Tuesday 2 November 2021

New York’s Cannabis Control Board: 18 Months to Licensure

Since New York passed its adult-use cannabis legislation in March of 2021, we have all been waiting for one thing: a timeline for when adult-use licenses will be issued. We finally have an answer, which is… disappointing.

Cannabis Control Board (CCB) Chairwoman Tremaine Wright has now publicly stated that the CCB is “working on an 18-month timeline to build the requisite policies framing the new legal marijuana market.” Even that statement was hedged to clarify that dispensaries would not necessary be fully stocked by then either. As quoted by the Rochester City Newspaper:

“What we do control is getting (dispensaries) licensing and giving them all the tools so they can work within our systems. That’s what we are saying will be achieved in 18 months. Not that they’re open, not that they’ll be full-blown operations, because we don’t know that.”

Practically speaking, we get it. Creating an entire industry (one as highly regulated and, regrettably, controversial as cannabis no less) from whole cloth is no easy task. But we had hoped for a tighter timeline (say 18 months from passage of the MRTA), or at least a list of anticipated milestones (release of rules and regulations, public comment period, license applications being accepted, etc.).

The CCB has its third meeting this Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 1pm (broadcast as usual). Hopefully, the CCB clarifies its timeline and/or provides context as to what and will be happening and when for the next 18 months.

With all of that said, the fact that Chairwoman Wright’s announcement resulted in such heated responses from New York’s cannabis industry’s insiders (we immediately started receiving text messages and emails) shows that the potential for the industry in New York is obvious. Stay tuned for a summary after the CCB’s third meeting.

The post New York’s Cannabis Control Board: 18 Months to Licensure appeared first on Harris Bricken.


New York’s Cannabis Control Board: 18 Months to Licensure posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

Ketamine Clinics and the Stark Law – Part I

The Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly referred to as the Stark law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn), is one of several federal fraud and abuse laws. We have previously written about the federal anti-kickback statute (“AKS”) (click here to review). While the two laws may seem similar at first, they have very different rules and penalties. The Stark law has civil penalties, while the AKS has civil and criminal penalties. Moreover, the Stark law is a “strict liability” statute, which means no intent is required for those who violate Stark.

While Stark can apply to a ketamine clinic, it is especially prominent in the states that have no, or very loose, corporate practice of medicine doctrines. In those instances, a layperson or entity can have a direct ownership interest in a ketamine clinic that is owned in whole or part by a physician. Moreover, when ketamine is just one of the treatments provided by a clinic in those states, Stark can play a very important role in structuring transactions, compensation for the physicians, etc.

The Law

Stark prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a direct or indirect financial relationship unless an exception (or safe harbor) applies. Financial relationships include both ownership and investment interests and compensation arrangements. For example, if a physician invests in an imaging center, the Stark law requires the resulting financial relationship to fit within an exception or the physician may not refer patients to the facility and the entity may not bill for the referred imaging services.

Designated Health Services

“Designated health services” are:

  • clinical laboratory services;
  • physical therapy, occupational therapy, and outpatient speech-language pathology services;
  • radiology and certain other imaging services;
  • radiation therapy services and supplies;
  • DME and supplies;
  • parenteral and enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies;
  • prosthetics, orthotics, and prosthetic devices and supplies;
  • home health services;
  • outpatient prescription drugs; and
  • inpatient and outpatient hospital services.

For the purposes of a ketamine clinic, there are two designated health services that may apply; namely, clinical laboratory services and outpatient prescription drugs. For the clinical laboratory services, if a ketamine clinic holds a CLIA-waiver, then in all likelihood, the clinic is providing “clinical laboratory services”.

The Code of Federal Regulations defines “outpatient prescription drugs” as “all drugs covered by Medicare Part B or D”. 42 CFR § 411.351. Medicare Part B is generally those services provided by a physician in an outpatient setting. Medicare Part D is coverage for certain prescription drugs. Medicare Part A generally covers inpatient services. Whether a drug will be covered by Medicare is often determined by the Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”). The MACs are private entities (e.g., Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC) that help administer the Medicare program. Since there are many MACs, there are not always consistent coverage decisions. However, Esketamine (the nasal version of ketamine that has been approved by the FDA for certain mental health disorders) is likely a covered drug under Part B and/or Part D.

