On October 19th, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control, California Department of Public Health, and California Department of Food and Agriculture issued 15-day notices of modification to the texts of their respective proposed regulations. The California Cannabis Portal has published links to each notice and the modified texts of the proposed regulations. For each set, the respective Department will accept written comments by November 5, 2018.
The amended proposed permanent cannabis regulations are now in a 15-day notice-and-comment period for each California agency—the Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”), Department of Public Health (“DPH”), and Department of Food and Agriculture (“DFA”). The next round of written public comments is due to each agency by November 5, 2018. It’s important then for California cannabis businesses to get a handle on the proposed regulations as quickly as possible to determine whether to provide written comments since some impactful changes are coming.
Here are the key proposed changes from the BCC regulations:
Intellectual Property Licenses: The BCC’s regulations pose a threat to cannabis intellectual property licensing in California. Our California cannabis lawyers are regularly involved in intellectual property licensing deals and we think it’s critical for cannabis businesses to speak up in opposition to this proposed rule. California would be the only state in the cannabis union to bar third-party IP-licensing deals for cannabis licensees, which will certainly undercut the business growth of a good amount of operators if this rule passes.
“Owners”: The BCC modified the definition of “owner” (as well as “financial interest holder”; see below), which now includes “[a]n individual entitled to a share of at least 20 percent of the profits of the commercial cannabis business.” This is much broader than the existing 20 percent aggregate ownership threshold (which also still stands). To illustrate, the current ownership threshold definition expressly states that it does not apply where that interest holder holds “solely a security, lien, or encumbrance.” This new addition to the rules seems to capture a mere security holder—so long as that security holder is entitled to 20 percent of the profits.
The BCC also expanded upon the form of “ownership” that requires disclosure based on assumption of responsibility for the license, by specifying certain kinds of persons or entities who qualify (note that this list is not exhaustive or complete, so it likely will be read even more broadly), as:
- Persons who manage or direct the licensed business in exchange for a portion of the profits. Note, there is no minimum threshold for profit entitlements here, so this could include persons who expect less than 20 percent of the profits.
- Persons who assume responsibility for the licensed business’ debts. Here too, there is no threshold for debt assumption.
- Persons who determine how “a portion” of the licensed business is run. This includes things such as “non-plant-touching portions of the commercial cannabis business such as branding or marketing”, but it too could include much more broad categories of business operations.
- Persons who determine what cannabis goods will be cultivated, manufactured, distributed, purchased, or sold.
Notably too, these modifications now take the position that if an “owner” is an entity, all entities and individuals with a financial interest in that entity must be disclosed to the BCC and may be considered owners of the commercial cannabis business. The BCC emphasized that each entity and person in the corporate chain must be disclosed until the applicant can identify actual persons.
The takeaway from these changes is that the BCC now wants full identification of any person who has anything to do with an applicant entity—even if that person simply owns a company multiple steps away in a corporate chain. That is not dissimilar to what our cannabis business lawyers have seen in Oregon and Washington.
“Financial Interest Holder”: Like before, the BCC considers a financial interest to include an agreement to receive a portion of the profits of a licensed entity. Now, however, the BCC gives a number of examples of what qualifies as such an agreement:
- An employee who enters into a profit-share plan with a licensee.
- A landlord who enters into a lease agreement with a licensee for a share of the profits.
- A consultant who provides services to a licensee for a share of the profits.
- A person who acts as an agent, such as an accountant or attorney, for the licensee for a share of the profits.
- A broker who engages in activities for the licensee for a share of the profits.
- A salesperson who earns a commission.
The BCC will now also require the identification of all persons in the corporate hierarchy for interest holders, similar to the rules regarding owners. Meaning, if a financial interest holder is an entity, everyone in that entity is getting disclosed .
Annual License Fees: The BCC scrapped its previous test for determining the amount of appropriate fees for the annual licenses—estimating the maximum dollar value of planned operations—and now has created a new formula: “To determine the appropriate license fee due, the applicant or licensee shall first estimate the gross revenue for the 12-month license period of the license.”
Changes in Ownership: The BCC is also expanding its prohibition on changes of ownership over a licensed entity. If any new person is added as an “owner” by virtue of a change in ownership of a licensed entity, that person will need to provide the vast categories of information required by section 5002(c)(20) within 14 calendar days of the transfer. This will obviously have an impact on California cannabis M&A. The business can still operate pending the change so long as one previous owner remains on; otherwise, operations will need to cease pending the BCC’s review of the new owner. The BCC is also now requiring 14 calendar days’ notification of changes in any of the following:
- Any changes to the contact information that was provided to the BCC in the original application;
- Any change in legal name, business name, trade name, or fictitious business name of the licensee;
- Any change to financial information, including funds, loans, investments, and gifts required in the original application;
- Any change in the required bond; or
- Any change or lapse in a distributor’s insurance coverage.
