It’s no secret that California has a massive cannabis illicit market, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal (under state law) to sell cannabis if a business goes through the licensing process and complies with state and local laws. However, since the passage of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation Act (MAUCRSA), and the
In almost every litigation webinar we’ve done, and in many of our past posts discussing breach of contract (the general breakdown of this claim is here), we’ve stressed the importance of memorializing agreements in writing to save yourself from potential or protracted litigation down the line. Unfortunately though, we still get quite a few prospective
California’s cannabis regime is set up to separate every point in the supply chain into different license types: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail sales, to name a few. Except for a few vertically integrated companies, virtually all cannabis businesses must rely on other companies in the supply chain to get products from farm to
I will continue publishing a series of posts identifying common issues with cannabis supply chain contracts in California over the next few months. If you haven’t already read earlier articles on this topic, I suggest you start with the following: California Cannabis Supply Chain Contracts: Inspection and Rejection Top Four Concerns for Tri-Party Cannabis Supply
A few weeks back, I wrote a post entitled “California Tries Again with CBD“, in which I discussed a new piece of legislation (AB-45) introduced to ostensibly provide a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of certain hemp-derived products. Those products include foods or beverages that contain cannabidiol (CBD). In that post, I mentioned
Our cannabis business attorneys have drafted many cannabis supply chain agreements (such as distribution agreements, licensing agreements, etc.) over the years. Generally, supply chain cannabis contracts follow the same format and the same nuanced provisions seem to pop up time and time again (I wrote about some of them previously in the context of tri-party
California has a rocky history when it comes to hemp-derived CBD. Despite the fact that the state adopted a robust medical and recreational cannabis program, for years it has taken the mystifying position that many kinds of hemp-derived products simply can’t be sold. Essentially, foods, beverages, and dietary supplements are a no-go according to the
It goes without saying, but 2020 was a pretty wild year for the California cannabis and hemp industries. We think 2021 will be a pretty active year and want to list out some things to watch out for as we kick off the new year. Agency Consolidation: It was announced in January 2020 that California’s
Earlier this fall, several news outlets reported on a lawsuit alleging that federal and state law enforcement agencies in California wrongfully destroyed a hemp grow worth more than $3 million. (See here, and here). The case, Agro Dynamics, LLC v. DEA, et al., was filed in the federal district court for the Southern District of
On November 17, 2020, the Fresno County Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by 24 California cities seeking to invalidate state cannabis regulations that allow delivery of cannabis to customers in jurisdictions that have banned retail commercial cannabis activity. Many industry players and media are touting the dismissal as a “win” for California cannabis companies.
