los ángeles cannabis licensingThe ups, downs, and unknowns around L.A. cannabis licensing have abounded from the passage of Measure M back in March 2017. This is not uncommon, especially in large cities, as regulators determine how to handle things on the fly and as issues arise (see, for example, social equity in L.A. and the ability to re-locate for Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (“EMMDs“). L.A., to its credit, has been transparent and pretty consistent in the way it’s treated licensees and stakeholders. To that end, this month, L.A.’s Department of Cannabis Regulation (“DCR”) released a Phase 2 licensing bulletin that’s significantly important for those Phase 2 would-be licensees that seek a temporary license.

Recall, to qualify for Phase II temporary approval/licensing (which triggered priority licensing for existing “non-retailers” like growers and manufacturers) — folks had to meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Engagement prior to January 1, 2016, in the same Non-Retailer Commercial Cannabis Activity for which it sought a license;
  2. Supplier to an Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensary prior to January 1, 2017;
  3. The Business Premises meet all the land use and sensitive use requirements under cannabis laws and the existing City code;
  4. The applicant’s premises have to pass a pre­-license inspection without any fire or life safety violations either;
  5. All outstanding City business tax obligations were paid to the City and the Applicant had to indemnify the City;
  6. Provision to the City of a written agreement with a testing laboratory for testing all Cannabis and Cannabis products and attests to testing all its Cannabis and Cannabis products in accordance with state standards;
  7. Attestation that the Applicant would cease all operations if denied a State license or City License, and the Applicant cannot do any retail activity at its premises;
  8. Qualification under the City’s Social Equity Program (see here for more info); and
  9. Attestation that the Applicant will comply with all operating requirements imposed by DCR and that DCR may immediately suspend or revoke the temporary approval if the Applicant fails to abide by any City operating requirement.
Number 4 above was causing a lot of heartburn amongst Phase II license applicants in that they didn’t really know what to expect. Pre-licensing inspections can be fairly labor intensive depending on the state of the property at issue versus the build out and business plans of a given applicant, and each City has a different standard for a passing grade. In L.A., pre-licensing inspection (which is a pre-requisite to temporary approval) “may include, but is not limited to [an inspection of the business premises by], employees or agents of the following City or county departments: DCR, Building and Safety, Police Department, Fire Department and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.” And a pre-License inspection consists of, but is not limited to, the following: “approval of the premises diagram; on-site inspection of all applicable building code and fire code requirements; approval of the security plan; fingerprinting; and approval of the fire safety plan (if applicable).”

Plus, applicants must upgrade all applicable electrical and water systems to Building and Fire Code standards before their application will move forward. Again, this is no small task depending on how your building is holding up/what its previous uses and occupancies were.

Temporary approval in L.A. is essential for applicants to also apply for and receive their temporary licenses from the state, which will not be given out or renewed after December 31. This month, L.A. thankfully illuminated for Phase II applicants what to expect for pre-licensing inspections in the City. In its bulletin, the City states:

To be eligible for Phase 2 Priority Processing, among other requirements, an applicant must pass two inspections. One is a DCR inspection to confirm that the applicant’s business premises is built out to substantially match its business premises diagram (i.e., the location and layout of entry points, interior doorways, rooms and walkways match the diagram) and that the business premises is sufficiently secured. The other is a Los Angeles Fire Department Cannabis Unit inspection to confirm that the applicant’s business premises and operations comply with the Los Angeles Fire Code.

The onus here is on the applicant to confirm for the City that it’s ready for pre-licensing inspection. In addition, when DCR confirms a date for an applicant’s inspection, the applicant will be asked to provide its most up-to-date premises diagrams to the DCR (including showing. accurate placement of security cameras). The bottom line of the City’s bulletin is that the physical premises be substantially similar to the premises diagram submitted to the DCR and that the premises be sufficiently secured per City and state law. During the inspection, the DCR will:

  • Walk through each room or area in the premises and assess whether its layout and location is substantially similar to the premises diagram;
  • Determine whether surveillance cameras are recording all areas required to be under surveillance (practically, this is anywhere on the business premises where cannabis goods will be present at any point in time);
  • Determine whether the surveillance system is in a secured area, is functional and can play back recordings upon request; and
  • Determine whether the premises are equipped with a functioning alarm system.