Referral

The last important term to define is a “referral” under the Stark law. As the regulations state (42 CFR § 411.351), in relevant part:

Referral means either of the following:

(i) …the request by a physician for, or ordering of, or the certifying or recertifying of the need for, any designated health service for which payment may be made under Medicare Part B, including a request for a consultation with another physician and any test or procedure ordered by or to be performed by (or under the supervision of) that other physician, but not including any designated health service personally performed or provided by the referring physician. A designated health service is not personally performed or provided by the referring physician if it is performed or provided by any other person, including, but not limited to, the referring physician’s employees, independent contractors, or group practice members.

(ii) …a request by a physician that includes the provision of any designated health service for which payment may be made under Medicare, the establishment of a plan of care by a physician that includes the provision of such a designated health service, or the certifying or recertifying of the need for such a designated health service, but not including any designated health service personally performed or provided by the referring physician. A designated health service is not personally performed or provided by the referring physician if it is performed or provided by any other person including, but not limited to, the referring physician’s employees, independent contractors, or group practice members.

Your head is probably starting to spin now! Like all of the federal fraud and abuse laws, Stark is complex. There are other important defined terms, but the foregoing are some of the more important terms you need to understand to analyze possible Stark issues.

Penalties

As noted above, the Stark law has civil penalties. Those penalties can include: (1) refunding any prohibited payments, (2) potential False Claims Act liability, (3) civil monetary penalties and exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal payor programs (primarily for “knowing violations”), (4) up to $15,000 in penalties for each prohibited service provided, and (5) civil assessment of up to three times the amount of the prohibited claim submitted. Thus, Stark violations can be very expensive to remedy.

Conclusion

In future posts, we will explore some of the safe harbors under the Stark law as well as other definitions that play a part in understanding this law. If you are entertaining an acquisition of a ketamine clinic or a clinic that provides ketamine treatments in addition to other healthcare services, you would be wise to explore potential Stark issues.

The post Ketamine Clinics and the Stark Law – Part I appeared first on Harris Bricken.


Ketamine Clinics and the Stark Law – Part I posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

Remember Cannabis and Forfeiture? It’s Baaaaack

Some readers may be surprised to realize that a lot of cannabis stakeholders actually don’t want broadsweeping federal legalization. Why? Becuase they know it means that they’ll instantly be competing with well-established companies that are already masters of economies of scale, branding, marketing, and consumer sales, and their market share will shrink or be eliminated completely. At the same time, even those protectionist stakeholders are still hurting for certain aspects of federal legalization to go through, the top two being I.R.C. 280E and banking reform.

Banking reform is much more likely to happen before Congress decides to mess with 280E (despite the fact that certain law firms continue to try to pull off Hail Marys in tax court litigation to eliminate or reduce the draconian effect of 280E). Access to banking and reducing or eliminating federal penalties for financial institutions dealing with cannabis businesses has been on the horizon for sometime now in Congress. Political back channeling, inside baseball, and overarching legalization policy concerns have ultimately kept such reform from passing. Still, we have the 2014 FinCEN guidance to help the industry along where state-licensed, law abiding cannabis businesses can try to secure bank accounts with financial institutions that follow that guidance. That guidance though remains a band-aid for a much bigger issue, which is that all cannabis investment dollars, financial proceeds, etc. remain federally illegal despite state law otherwise allowing licensed commercial cannabis activity.

