Cannabis Arbitration Provisions: the Injunctive Relief Carve-Out

We’ve written plenty about cannabis arbitrations before, and why these proceedings may make more sense for your situation (see links at the bottom of this post!). But when you need fast, injunctive relief, a prior agreement to arbitrate can potentially be disastrous.

Arbitration is much slower than other litigation to get started — even though arbitration is typically regarded as highly efficient and having an overall shorter timeline. If you want to file a lawsuit in state or federal court, you draft a complaint and file. In arbitration though, you have to prepare a demand, appoint an arbitrator or multiple arbitrators, and agree to rules. This can take several weeks.

The problem

Sometimes this isn’t an issue, but sometimes it is. Many cannabis litigation cases can involve requests for “injunctive relief” – this means, a party is not (only) asking for money damages, but also an order from the court that restrains a party from doing certain acts.

A classic example is if a cannabis company is suing one of its ex-employees for spreading its trade secrets to the public. In that case, you need fast relief – something like a temporary restraining order, or a preliminary injunction, or a permanent injunction. A court has inherent authority to order that ex-employee to stop disseminating trade secret information. Not only that, but the court’s authority also is backed by government authority to enforce that order or injunction (as well as power to issue sanctions or cite parties for contempt if they don’t obey). Unfortunately, arbitrators don’t have the inherent authority.

The solution

So, if you intend to include a binding arbitration clause in your cannabis business contract, consider including an exception or carve-out for injunctive relief claims. The goal will be to allow the parties to seek injunctive relief through the courts but resolve all other claims through arbitration.

It’s important to have a skilled contract lawyer draft this clause, because the specific language matters. The language needs to make clear that arbitration is not the exclusive remedy in these situations. But, the language also needs to make clear that including a request for injunctive relief does not keep the entire dispute out of arbitration.

For more posts about cannabis arbitration, please see: