cannabis licenses
-
Business1 year ago
Washington State Pays Out $9.4 Million in Refunds Relating to Drug Convictions
-
Business1 year ago
Marijuana companies suing US attorney general in federal prohibition challenge
-
Business1 year ago
Legal Marijuana Handed A Nothing Burger From NY State
-
Business1 year ago
Can Cannabis Help Seasonal Depression
-
Blogs1 year ago
Cannabis Art Is Flourishing On Etsy