Another big question in L.A. was what the DCR would do with premises that are not 100% built out. The bulletin tells us that:

DCR will inspect the built out area and if all other Phase 2 eligibility requirements are met, grant Temporary Approval for cannabis activities limited to that specific area. Once the remaining areas of the premises are built out, DCR will send out an inspection team again before authorizing cannabis activities in those areas. However, given the large number of Phase 2 eligibility inspections to complete, DCR cannot provide a timeline for when it will be able to schedule a second inspection for an applicant.”

All of this means that it is best to be fully built out (in accordance with your premises diagram and with the fire and safety code) and ready for inspection if you want to get your temporary approval in L.A. anytime soon for your entire facility.

On inspection, also don’t expect to sweet talk the DCR investigator or to learn about the status of your application. Neither will advance your cause with the DCR at this point. Instead, applicants should proceed with business as usual in a professional manner and be as helpful as possible to the DCR investigators and to LAFD.

class action marijuana cannabisMedMen, a popular California cannabis retail company, has been hit with a class action lawsuit from former employees. Class action lawsuits are no joke. These lawsuits involve a few plaintiffs suing on behalf of multiple similarly situated plaintiffs. The claims, money, and other associated costs add up very fast.

In MedMen’s case, two former employees, Chelsea Medlock and Anthony Torres, allege that MedMen failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks, and failed to keep accurate records of employees hours worked. Medlock and Torres worsened the blow by bringing the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all MedMen employees (current and former) from the last four years. If the class is “certified” by the Superior Court of the State of California, where it was filed, the class of plaintiffs could include thousands of employees.

Specifically, Medlock and Torres allege MedMen required them to perform work “off-the-clock” for which they received no pay. Medlock and Torres are seeking minimum wage, liquidated damages, interest and attorney fees for the unpaid time. Although Medlock and Torres have not made specific allegations in the complaint, Starbucks was recently ordered to pay an employee $102.67 for the time the employee spent locking up the store and setting alarms, without compensation. While this amount may seem small, if Medlock and Torres get their class certified, MedMen could be paying out a similar amount or something much greater, to thousands of employees.

Medlock and Torres also allege in their lawsuit that MedMen failed to pay employees required overtime wages. In California, employers must pay overtime rates to non-exempt employees who work in excess of eight hours per day. Medlock and Torres also allege they either were not provided the required meal and rest periods, or were not paid for the meal periods they had to work during. Medlock and Torres have not identified specific dates these alleged violations occurred, but if done over a significant period of time, the back wages and penalities owed will add up quickly.

In addition to their claims relating to their wages, the plaintiffs allege they were not provided accurate wage and hour statements as required by the California Labor Code and failed to provide accurate payroll records. Failure to provide accurate wage and hour statements can result in a penalty of up to $4,000 per employee.

Finally, Medlock and Torres allege that MedMen failed to timely issue final paychecks. Failure to issue final paychecks can result in penalty wages of up to thirty days of pay at the employee regular rate of pay.

In short, Medlock and Torres’s claims are numerous and serious. If they have merit, MedMen will have to pay pack wages and may be hit with treble damages, attorney fees, and interest. Of more important, if the class is certified, MedMen will have to pay those types of damages to potentially every employee they employed in California over the last four years.

Cannabis companies are growing. With growing businesses come more employees. More employees means a higher chance of litigation. For these reasons, if you are ever unsure whether your employment practices are compliant with state and federal law, it is best to have a cannabis employment attorney evaluate and provide advice. You may be able to stave off litigation, or, if you are hit with a lawsuit, you’ll have procedures in place to adequately fight it before it gets too far.

farm bill hemp california cbdThe federal 2018 Farm Bill is likely to become law in the very near future. If it does, it will redefine the hemp industry nationwide. We intend on writing more in the near future as to the specifics of the 2018 Farm Bill, but one interesting question is what effect it will have on California’s industrial hemp and CBD policies.

