Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Will Federal Legislation Open Cannabis Acquisition Floodgate?

Client Alert
February 18, 2021

Are potential buyers quietly lobbying at federal and state levels to kick open the door to launch a new round of strategic acquisitions? Will presently pending federal legislation, the SAFE and MORE Acts, providing safe harbor for banks and re- or de-scheduling marijuana, be sufficient to mobilize into action major non-cannabis companies that previously shunned the cannabis industry due to the unknown implications of owning businesses whose activities are illegal under federal law?

When tobacco giant Altria invested $1.8 billion in Cronos, and beverage behemoth Constellation Brands invested in Canopy, the investments did not require the assumption of a smorgasbord of unknown risks that come with investing in federally illegal enterprises since neither Cronos nor Canopy had any “illegal” US operations. These include key business issues and concerns, such as banking relationships (almost certainly mitigated by the SAFE Act), stock exchange listings and liquor licensing.

It was recently disclosed that Altria, which has been acquiring ancillary cannabis businesses and intellectual property since its Cronos deal, has engaged lobbyists to promote its cannabis interests. It wouldn’t be much of a leap to speculate that they, and other potential strategic tobacco, beverage and pharma company investors, are both carefully analyzing the pending legislation in the US and actively working to firmly place their feet in the open door and widen the porthole, facilitating a new wave of acquisition activity.

Right now, as the financial performance of cannabis businesses is beginning to pop, the shelves of the acquisition market are fully stocked with potential acquisitions candidates of all sizes, shapes and flavors. If the door is opened, competition and pricing could be eye popping. Think “first mover advantage.”

Stay tuned.

For questions, please contact Business and Corporate Law Member and Managing Partner of BMD's Phoenix/Scottsdale location Stephen Lenn at salenn@bmdllc.com, or 480.687.9747.

Cannabis LawStephen A. LennFederal LawBusiness & Corporate LawIntellectual PropertyRussell T. Rendall
Client Alert

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

March 29, 2024The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.Client Alert

Latest Batch of Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rules: What Providers Should Know

March 25, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.Client Alert

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

March 21, 2024Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.Client Alert

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

March 15, 2024Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Update 3/14/24

March 14, 2024On March 1, 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) exceeded Congressional powers and enjoined the Department of the Treasury from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs. National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.). On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Older posts
Newer posts