Point and case, this cautionary tale out of Kansas City, Missouri in which the Feds reared their ugly heads to forfeit a sizeable amount of cash derived from state-legal cannabis sales. We’ve written before about the looming danger of asset forfeiture because of state legal cannabis (the ancient Harborside case comes to mind, too). Ten years ago when I first started in this practice, it was landlords and their real property that were the main targets of civil and administrative federal asset forfeiture when it came to leasing to medical cannabis businesses (see here, too). And over time it seemed like the Feds weren’t going to put a target on interstate or intrastate money trafficking regarding dollars used in or derived from commercial cannabis activity. But they certainly always could have and they definitely still can, given that the federal Controlled Substances Act makes no exception for state-licensed cannabis businesses.

Missouri is relatively new to the state-legal cannabis game, but talk to anyone in the industry on the west coast and what happened to Empyreal Logistics isn’t really anything new in the industry. The reason why this instance of surveillance and forfeiture is jarring is because it’s in the wake of the rescinded Cole Memo and during a time where, seemingly, the Feds haven’t cared about state-legal cannabis since 2013 or so, and where the democrats (who are now in control of Congress and the White House) time and again have generally taken the position that they’re in favor of medicalization/legalization.

People shouldn’t be shocked that the Feds took their time to engage in their old tricks when it comes to forfeiture. For me, the takeaways from Kansas City are:

  1. Financial institutions in Missouri need to step up and take advantage of the 2014 FinCEN guidance so that licensees there can bank directly rather than having to cross state lines to do that. Things like cash transport vans over state lines aren’t exactly the best way to avoid the attention of the Feds (even if the cash transporter is top notch, and I’ve dealt with many over the years that are).
  2. The Feds are still paying attention and will continue to do so unless and until there’s federal reform. Just because you have a state license doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to the federal government, and each U.S. Attorney has prosecutorial discretion to pursue these cases (TIP: get to know the U.S. Attorney’s record in your district when it comes to forfeiture cases and cannabis prosecutions).
  3. Understand the ins and outs of forfeiture given federal illegality. Any piece of property (personal or real, meaning homes, cash, boats, cars, commercial real estate, etc.) is subject to forfeiture if it’s used in or derived from commercial cannabis activity. That’s true whether the activity is licensed or not, and no matter how far the property gets away from the crime (i.e., cannabis investors can have all of their cannabis dollars taken even if they’ve never trafficked in cannabis at any time). Bottom line is that the property itself is the defendant and the owner of that property is just a third party claimant. Plus, forfeiture can be civil or administrative (as well as criminal). In civil and/or administrative proceedings, no criminal charges need to be brought for the case to proceed.
  4. Have a contingency plan in your commercial cannabis agreements for forfeiture. We have pretty much always exercised this practice, from leases to other commercial transactions where the parties must deal with the commercial fall out from forfeiture. If your current agreements are missing such contingencies, you’re behind the power curve.

None of this lives in a gray area. A state cannabis license won’t stop the Feds from enforcing federal cannabis laws at any given time, and there’s no cover from the Cole Memo anymore to tell the public what the Feds prioritize when it comes to enforcement. Cannabis, as a result, remains risky business in the U.S., and licensees must (still) be prepared to deal with the reality of the federal conflict at all times.

The post Remember Cannabis and Forfeiture? It’s Baaaaack appeared first on Harris Bricken.


Remember Cannabis and Forfeiture? It’s Baaaaack posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

Come Meet Us in NYC at The CWCB Expo, Nov. 4

For those of you who weren’t able to meet the team in Las Vegas, link up with Canna Law Blog writers and cannabis attorneys, Nathalie Bougenies and Simon Malinowski in New York City. Nathalie and Simon will be speaking at the CWCBExpo and will be available to meet you on Thursday, November 4th from 5:30pm – 7:30pm ET at The Churchill Tavern.

If you are interested in meeting Nathalie and Simon, please email your name and company to events@harrisbricken.com.

The Churchill Tavern*
45 East 28th Street
NYC, NY 10016
Between Madison and Park Avenue

*No-Host Bar

The post Come Meet Us in NYC at The CWCB Expo, Nov. 4 appeared first on Harris Bricken.