As anyone in the California hemp business knows, the Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) issued a FAQ policy guideline over the summer which took the position that industrial-hemp derived CBD in food products is unlawful. The FAQ justified this position in part because the federal Controlled Substances Act included industrial hemp as a Schedule I drug, and in part because the federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had concluded that it was unlawful to place THC or CBD into food products.

The 2018 Farm Bill, if it passes, will essentially amend the Controlled Substances Act to take industrial hemp out of the definition of marijuana. In essence, this would make industrial hemp derived products lawful products. The question then is: Will the 2018 Farm Bill negate the FAQ?

The answer is probably not. Even though the Controlled Substances Act may be amended and some of the underlying support for the FAQ may be undermined, that won’t change the fact that the FDA has not concluded that CBD in food products is lawful. While the CDPH certainly could change its position, the de-scheduling of industrial hemp won’t necessarily change the FDA’s positions right away. In the meantime, it’s safe to conclude that the FAQ still stands.

Ultimately, the 2018 Farm Bill is likely to have far-reaching impacts throughout the industrial hemp industry. We’ll make sure to keep you updated along the way.

california cannabis licensing rulesThis past Friday, California’s three agencies charged with writing and enforcing cannabis regulations—the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), the Department of Public Health (DPH), and the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA)—made public their respective proposed final regulations, which are currently pending a 30-day review by the Office of Administrative Law before becoming law. Some of the most significant and controversial changes appear in the BCC’s proposed final regulations, which govern a variety of licensees such as retailers, distributors, testing laboratories, and microbusinesses, and which we will be writing about in the coming days.

As for the DFA, which issues and enforces rules for cannabis cultivators, the proposed final rules are substantially the same as the modifications the agency proposed back in October. While “substantially the same” might sound innocuous, it amounts to acceptance of the October modifications, many of which were significant. Below are some initial takeaways.

Cultivation license “stacking.” It looks like the “stacking” work-around for the acreage cap is going to be permanent. Remember the controversy surrounding the state’s decision not to limit accumulation of small cultivation licenses by a single licensee so as to essentially create a loophole to the 1-acre cap, to the benefit of big farms. However…

Shared facilities limitations. It also looks like the DFA’s proposed modifications regarding shared spaces between licenses are also going to be permanent, creating a challenge for license “stackers”. As we explained here, what the DFA was proposing (and which now appears likely to become final) was restricting the ability of a single licensee holding multiple licenses from being able to use shared facilities for its various licenses. And whereas the areas excluded from shared use under the October modifications included immature plant-growing areas, processing or packaging areas, and administrative holding areas, it looks like we can now add to that list areas used for storage of harvested cannabis, which is an item that was removed from the allowable list of shared usage areas this time around (although there is some ambiguity in how that particular regulation could be interpreted).

What this means overall is that things are going to be more difficult for licensees holding more than one license (especially of the same type), as they will now have to arbitrarily create various dedicated areas on the cultivation premises to serve each specific license, even if they’re the same kind of license with the same kind of operation in every respect.

Structures on site.  There is an interesting difference in the BCC proposed final rules compared to the DFA rules when it comes to the permanency of structures on the licensed premises. The BCC is aiming to require that all structures included as part of a BCC-licensed premises would have to be permanently affixed to the land, and this would specifically exclude things like shipping containers, mobile trailers, and non-affixed modular structured. We had suspected that the DFA might follow suit in its final proposed rules, especially because such structures are popular for cannabis farms, but it has not—no such explicit restriction appears in the DFA’s proposed final regulations.