Annual License Applications and Requirements: As to annual licenses, the BCC made tweaks to the information that it will require for submission, which signals its desire to place more scrutiny on applicants and ensure compliance with California law. We won’t explain every change here, but here are the essential ones:
- First, the BCC changed the requirement to provide it with “The business-formation documents” for the licenses business to “All business-formation documents”.
- Second, the BCC is requiring that applicants provide it with state employer identification numbers (“SEIN”), which the BCC explains in its notice of modification as being “necessary to ensure that all applicants that are required to obtain such a number have obtained it and are thus, in compliance with California law.”
- Finally, licensees with more than one employee must attest that within one year of receiving their license, the licensee will have employees who have undergone certain Cal-OSHA safety training.
The BCC is also beefing up its requirements for renewal of licenses to require documentation of any change to any item listed in the original application. So, chances are that if a cannabis business obtains an annual license before these proposed changes become effective (and assuming they do), that business will need to provide these additional disclosures later.
Premises: There are a number of modifications to the proposed rules concerning licensed premises, but here are the highlights:
- While it’s been routine for multiple licensees to operate on the same premises, the proposed modifications now expressly state that they do not “prohibit two or more licensed premises from occupying separate portions of the same parcel of land or sharing common use areas, such as a bathroom, breakroom, hallway, or building entrance.”
- The premises must consist of permanent structures—shipping containers, modular buildings, or anything on wheels are a no-go—that are affixed to the ground and not capable of movement.
- There is now a form (BCC-LIC-027) to submit to the BCC to request to make a physical change or alteration to the premises.
Marketing and Promotions: Licensees will be prohibited from selling or transporting goods that are identified as any kind of alcoholic product (and they cannot refer to anything as containing or being an alcoholic product). There are also now definitions for promotional goods and branded goods. If licensees want to sell branded goods that are not listed in the definition, they will need to seek BCC approval first. The proposed modifications also clarify that licensees can provide customers with promotional non-cannabis goods—and it looks like these goods could be provided at the premises or via delivery, too.
Packaging: The proposed modifications set up a time tier for cannabis packaging, whereby until January 1, 2020, cannabis packaging needs to be tamper-evident, in some cases re-sealable, and must not look like packaging that is marketed to children. Until January 1, 2020, retailers and microbusinesses can satisfy this rule by providing opaque exit packaging that meets the foregoing standards.
Testing and Quality Assurance: The proposed regulations include prohibitions on re-sampling previously tested batches, new requirements for remediation plans for failed batches, and new requirements for quality assurance testing for the level of THC, CBD, and terpenoids, among other things. If goods have undergone testing and haven’t been sold in 12 months, they now have to be destroyed.
Retailer Packaging: Similar to the revised distribution rules, the proposed modifications set up a timetable that requires tamper-evident packaging until January 1, 2020, and re-sealable, tamper evident, and child-resistant packaging thereafter. There are opposite requirements for retailer exit packaging—it must be child-resistant, re-sealable and opaque until 2020, and then just opaque thereafter.
Deliveries: The rules now more heavily regulate a retailer’s use of tech platforms for delivery (i.e., the platform can’t share profits and can’t be the one doing the delivery, presumably unless it too is licensed). Delivery vehicles cannot contain any exterior markings that indicate that they are delivering cannabis goods. Delivery vehicles may now carry only $5,000 in cannabis goods at once. And the biggest change of all, per the modified section 5416(d), deliveries can be made into any jurisdiction in the state, so long as they comply with the BCC’s delivery rules. Currently, localities can and do prohibit deliveries from other jurisdictions. The BCC’s proposed regulations, however, now open the floodgates to previously “dark” delivery jurisdictions.
MJIC offers the ONLY Seed-to-Sale tracking system backed by Attorneys & Accountants. Digital inventory recording is now a REQUIREMENT for all annual cannabis license holders, & not all software is the same! MJIC COMPLIANCE combines software WITH legal & regulatory consulting to offer a comprehensive solution to all compliance needs.
Need help with your cannabis business? Interested in a live demo? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or go to www.mjiccompliance.com.