Home Posts tagged Regulations

CCC Unveils Latest Round of Proposed Revisions to Regulations

By Contributor
Features

What’s New?

By Isaac C. Fleisher

It’s that time of year again. On July 20, the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) revealed the latest round of proposed revisions to its regulations. Following a period of public comment and review, the CCC is scheduled to take a final vote on these revisions on Sept. 4.

Last year’s round of revisions made waves with two new categories of licenses (social consumption and home delivery), but this year’s revisions are more focused on the owners behind the licenses. This is not too surprising because the demographics of license ownership has become a heavily debated (and litigated) topic.

When the CCC crafted its initial regulations (way back in the halcyon days of 2018), it included provisions intended to diversify the industry, such as a fast track to licensing for economic-empowerment (EE) applicants, as well as fee waivers, training, and technical assistance for social-equity (SE) applicants. Even the new license types that were created under last year’s revisions to the regulations are initially reserved for EE and SE applicants. However, as small startups slam into the economic realities of the cannabis industry, it has revealed a tension between the need for capital and the need for equity.

The CCC’s latest round of draft revisions would require economic-empowerment applicants to satisfy at least one of the criteria related to ‘majority equity ownership’ and then report any changes of ownership and control when renewing their license. EE status is revoked if fewer than 51% of the owners meet the EE criteria. Similarly, the draft revisions specify that the various fee waivers and discounts available to SE applicants only apply to licensees with at least 51% SE ownership.

Last year’s round of revisions made waves with two new categories of licenses (social consumption and home delivery), but this year’s revisions are more focused on the owners behind the licenses.

These changes would help prevent EE and SE certification from being turned into a commodity that could be purchased by investors that were never the intended beneficiaries. However, it would also further trap EE and SE applicants in the catch-22 of needing to raise millions in investment without giving up equity to investors that don’t satisfy the EE or SE criteria.

The draft revisions also seek to tighten the definition of what constitutes ‘control’ over a cannabis business. This is significant because Massachusetts prohibits any entity from controlling more than three licenses of any type. This restriction is a substantial departure from the trend in most other states that have legalized a recreational cannabis industry, and it has become a thorn in the side for cannabis investors trying to build a diverse portfolio, as well as for large, multi-state cannabis companies that rely on economies of scale. As a result, more than a few savvy investors and entrepreneurs have utilized creative corporate structures in an attempt to circumvent the limitations on control.

In 2019, the CCC made substantial updates to its definition of control, making it clear that it was serious about enforcing the three-license cap. The current draft revisions further expand the definition of control by establishing a precise dollar amount for the types of contracts that would be evidence of control; clarifying that anybody with the power to appoint 50% of the company’s board is in control of that company, whether the board members are called directors, managers, or anything else; and, in a possible sign of the times, establishing that a person appointed as a receiver for the licensee is in a position of control.

Additionally, the revisions would redefine the threshold for when control over a parent company constitutes control over the subsidiary. In the current regulations, anybody “with a controlling interest in” the parent company is considered to have control over the subsidiary, but the revised draft would change this to anybody “having control over” the parent company. This subtle change is potentially significant, as the “controlling interest” language has generally been interpreted to relate only to an actual equity interest, while the meaning of “having control” could include people with substantial decision-making authority, even if they are not actually a majority owner. These changes may not be nearly as substantial as the 2019 overhaul of the definition of control, but the fact that the CCC felt that additional changes were necessary at all is a sign that attempts to circumvent the license cap are still happening.

One prosed change that seems to cut against the trend of tightening restrictions on ownership is the revision to the craft marijuana cooperative license, which would actually loosen the requirement that a member of the cooperative filed a profit or loss from farming in the last five years (i.e. they’re a farmer). If accepted, the revisions would allow a cooperative to satisfy this requirement by merely leasing land from such a person. There are plenty of good reasons for this change, but ultimately it likely arises from the CCC’s recognition that the requirements for a craft cannabis cooperative are so burdensome and idiosyncratic that only three applications have been submitted for this license type, and of those, only one has even received a provisional license.

With nearly 550 applications receiving provisional or final licenses, and only 122 currently authorized to commence operations (and a shameful dearth of racial or economic diversity among these licensees), it is becoming clear there is a financial bottleneck in the licensing process. Most commercial financial institutions still won’t go anywhere near the cannabis industry, and cannabis entrepreneurs must therefore rely on venture-capital financing. The result has been an increase in the number of provisional licenses being ‘flipped’ as small startups are forced to sell out to simply cover their growing debt.