Ownership, Financial Interests and Disclosure. There is also an interesting difference between ownership and financial interest holder disclosure requirements between the BCC and DFA proposed final rules. We previously wrote about how the BCC’s proposed final rules could sweep some landlords into the definition of “owner” or “financial interest holder” depending on the landlord’s relationship with the tenant. But another important difference between the BCC and DFA rules that we thought would be reconciled in the final rules but apparently will not be is the extent to which entities (as opposed to persons) that qualify as “owners” or “financial interest holders” of BCC licensee must undergo vetting and disclosure all the way up the chain of entity ownership, whereas there is no such explicit requirement for DPH or DFA licensees. We will be writing more on this specific difference in the coming days. Stay tuned.

california cannabis BCC

Today, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) published its Proposed Text of Regulations Submitted to Office of Administrative Law for review here. We are still in the process of reviewing everything, but there are enough ambiguities to cause us a good deal of concern, particularly with respect to IP licensing and contract manufacturing agreements.

We are also reviewing the BCC’s responses to comments submitted on the proposed regulations back in early November, of which there are about a thousand pages. We’ll be analyzing the regulations section by section and writing about all of the changes over the course of the next week.

Stay tuned.

california cannabis litigation
We see litigation in the California industry’s future.

Because California’s cannabis regulatory scheme is still in relative infancy, 2018 has looked the same for most operators: applying for annual licenses and waiting (and then continuing to wait) for them to issue or fighting to get temporary license applications submitted before they can no longer be issued. But what happens in two or three years after hundreds or thousands of commercial cannabis licenses have been issued? A host of administrative and civil litigation, probably.

California’s cannabis regulators have immense power that’s not just going to disappear after they issue licenses. The Bureau of Cannabis Control, which regulates a number of different license types, arguably has more police power than the actual police. Section 5800 of the BCC’s readopted emergency regulations, for example, gives the BCC “full and immediate access”, without prior notice, to enter premises, inspect cannabis or vehicles, and copy books and records, and failure of a party to comply with a BCC investigation can be subject to discipline.

Not only do the agencies have broad investigative power, but the subject matter of what they can investigate—all the various regulations that companies have to comply with—is immense. The regulators are not going to sit around and assume that licensees are following the law, the regulations, or even their own operational plans submitted with their applications—they are almost certainly going to use their investigative power to root out non-compliant operators. This should come as no surprise as the BCC, for example, has already taken some action against allegedly unlicensed cannabis operators. Our cannabis lawyers in other states with older licensing schemes have already seen targeted agency investigations and enforcement actions.

There are really endless ways that the agencies may choose to investigate or enforce their regulations, but it’s safe to say that they will prioritize enforcement against unlicensed operators. They may also go after some other easy targets—selling to underage persons, violations of advertising or delivery regulations, track-and-trace non-compliance, and so on. Rest assured, too, that administrative rules will continue to evolve, and licensed businesses that do not keep up on compliance will also be vulnerable.

Not only are the next few years likely to see an increase in administrative actions, but they are also likely to see a swath of civil litigation between licensees and internally. With the development of so much new technology and other intellectual property, we expect to see a good deal of trade secret and other IP litigation. Prop 65 and other forms of false advertising litigation are likely to continue as well. And internally, members of cannabis companies may start to bring lawsuits against each other or their companies for a number of reasons—from simple things like alleged mismanagement of company assets to fraud in soliciting investors.

The future of the California cannabis industry isn’t entirely certain, but it’s likely going to involve a lot of time before arbitrators, judges and other dispute resolution officiants.

shelf space california cannabis contract
Shelf space is a big deal right now in California cannabis.

With the roll out of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA“), our California cannabis attorneys see all kinds of agreements between and among licensees. From IP licensing to white labeling to distribution contracts, we’re beginning to see people emerge from the shadows and enter into written agreements with each other, which is undoubtedly for the best given the amount of litigation that already exists in the industry and given the amount of fighting that’s sure to come regarding commercial disputes. Lately though, what we’ve seen a lot of are “pay-to-stay” and slotting fee agreements between cannabis cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. In these agreements, cultivators, manufacturers and distributors are locking retailers into contracts for dedicated, prime-time shelf space. The question, though, is whether such agreements are kosher in California and what you need to know to have a reliable, enforceable, pay-to-stay contract.