Come Meet Us in NYC at The CWCB Expo, Nov. 4 posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

EU Privacy, Data and Consumer Legislative Updates of the Past Month

Date: October 29, 2021

In Case You Missed It: EU Privacy, Data and Consumer Legislative Updates of the Past Month

 

Date Tag News Link to Source
October 28 Cybersecurity European Parliament adopts position on Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (“NIS2 Directive”) and starts negotiations with Council link
October 20 AI European Commission launches public consultation ending on January 10 on the rules on compensation for damage caused by defective products with a specific focus on AI link and link
October 19 Cybersecurity European Commission invites the EU and Member States to further develop the EU cybersecurity crisis management framework, including by exploring the potential of building a joint cyber unit to tackle the rising number of serious cyber incidents impacting public services, businesses and citizens across the EU link
October 19 Cybersecurity European Commission will propose a European Cyber Resilience Act to establish common cybersecurity standards, and begin building an EU space-based global secure communications system to provide additional EU-wide broadband connectivity and secure independent communications to Member States link
October 13 Data Protection – Other European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issues guidelines on restrictions under Article 23 GDPR (i.e., restrictions will be defined as any limitation of scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Articles 12 to 22 and 34 GDPR as well as corresponding provisions of Article 5 in accordance with Article 23 GDPR) link
October 13 Children Data EDPB will adopt guidelines on children’s data link
October 13 Personal Data Transfers EDPB will adopt guidelines regarding the relationship between the GDPR’s extraterritorial reach and data transfer restrictions.  EDPB announced that the European Commission will develop a new set of standard contractual clauses for data transfers from the EEA to a non-EEA entity that is subject to the extra-territorial scope of the GDPR. link
October 13 Digital Services EDPB will adopt statement on overarching concerns regarding legislative proposals in Digital Services Package link
October 12 Cybersecurity European Parliament adopts position on new rules on EU critical infrastructure entities link
October 7 AI European Consumer Organization (“BEUC”) issues position paper on the AI Act link
October 6 AI European Parliament adopts resolution on AI in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters link
October 1 Open Data Council of the EU approves version of the Data Governance Act, which will now be negotiated with the European Parliament link and link

 

What’s Coming Next

  • Negotiations on the Data Governance Act between Parliament and the Council are scheduled for November 9, and early December (see here)
  • Council of the EU is preparing position on the evaluation and findings on the application of the Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties (see here)

EU Privacy, Data and Consumer Legislative Updates of the Past Month posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

Psychedelics, Cannabis and the Stock Exchanges

Last week, I came across an article surveying the 50 (!) psychedelics companies that are now publicly traded on U.S. exchanges— a handful of which we are proud to call our clients. Of these, 41 are listed on over the counter (OTC) markets, while the remaining nine outfits are traded on either the Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Cannabis, of course, has many, many more public companies. Some of these companies are tiny, with market caps of a few hundred thousand dollars; others are relative giants, with market caps into the billions.

Some of the companies referenced in the articles linked above are cross-listed. Cross-listing occurs when a company is able to meet the requirements of two or more exchanges, and lists its securities on each of them. For instance, a company based in Canada that lists on the Canadian Stock Exchange (CSE) may choose to cross-list on a U.S. OTC exchange, or maybe even a European or Asian index. Companies cross-list because selling on multiple exchanges increases the number of investors exposed to the stock, promoting liquidity and increased share prices.

Both cannabis and most psychedelics — especially the classic psychedelic drugs — are Schedule I controlled substances under U.S. federal law. This means that the senior U.S. exchanges (the NYSE and the Nasdaq) won’t list any company “trafficking” in those substances. The prohibition exists even though the chances of federal enforcement are vanishingly remote (at least on the cannabis side), and even if the company faithfully complies with state and local laws. An exception exists with the decentralized OTC markets, but many businesses don’t want to be there and for good reason. As a result, you see U.S. psychedelics and cannabis companies headed up to Canada to list their shares. But you also see cannabis and psychedelics companies listed on the Nasdaq and the NYSE. Why is that?

