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

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.


Corporate Transparency Act: Business Owners Must Act Now

The Corporate Transparency Act requires all reporting companies to file their Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report by year-end to avoid penalties. Companies formed before January 1, 2024, have less than six months to comply. Learn more in a client alert by BMD Member Blake Gerney.

New Medicare Billing Rules: What MFTs, MHCs, and IOP Providers Need to Know

Starting January 1, 2024, Medicare began covering services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, and Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) services. With this change, Medicare has become the primary payer for these services.

Chevron Doctrine No More: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Agency Authority

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.

Ohio Board of Pharmacy Update: Key Regulatory Changes and Proposals You Need to Know

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy (BOP) has rescinded certain OAC rules (OAC 4729:5-18-01 through 4729:5-18-06), removing regulations on office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) clinics. The rescissions took effect on June 3, 2024. The BOP also published a new rule, OAC 4729:8-5-01, which sets explicit reporting guidelines for licensed dispensaries and became effective on June 7, 2024.

LGBTQIA+ Patients and Discrimination in Healthcare

In early April, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a study outlining the challenges that LGBT adults face in the United States related to healthcare. According to the study, LGBT patients are “twice as likely as non-LGBT adults to report negative experiences while receiving health care in the last three years, including being treated unfairly or with disrespect (33% v. 15%) or having at least one of several other negative experiences with a provider (61% v. 31%), including a provider assuming something about them without asking, suggesting they were personally to blame for a health problem, ignoring a direct request or question, or refusing to prescribe needed pain medication.”