California is still pretty dynamic when it comes to contracts between licensees. Unlike other states, California hasn’t really broached the subject of massive restrictions on contracts between licensees (the lone exception is the most recent of proposed permanent regulations that attacked IP licensing and white labeling between licensees and non-licensees). Other states are very particular about licensees exerting undue influence over each other via contract when it comes to things like control, term, and the legitimacy of services/goods being provided to the licensee. Here in California, though, the following are pretty much the only contractual restrictions that exist between licensees in the marketplace:

A licensee shall not perform any of the following acts, or permit any of the following acts to be performed by any employee, agent, or contractor of the licensee:
(1) Make any contract in restraint of trade . . .
(3) Make a sale or contract for the sale of cannabis or cannabis products, or to fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, that price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the consumer or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, merchandise, machinery, supplies, commodities, or services of a competitor or competitors of the seller, where the effect of that sale, contract, condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of trade or commerce.
(4) Sell any cannabis or cannabis products at less than cost for the purpose of injuring competitors, destroying competition, or misleading or deceiving purchasers or prospective purchasers . . .
(6) Sell any cannabis or cannabis products at less than the cost thereof to such vendor, or to give away any article or product for the purpose of injuring competitors or destroying competition . . .
In turn, licensees pretty much have free reign to contract for whatever they want for however long they want without fear of interference from state regulators (so long as such agreements basically don’t amount to anti-competitive behavior). In addition, in case you’re thinking that licensee contracts don’t matter, California already passed legislation ensuring that commercial cannabis contracts are indeed enforceable in state court so that no one is left holding the bag over some illegality defense to performance.
On to slotting fee and pay-to-stay agreements. When you walk into the grocery store, the retailer likely isn’t just arranging products by name or color. In fact, what’s likely going on is that certain shelf space for new products has been negotiated and paid for by a manufacturer. And with good reason. In commodities, especially saturated ones, face time with consumers isn’t great and margins can be really poor and the competition is vast. In California, only cannabis retailers can sell to the public, so it’s hugely important for wholesale and distributor licensees to have good placement on shelf space in dispensaries and on the retailers’ online menus. The slotting fee agreement essentially amounts to the lump sum fee the supplier pays to the retailer to reserve their sacred, strategic shelf space. The pay-to-stay agreement (which can be similar to the slotting fee) typically takes things a step further where it’s instituted after the initial slot and addresses issues for existing products like marketing, promotion, inventory stocking, failure fees, and paying extra to ensure that your competitors don’t get any valuable shelf space near you or at all.

What should go into these contracts? Like any other agreement, if you’re the supplier, you want to fully articulate exactly where your placement will be in the store, how often that placement occurs, your inventory schedule, what happens in the event you cannot deliver on the inventory, what happens if no one wants your product despite its placement, what happens if the retailer (for its own benefit) wants to place another, better performing product in close proximity to yours, and the list goes on and on. Suppliers of cannabis in California should not be paying robust slotting fees to retailers willy-nilly. Even though retailers have a lot of leverage where there are still so few of them and because they’re the only licensees with a daily, face-to-face relationship with the public, if you are a supplier of a recognized brand (or even if you’re consistent with product potency and quality assurance testing), you still have some leverage where many cannabis consumers are still coming to the marketplace trying to decide what they like. The other reason cannabis suppliers shouldn’t be paying super high slotting fees is because the contract could be invalidated not because of the cannabis aspect, but because it’s anti-competitive in nature.