The reason is that most senior exchanges worldwide hold that if a business is lawful in all of its markets of operation (and meets various other criteria), the exchange will issue a ticker symbol. That’s why you see Canadian cannabis companies like Canopy Growth and Tilray listed on the Nasdaq– doing strange things like acquiring options (and only options) on U.S. cannabis companies to boot. These companies’ operations in Canada are lawful, but they would only be allowed to acquire U.S. cannabis outfits and maintain their U.S. senior listings once our federal laws change. The other way to do it, of course, is to stay in the R&D lane. Compass Pathways, a psilocybin pharma company we’ve written about for years, is based in England but lists on the Nasdaq. Compass can do this because its sole U.S. activity has been FDA-approved research and patent acquisition.

You might say: “wait, if a business has to be lawful in all of its markets to be listed on an exchange, how are all of these U.S. cannabis companies listed in Canada?” The answer is that these companies are listing on exchanges which have relatively lax requirements. We have helped quite a few U.S. cannabis companies roll up into the Canadian Stock Exchange (CSE), for example, but none of these companies are eligible for the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). U.S. hemp business are another story. After the 2018 Farm Bill passed, the TSX made clear it was open to hemp company businesses. This is because those businesses complied with U.S. federal law.

It’s worth noting, too, that many companies cannabis businesses directly rely upon have full access to senior U.S. and Canadian exchanges. For example, Scott Miracle-Gro trades on the NYSE, even though its wholly owned subsidiary, Hawthorne Gardening Company, focuses on the cannabis production market. Another NYSE outfit, Innovative Industrial Properties, is a REIT focused solely on cannabis. Beyond that, you have a myriad of companies (basically, the whole economy) another half-step out from the plant. It starts to get nonsensical. From a tax policy perspective, it also seems foolish to push so many domestic U.S. companies offshore. Once U.S. federal law changes, those companies may never repatriate their assets or earnings.

Where we are going with all of this is pretty clear. Cannabis and psychedelics companies will continue to go wherever they can to raise money at scale. In the public markets context, this means that any U.S. company that is a “trafficker” and not a research outfit will tend toward the U.S. OTC or Canadian exchanges. A few of the big Canadian outfits will continue to list down here, but operate only in Canada or wherever they can ship. I expect that by this time next year, we will see another 50 psychedelics companies publicly listed, countless additional cannabis companies, and still more cannabis companies moving over to the psychedelics space.

The post Psychedelics, Cannabis and the Stock Exchanges appeared first on Harris Bricken.


Psychedelics, Cannabis and the Stock Exchanges posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

Thursday 28 October 2021

Top Misconceptions About Cannabis in Mexico, Part 3

In this multipart series, we debunk various incorrect ideas, impressions and rumors we continue to hear about the Mexico cannabis industry and the road to legalization. Here are Part 1 and Part 2. Are you getting something wrong about cannabis in Mexico? Keep reading!

Legalization is only about allowing people to grow/smoke weed.

Nothing could be further from the truth! Legalization is about creating a full-fledged industry that will span everything from industrial hemp to medical cannabis to adult use. It is meant to regulate every link in the cannabis production and distribution chains so as to ensure quality and traceability of the products consumers will have access to– whether for medical, industrial or adult purposes. Much of this misconception is due to media coverage that, until VERY recently, has associated legalization with those who advocate for adult use without restrictions. Granted, adult use activists have been very vocal about their rights, but they are just a fraction of those pushing for the development of an industry for both domestic and international participants.

Legalization will corrupt youth.

This is a misconception commonly associated with the Mexican Catholic Church, which perhaps understandably still exerts strong influence in a predominantly Roman Catholic country. However, the Church’s position has been manipulated by some media outlets. The Church has never said that legalization will corrupt youth. The Church is not even against legalization as a whole, but against legalization of adult use without a debate that encompasses views from across the spectrum of society. The Church argues that the lack of a broad public debate has prioritized the interests of a few stakeholders over public health and safety issues, and that placing limits on the production, distribution, marketing and consumption of a plant that “health professionals and … consumers testify that their use, in any quantity and presentation, significantly reduces the control over one’s actions, and puts the consumer at serious risk to himself and others” does not address the real problem. The Church believes that problem to be “the effects on families, by young people who use drugs, nor does it contribute to inhibiting and reducing exposure to narcotic substances.” As a result, the Church urges both the Government and Church members throughout Mexico not to support legalization without putting campaigns in place on addictions and the consequences of narcotics consumption on human health. The Church has also urged all stakeholders (especially youth) to inform themselves and take responsible action, to avoid “getting carried away by the permissiveness raised by these norms that allow the drugging of citizens.”