This trend toward market consolidation has put the CCC’s equity provisions and ownership limitations under tremendous strain. The draft revisions address that strain by attempting to close potential loopholes in the restriction. These changes would certainly help align the letter of the law with the spirit of the law, but ultimately, they do not address the actual root of the problem.

In order to build a cannabis industry that is stable, sustainable, and diverse, much more needs to be done to lower the economic barrier of entry, such as establishing a state lending program to provide SE and EE applicants with access to financing, or even just simplifying the licensing process so that applicants aren’t forced to submit hundreds of pages of plans, policies, and procedures, only to wait over a year just to obtain a provisional license. But those changes may need to wait for 2021.

Attorney Isaac C. Fleisher is an associate with Bacon Wilson, P.C., where his practice is focused on business and corporate law, with particular emphasis on the rapidly expanding cannabis industry. An accomplished transactional attorney, he has broad experience in all aspects of business representation in legal matters ranging from mergers and acquisitions to business formation and financing; (413) 781-0560; [email protected]

You Should Know the Laws and How They Are Enforced

By
Law

Cannabis, Marijuana, and Hemp

By Chris St. Martin and Sarah Morgan

Late last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published regulations on domestic hemp production. However, there remains significant confusion surrounding the legality of cannabis, marijuana, and hemp.

Chris St. Martin

Sarah Morgan

This confusion comes from state and federal governments’ shifting approaches to regulating these industries. It is even more difficult to understand the legal framework surrounding retail sales, which include hemp and CBD products, as well as marijuana products sold by state-licensed dispensaries. In this article, we hope to provide some clarity regarding what the laws say about cannabis and how they are being enforced.

What Is Cannabis?

Cannabis is a plant genus, or family, composed of three species: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis. The species have physical variations between them that allow them to grow in different environments, flower at different periods during the growth cycle, and contain different chemical properties (see discussion on cannabinoids below) that produce different sensations when ingested.

Strains (think, ‘flavors’) produced from the Cannabis sativa species tend to incite feelings of euphoria, boost energy and creativity, and lead to a more head-focused high. Cannabis indica, alternatively, primarily affects the body, and is often helpful in reducing muscle aches and pains and inducing sleep. For these reasons, strains cultivated from indica plants tend to be more useful for medicinal purposes.

“THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the cannabinoid responsible primarily for producing the psychoactive effect, or the ‘high,’ commonly associated with ingesting cannabis.”

Cannabis ruderalis is somewhat between sativa and indica, and has lower yields, but can often be cross-bred with other species to create medicinal strains. The stems of this species can also be used to make clothing and textiles.

The flowering buds of the cannabis plant produce a resin that contains cannabinoids, which are unique chemical compounds found only in cannabis and interact with different receptors in the user’s central nervous system to produce the effects described above.

The ratio of the cannabinoids in a particular strain depends on the genetics of the plant from which it is derived — in other words, how the plant has been bred by selectively combining sativa and indica plants to emphasize particular cannabinoids over others and create a unique strain with individualized characteristics.

More than 100 cannabinoids have been identified, most notably THC and CBD.

THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the cannabinoid responsible primarily for producing the psychoactive effect, or the ‘high,’ commonly associated with ingesting cannabis. Although THC is most notable for its psychoactive properties, it has also been purported to have medical benefits on the user and can be used to treat a variety of conditions, including seizures, inflammation, pain, nausea, depression, and anxiety.

CBD, or cannabidiol, has anti-anxiety effects on the user and is utilized primarily for its purported medicinal benefits. It does not produce psychoactive effects (in fact, it may lessen the psychoactive effects of THC), and, for this reason, although CBD and THC have similar medicinal benefits, some people may choose to ingest only CBD to avoid feeling the ‘high’ brought about by THC.

CBD can be extracted from the resin of the cannabis plant and can be processed into essential oils, tinctures, and other non-smokable forms. CBD can even be added to body-care products and applied topically.

Marijuana or Hemp?

The term ‘marijuana’ is generally used to identify cannabis that is cultivated for its intoxicating effect on a user. Marijuana was made effectively illegal under federal law with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

The Legislature later classified, and criminalized, marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, during the nascent ‘war on drugs’ declared by President Nixon. Classification as Schedule 1 — alongside heroin, LSD, and ecstasy — means that marijuana is deemed to have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential of abuse.