You’ve probably already concluded that the companies that can afford the highest slotting fees are the ones who will make it to the shelves of cannabis retailers in California. And you’re likely not wrong since retailers also have to financially survive in this newly regulated marketplace and slotting fee agreements certainly help to allocate the risk on what products to buy and re-sell (or not). In addition, the bigger cannabis brands may not even face the prospect of these contracts from retailers because the retailers desperately want to carry on them on their shelves anyway. That begs the question then of whether slotting fee agreements and pay-to-stay contracts are actually anti-competitive in violation of MAUCRSA. There’s no doubt that they certainly could be if retailers band together and start to create extremely high, universal slotting fees. Or if suppliers decide to lock up entire dispensaries. The upside, though, can be that retailers are actually more willing to take on new products since they shift liabilities for their failure back to the supplier, the slotting relationship makes product distribution more efficient, and consumers can benefit from lower prices where the retailer can better allocate its risk on investing in the presentation of new products. In any event, state regulators have stayed silent on this practice for now (although the FTC, the sleeping giant of the cannabis world, has debated the subject a good amount).

The bottom line? Unless and until regulators squarely address it or suppliers start to sue over the practice, if you’re presented with or need a fee slotting agreement or a pay-to-stay contract, make sure that you check the box on the details of the relationship. Make sure, too, that you’re avoiding anti-competitive terms and conditions if you want to make hay in California.

Legalized recreational cannabis businesses are still new in California. As a cannabis business owner, you may be thinking that a great way to protect your confidential information and prevent your employees from leaving would be a non-compete agreement. Think again. Not only are non-competition agreements unenforceable and prohibited in California, but they can come with criminal sanctions if an employer requires an employee to enter into a non-competition agreement as a condition of employment. In other words, don’t even think about entering into non-competition agreements with you California cannabis employees.

Many cannabis companies may try another route to protect their confidential business information and get employees to stick around through “non-solicitation agreements.” Non-solicitation agreements are not as restrictive as non-competition agreements and generally are not prohibited by California law. Non-solicitation agreements typically prohibit employees from taking any actions that will cause any employee, customer, or vendor of the employer to change its relationship with the employer. California courts will carefully scrutinize non-solicitation agreements to ensure they are not overly broad and therefore crossing the line from non-solicitation into non-competition. A recent case from the California Court of Appeals demonstrates that the courts are continuing this tradition and carefully examining non-solicitation agreements and only enforcing them if they are true non-solicitation agreements.

california cannabis nonsolicitation noncompete employeeIn AMN Healthcare Inc v. Aya Healthcare Services Inc, AMN Healthcare required employees to sign a non-solicitation agreement preventing them from soliciting other employees of AMN Healthcare, to leave the service of AMN Healthcare. AMN Healthcare required a recruiter it hired to sign the non-solicitation agreement. The recruiter then went to work for Aya Healthcare, which practiced in the same field as AMN Healthcare. The recruiter, pursuant to the non-solicitation agreement was not allowed to recruit employees from AMN Healthcare. Litigation ensued.

The Court of Appeals determined the broad language of AMN Healthcare’s non-solicitation agreement violated California’s Business and Professions code because it restricted the employee’s ability to freely engage in a lawful profession or trade. Specifically, the recruiter could not freely recruit from AMN Healthcare, her exact professional requirements. While the Court of Appeals decision turned on the recruiter’s specific issue, the Court went further and noted AMN Healthcare primarily employed travel nurses for a period of 13 weeks or less. The AMN Healthcare non-solicitation agreement was to be in effect for at least one year following the end of the employment relationship. The Court found this to be overly restrictive given that most of the nurses were employed for such a short period. Overall, the court determined the non-solicitation agreements ANM Healthcare required employees to sign were unenforceable.

What does this mean for your cannabis company? Non-solicitation agreements can be useful tools to help protect confidential information and protect employees from jumping ship. However, they need to be carefully crafted to be enforceable. There is little point in requiring employees to sign an unenforceable non-solicitation agreement. More importantly, non-solicitation agreements need to be carefully drafted to ensure they are not actually non-competition agreements that could violate the Business and Professions Code, and subject your cannabis company to criminal sanctions. If you are interested in a non-solicitation agreement, it is always best to consult a cannabis employment attorney to draft a strong one that will protect your interests.

california cannabis lease
May be required of certain California cannabis landlords.