One of the tasks of the National Commission Against Addictions to be created by the upcoming Cannabis Law will be monitoring the effects of legalization, while creating and supporting education and health promotion policies. Education will help people understand that legalization will not only provide important healthcare support but also boost the Mexican economy.

Only companies can apply for permits/licenses.

Not true. Both individuals and legal entities can apply for cannabis permits/licenses and there is no legal requirement to act through intermediaries. The real issue here is that permits/licenses are non-transferrable, so if for any reason you wish to sell your cannabis business, you will be unable to do so unless the license holder is a company, which can be sold along with the license. Companies are advised to set up a Mexican entity that can apply for the licenses; the application requirements for the various cannabis permits/licenses, particularly for medical use, are applicable/can best be fulfilled by entities created under Mexican law.

Now that the Medical Regulations are official, I can smoke marijuana, make or consume edibles, or use any kind of ointments or supplements.

Growing and smoking marijuana for individual adult use is indeed legal thanks to a Supreme Court Declaration of Unconstitutionality, but you still need to file for an amparo action to obtain the permits to exercise those rights. The Medical Regulations did not change anything in this regard. As for edibles, ointments, supplements, etc., no cannabis product that fails to qualify as medicine (medicamento) as defined by the General Health Law can be imported into Mexico. At this point, under the Medical Regulations, vapes or anything that involves smoking cannabis cannot be imported into Mexico either, and we do not expect the Cannabis Law to regulate otherwise. The only exception would be devices that enable smoking/inhaling for medical use. The Cannabis Law will also regulate manufacturing, sale (and therefore consumption) of edibles and drinks with CBD/THC content, but we do not expect those containing THC to be legalized. Per the transition provisions contained in the Cannabis Law bill, prohibition on edibles containing THC might be lifted in three years, once there are more studies on their effect on human health, but as with many other things, we will have to wait for implementation of the law (and existence of those studies) to be certain.

IMPI, the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office, denies registration of cannabis trademarks.

There is no absolute bar on cannabis trademark registration in Mexico. The legal prohibition was that no trademark was to be granted “when its contents or form are contrary to public order or contravene any legal provision.” Now that the Medical Regulations have entered into force and a General Declaration of Unconstitutionality allowing for individual adult cannabis use has been issued, we believe that prohibition has lost much of its power. True, very few cannabis trademark registrations have been granted to date, but that is more the result of businesses abandoning their applications due to genericity or similarity issues, as well as the COVID pandemic slowing government response times. We expect some examiners to continue to pay extra attention to cannabis trademarks, but now that cannabis is fully legal for medical use, if/when full legalization becomes a reality it will be easier to contest any application objections. There will be a marked increase in trademark registrations granted to cannabis companies at that point.

In upcoming posts we will continue debunking misconceptions that continue to propagate as the legalization process comes to a close. We also firmly believe that the time is now to prepare to launch or expand a cannabis business in Mexico. When the Cannabis Law is finally enacted, you want to be ready to go. To learn more, we also urge you to follow us for the next webinar or contact us at firm@harrisbricken.com or MX@harrisbricken.com!

The post Top Misconceptions About Cannabis in Mexico, Part 3 appeared first on Harris Bricken.


Top Misconceptions About Cannabis in Mexico, Part 3 posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

New York’s Cannabis Control Board: 18 Months to Licensure

Since New York passed its adult-use cannabis legislation in March of 2021, we have all been waiting for one thing: a timeline for when adult...