Public sentiment has recently begun to reject this classification of marijuana and the total federal prohibition. Although, at this writing, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, 11 states, including Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, have passed laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use, and 23 others have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Since 2016 in Massachusetts, individuals age 21 or older may possess up to an ounce or more on their person and up to 10 ounces in their homes without violating Massachusetts law.

The Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), the agency tasked with regulating the state’s marijuana industry, provides further information regarding the Massachusetts law on its website.

Cannabis that is selectively bred for non-intoxicating properties is considered ‘hemp.’ Industrial hemp is one of the oldest cultivated crops in the world and is useful in formulating textiles, rope, paper, plastics, insulation, oil, and body-care products. Because of this selective breeding, hemp plants contain only trace amounts of THC, but their CBD levels are unchanged.

“State and federal legal developments have created a confusing CBD marketplace. Stores everywhere are selling CBD products intended for human consumption and making health claims about such products. However, both types of sales are illegal, according to state and federal agencies.”

Hemp is cultivated to enhance its distinctively versatile qualities, such as longer, more fibrous stalks and shorter leaves, rather than for the leaves and flower buds for which marijuana plants are cultivated. Because of this, hemp cannot be consumed as an intoxicant. Nevertheless, the Controlled Substances Act did not distinguish between marijuana and hemp (since both are technically cannabis) in classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance; therefore, hemp was swept up in the heyday of the war on drugs and made illegal.

Changing Legal Framework

Under the Farm Bill of 2018, the U.S. Congress, for the first time, legalized the production and sale of hemp at the federal level, eliminating its status as a Schedule I narcotic. The Farm Bill and regulations define hemp as cannabis containing not more than 0.3% THC. Cannabis plants containing any quantity of THC above that amount are classified as marijuana, and remain illegal under federal law. In late October, the USDA published interim regulations on hemp production, which means they are subject to change after a public comment period but were effective immediately.

These regulations also set forth licensing requirements, procedures for testing THC levels and disposal of non-compliant plants, and rules governing other aspects of the industry.

The FDA has taken a more cautious approach, citing concerns about whether CBD is safe to consume in food and supplements. In an April 2019 statement, the agency sought to clarify its position on hemp products. The statement indicated that enforcement resources are directed toward illegal sales of CBD products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure serious diseases, such as cancer.

However, it also stated that it is unlawful to introduce CBD-containing food into interstate commerce or to market CBD products as dietary supplements.

This means that effectively all CBD food products, including those derived from legally grown hemp, are unlawful, according to the FDA. The only hemp products that can be legally added to foods are hulled hemp seed, hemp-seed protein powder, and hemp-seed oil, because the seed of the hemp plant contains neither CBD nor THC.

The FDA has undertaken to develop CBD regulations, but despite repeated urging from the USDA and members of Congress, the former FDA commissioner indicated that that the rule-making process around CBD food products would be more complex than conventional products and could take years.

Massachusetts legalized hemp production as a component of the same 2016 law that legalized recreational cannabis. However, after the change of law at the federal level, both the state Department of Agricultural Resources and Department of Public Health issued policy statements on the same day imposing strict rules on hemp products. These two statements echo the FDA’s prohibitions on adding CBD to food products and making health claims about CBD.

What Can We Buy and Sell?

These state and federal legal developments have created a confusing CBD marketplace. Stores everywhere are selling CBD products intended for human consumption and making health claims about such products. However, both types of sales are illegal, according to state and federal agencies. Consumers, retailers, growers, and other stakeholders are looking for information about what is legal, what is not, and why there is so much ambiguity.

CBD derived from marijuana remains illegal under federal law. However, the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts has indicated he will not direct his office’s resources to federally prosecute cannabis companies that are permitted under state law, a move that has allowed the cannabis industry in Massachusetts to flourish. Under this state’s regulatory regime, marijuana products containing CBD, as well as THC, can be bought and sold at cannabis dispensaries that are licensed by the CCC.

Retailers in Massachusetts sell cannabis flower, edibles, concentrates, and other forms of marijuana containing both THC and CBD. CCC regulations do not classify edible marijuana products as food, allowing dispensaries to sell CBD-infused edibles without contravening the state Department of Public Health’s policy.