We’ve previously written about some of the pitfalls for landlords to avoid when leasing to commercial cannabis tenants in California. We’ve also written about how the state’s recently proposed modifications to its final cannabis regulations could affect licensees and the industry writ large (see here, here, and here). The comment period for those rule changes is now over and we expect to see final rules from the state agencies within the next couple of weeks. This post focuses on a few examples of how those proposed modifications would affect cannabis landlords specifically.

One of the biggest proposed changes in the new rules has to do with who qualifies as an “owner” or a “financial interest holder” of a cannabis licensee that must be disclosed and vetted as part of the cannabis operator’s license application. Under the current proposed final rules and existing statutes, all “owners” of a cannabis business licensee must be listed in a licensee’s annual license application, including each owner’s contact information, social security number and tax identification number, employment information, disclosure and description of all past convictions, and a live scan fingerprint analysis for a background check with the Department of Justice. All “financial interest holders” in a licensee business must also be disclosed, though disclosure requirements are lesser than for owners and vary slightly across agencies, ranging from a simple list of financial interest holders to the name, and type and number of government identification for individuals; business name and tax ID for entities.

Under the most recently proposed rule modifications, a “financial interest holder” in a cannabis licensee such as a retailer, distributor, testing laboratory, or microbusiness would now include “[a] landlord who has entered into a lease agreement with the commercial cannabis business for a share of the profits.” And if that agreed share is 20 percent or more of the tenant’s profits, then the landlord would qualify as an “owner” of the cannabis licensee. (Landlords already qualify as “owners” under prior versions of the rules if they own 20 percent or more of the cannabis tenant business).

While we have previously written about the problems associated with landlords entering into anything other than an arms-length relationship with cannabis tenants for payment of rent in exchange for leased space, you can now add to that list the regulatory burden of disclosure and vetting of the landlord. However, if the landlord is an entity such as a holding company or an investment fund, the disclosure burden is amplified exponentially: if an entity landlord is an “owner” or a “financial interest holder” in certain kinds of cannabis licensees, then the same disclosure requirements apply for various layers of ownership to all individuals and entities that are owners or financial interest holders in that landlord entity, along with board members, CEOs, etc., all the way up the chain until only individuals remain.

What this means is that if cannabis landlords agree to accept a share of the tenant’s profits in lieu of rent—and this is not an uncommon arrangement especially for smaller or undercapitalized cannabis tenants—the landlord and its owners and investors could unknowingly be exposing themselves to unexpectedly high burdens of regulatory disclosure and vetting that would not normally apply if the tenant was anything other than a cannabis licensee.

It remains to be seen what the state agencies’ final rules will look like, especially in light of the widespread effect such disclosure requirements would have on investment in the cannabis industry in California, but in the meantime landlords considering profit-sharing arrangement with their cannabis tenants would be wise to consider the full regulatory implications of doing so, even if on an anticipated basis during pendency of the rulemaking process.

For more on California cannabis leasing, check out the following:

california cannabis licensing raceUnless you’ve been completely out of the loop, you already know that many, many people are in a race to submit their California state temporary cannabis license applications before December 31 of this year, which represents the “drop dead” date for cannabis temporary licenses. Add to that the regulatory curve balls thrown by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) at the end of October (those agencies moved up the their temp licensing submission deadlines to December 1) and you have a stampede of people now trying to get their temporary license applications in by the end of this month. Thankfully, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) hasn’t yet said that there’s a low chance of successful processing if you submit after December 1, but given the back and forth it takes with the BCC to even get the temp, you may be out of luck.

Why does all of this matter? If you don’t have, or haven’t held, a temporary license for your current cannabis location (which is good for 120 days and gets renewed for additional 90 day periods so long as you’ve applied for your annual cannabis license), you’re ineligible for a provisional license next year, which means you’ll be on ice and non-operational unless and until you get your state annual license. No one really knows how long that will ultimately take.

