The following interview appears in the November–December 2018 issue of the Corporate Counsel Business Journal.
Corporate Counsel Business Journal: Burns & Levinson has had a cannabis law practice since 2013 and has already handled hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate transactions in this emerging industry. How has your cannabis practice evolved and changed since you first started?
Frank A. Segall: Our goal in entering the cannabis space was to bring our sophisticated corporate expertise to this industry. While we certainly started and remain committed to representing operators looking for licensure, we are heavily focused on working with entities raising capital through the public and private markets, forming venture capital funds and acquiring and selling operations on a nationwide basis. We have also been retained to assist groups in cannabis-related workouts and restructures. In addition, we are highly focused on addressing the banking issues confronting this industry, and we are structuring solutions by working with banks and credit unions that are willing to enter this space.
Understanding the depth of the industry, we endeavored from day one to predict the legal needs of the many cannabis-related businesses that are essential to this industry. We are fortunate to … Keep reading
The closely watched Massachusetts cannabusiness case, Crimson Galeria Limited Partnership, et al. v. Healthy Pharms, Inc., et al., has been dismissed. On November 9, 2018, Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order closing the action upon stipulation by the parties to dismiss the action with prejudice. Plaintiffs, whose property is located within 200 feet of Health Pharms’ registered marijuana dispensary, alleged that the operation of the RMD diminished the market value of their properties and restricted future development opportunities. They contended that the RMD made the surrounding area less desirable for prospective buyers or renters, who would “reasonably worry” about “increased crime” and “pungent odors.”
The Healthy Pharms case was followed closed by those in the cannabis industry due to several important issues raised in the complaint. The Plaintiffs asserted claims against the “Government Defendants” for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that federal law (i.e., the Controlled Substances Act) preempts Massachusetts’ legalization of medical marijuana dispensaries. They also asserted claims against Healthy Pharms and the other Dispensary Defendants, alleging civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, for acting and conspiring to distribute marijuana in violation … Keep reading
It’s no surprise that marijuana reform resulting from the recent midterm elections made headlines last week, as three states voted in favor of legalization. As discussed in last week’s blog post, voters in Missouri and Utah green-lit measures to legalize state medical marijuana programs, while voters in Michigan moved to adopt a measure legalizing adult-use (medical marijuana has been legal in Michigan since 2008). With these major ballot initiatives being passed, almost two-thirds of states have now legalized cannabis in some capacity, and 20% of states allow recreational consumption. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the growing wave of momentum in favor of federal cannabis reform.
In addition to the legalization efforts in Missouri, Utah and Michigan, Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives last week, including the House Rules Committee, which over the last few years has acted as a gatekeeper blocking votes on cannabis amendment and reform. Republican Pete Sessions (TX), the chairman of the House Rules Committee, lost to Democratic opponent Colin Allred, who has previously been critical of Sessions. As recently as September, Congress blocked an amendment that would have permitted doctors affiliated with the Department … Keep reading
Following Tuesday’s midterm elections, three states—Michigan, Missouri, and Utah—adopted new cannabis laws: Michigan voters approved a measure that legalizes marijuana for recreational use, Missouri approved the creation of a comprehensive medical marijuana program, and Utah passed a measure legalizing medical marijuana for patients with certain qualifying illnesses.
Proposal 1 makes Michigan the first Midwestern state to pass adult-use marijuana legalization. It establishes several classes of licenses and gives the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) up to one year to promulgate regulations. For at least 24 months, LARA will only accept adult-use applications from existing medical marijuana businesses. Marijuana Business Daily has projected Michigan’s recreational cannabis market will generate between $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in annual sales within several years of launching, making it one of the largest in the nation.
Missouri voters approved Amendment 2 (Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative), making the Show-Me State one of the 33 in the Union that have embraced medical marijuana. The measure creates regulations and licensing procedures for medical marijuana and medical marijuana facilities—dispensaries, cultivators, and testing and marijuana-infused-product manufacturing facilities. Moreover, Amendment 2 tasks the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services to regulate the … Keep reading
If you read my most recent post on Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, you might have picked up on my disappointment with the Alpenglow opinion. Whether the conclusion is right or wrong, in my estimation, it could have been much more thoroughly reasoned.
In Alpenglow, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was asked, among other less interesting questions, whether the IRS has authority to apply Section 280E if the taxpayer has not been convicted of drug trafficking. The court summarily concluded that the IRS’s authority was not limited to instances involving a conviction. The opinion’s main themes are as follows:
- The IRS has authority to determine whether and when to deny deductions under Section 280E.
- Section 280E has no requirement that there be a criminal investigation or conviction in order for it to apply, and if that was Congress’ intent, they could have easily placed that language in the statute.
- Other courts have upheld tax deficiencies against state-sanctioned cannabis businesses based on application of Section 280E without questioning the IRS’s authority.
If you consider the legislative intent, this historical application, and what is currently taking place in the cannabis industry, it feels like this was … Keep reading