In contrast, despite the federal and state legality of producing hemp, some of the most popular hemp-derived CBD products — food and supplements — cannot be sold under either state or federal law. Nevertheless, the CBD industry may avoid total extinction, since CBD can be added to topical lotions and other cosmetics without defying the laws.

Non-food CBD products, however, represent a small percentage of the potential uses of CBD, and the loss of a valuable opportunity for introducing additional, more profitable products containing CBD into the marketplace adds further demand for the FDA to promulgate its promised CBD rules. Furthermore, hemp can be legally sold for rope, clothing, building material, and other non-ingestible uses, but hemp farmers have stated that Massachusetts currently lacks the manufacturing infrastructure necessary to process the plant for these purposes.

Chris St. Martin and Sarah Morgan are both litigation associates at Bulkley Richardson; (413) 781-2820.

Final Paid Family Medical Leave Regulations Released

By
Law

Date with Destiny

By Timothy M. Netkovick, Esq. and Daniel C. Carr, Esq.

Timothy M. Netkovick

Timothy M. Netkovick

Daniel C. Carr

Daniel C. Carr

As everyone knows, paid family medical leave (PFML) is coming to Massachusetts on Jan. 1, 2021. To that end, the Department of Family and Medical Leave recently released its final regulations that will govern PFML.

The final regulations provide much-needed clarity on some aspects of PFML, while other aspects remain vague.

Prior to the final regulations being rolled out, one of the most common questions was whether PFML would apply to employers who have places of business in locations other than Massachusetts. The final regulations make clear that the definition of an employee in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be very broad. The regulations state that an employee will be eligible for PFML leave if the service provided by the employee is entirely within the Commonwealth or the service is performed both within and outside the Commonwealth, but the service performed outside the Commonwealth is incidental to the individual’s service within the Commonwealth.

An employee is also eligible for PFML if the service is not localized in any state, but some part of the employee’s service is performed in the Commonwealth and (1) the individual’s base of operations is in the Commonwealth, or (2) if there is no base of operations, then the place from which such service is directed or controlled is within the Commonwealth, or (3) the individual’s base of operations or place from which such service is directed or controlled is not in any state in which some part of the service is performed, but the individual’s residence is in the Commonwealth.

Therefore, even employers who do not have a physical place of business in Massachusetts, but who may have salespeople in Massachusetts, will want to review the PFML regulations with their employment counsel to determine any potential impacts to their business.

“Even employers who do not have a physical place of business in Massachusetts, but who may have salespeople in Massachusetts, will want to review the PFML regulations with their employment counsel.”

Once an employee begins PFML leave, an employer cannot require an employee to use other forms of paid time off (PTO) prior to PFML leave. However, an employee can choose to use accrued PTO provided by their employer instead of PFML. If an employee chooses to use accrued PTO, the employee is required to follow the employer’s notice and certification processes related to the use of PTO.

If an employee is going to use accrued PTO, employers are required to inform employees that the use of accrued PTO will run concurrently with the leave period provided by PFML. It will be important for employers to track the use of accrued PTO, as they will also be required to report the use of accrued PTO by employees or covered individuals upon request by the Department of Family Medical Leave.

Employers have the ability to establish their own private PFML plan instead of participating in the state administration process. If an employer is going to utilize a private PFML plan, the plan must confer all the same or better benefits, including rights and protections, as those provided to employees under PFML, and may not cost employees more than they would be charged under the state plan administered by the department. A private plan will also need to be approved by the Department of Family Medical Leave before it is implemented.

While the clear intent of the PFML regulations is to line up with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as much as possible, there are also several key areas of difference.

The first noticeable difference is that PFML applies to every employer, regardless of size. Furthermore, as covered employers are aware, under the FMLA, an individual is entitled to leave if they work for 1,250 hours within the previous 12-month period. That 12-month period can be a calendar year or rolling period. PFML contains no such service requirement or minimum hours worked.

Furthermore, an employee is eligible for 20 weeks of leave for their own serious health condition under PFML as opposed to 12 weeks under the FMLA.

It is clear that questions still remain regarding the implementation of PFML. It is also clear that PFML and FMLA will not perfectly align. Employers will therefore want to consult with their employment counsel as they continue to prepare for PFML.

Timothy M. Netkovick and Daniel C. Carr are attorneys with Royal, P.C.; [email protected], [email protected]; (413) 586-2288

News

Contact

Advertise

Events