If you’re finding yourself scrambling to get a temp license in before December 1, you’re not alone. The biggest roadblock of all has been would-be licensees securing local approval from their cities or counties. Certain local governments, though (like Long Beach, the City of Los Angeles, and San Diego) are obliging folks in their local licensing processes by providing them with letters of authorization. These letters of authorization only allow the applicant to go and apply for their state temp license(s)–they do not allow an applicant to actually open their doors until all conditions of official local approval have been met. That’s only half the battle though. Then you have to complete and submit your state temporary license applications, which depending on agency, is no picnic.

All three agencies will ask that you submit proof of local approval from your local government when applying for the temp license. They then contact the local government to verify local approval and the local government has no less than ten days to respond. By far though, CDPH has the simplest and easiest temporary license application. It’s literally one page, and you email or mail it to the agency. And you don’t have to submit even a lease agreement or a premises diagram either. Contrast that though with the BCC and the CDFA, which are a little more intense– especially since the re-adoption of the emergency regulations, which tweaked the temporary license submission requirements for those agencies.

For BCC (for which you must have an online account and then submit online or via hardcopy in Sacramento), you have to submit:

(1) The legal business name of the applicant; (2) The email address of the applicant’s business and the telephone number for the premises; (3) The business’ federal employer identification number; (4) A description of the business organizational structure of the applicant, such as partnership or corporation; (5) The commercial cannabis license that the applicant is applying for, and whether the applicant is requesting that the license be designated as medicinal, adult-use, or both; (6) The contact information for the applicant’s designated primary contact person including the name, title, phone number, and email address of the individual; (7) For each “owner” of the business, the owner’s name, title, percentage of ownership, mailing address, telephone number, and email address if applicable; (8) The physical address of the premises to be licensed; (9) Evidence that the applicant has the legal right to occupy and use the proposed location (that meets all mandatory buffer requirements); (10) A detailed premises diagram; (11) A copy of a valid license, permit, or other authorization issued by a local jurisdiction, that enables the applicant to conduct commercial cannabis activity at the location requested for the temporary license; and (12) a penalty of perjury statement.

For CDFA (for which you must also have an online account and then submit online or via hardcopy in Sacramento), you have to submit:

(1) The license type for which the applicant is applying and whether the application is for an M-license or A-license (note that CDFA still forces people to apply separately for M and A licenses even though those license type designations have since been combined); (2) If the applicant has already submitted an application for annual licensure, the application number; (3) The legal business name of the applicant entity; (4) The full legal name, mailing address, phone number, email address, and affiliation of the “designated responsible party,” who must: (A) Be an owner with legal authority to bind the applicant entity; (B) Serve as agent for service of process; and (C) Serve as primary contact for the application; (5) The physical address of the premises; (6) Copy of local approval; (7) A proposed cultivation plan; (8) Identification of all the following water sources for the cultivation site (as applicable): (A) A retail water supplier; (B) A groundwater well; (C) A rainwater catchment system; (D) A diversion from a waterbody or an underground stream flowing in a known and definite channel; and (9) Evidence of enrollment with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or State Water Resources Control Board for water quality protection programs or written verification from the appropriate board that enrollment is not necessary.

Where are most people going to get screwed up here? Without a doubt, with the BCC it is the premises diagram and the proof of “right to real property” (I.e., your lease agreement). With CDFA, it’s going to be the cultivation plan, identifying water sources, and proof or registration or exemption with the applicable water boards. And many people don’t realize that the cultivation plan, itself, demands the inclusion of a detailed premises diagram, lighting diagram, pest management plan (for which you better have a good amount of knowledge regarding lawful and illegal pesticides and their applications), and waste management plan. All of this is not an insignificant amount of information to compile.

While folks are in the race now to get that initial (and very important) temporary license, there will be another push for these folks prior to the expiration of that 120-day validity period on the temp license where provisional licensing also requires that you have submitted a complete annual license application to the state, which will be another massive information gathering expedition about your cannabis business and how it operates. Undoubtedly, many would-be licensees are going to be out of the game if they don’t get their temps in on time, so stay tuned with updates as the California cannabis regulatory world turns.