It is important to note that advertising health services is subject to different regulations than advertising therapeutic products. Consequently, advertisers, manufacturers and sponsors must evaluate whether their business name could be interpreted as an advertisement for therapeutic goods. If so, they should consider whether the business name, including company or trading names, could be viewed as a ‘reference’ that draws the audience’s attention to medicinal cannabis, as any mention or similar terms to ‘cannabis’ are likely to have that effect. It is essential to recognise that the impact of promoting the use or supply of medicinal cannabis does not depend on a single promotional element but rather on the overall promotion. This includes all components of the promotional information and materials that accompany the name or branding. Advertising can result from the combination of separate statements, images or designs that collectively promote the use or supply of therapeutic goods.

Advertising

The prohibition on advertising medicinal cannabis to the public is determined by the context in which the material is perceived. When evaluating whether information about therapeutic goods qualifies as advertising, it is essential to consider the broader context of the material’s presentation. This encompasses various factors that influence the conveyed message, including the context of the information or activity, the intended audience and their likely interpretation of the message, as well as the presence of non-verbal and unwritten cues, such as visual elements. These factors can significantly affect communication and may alter the message perceived by consumers. 

For example, if an advertisement for a health service, such as a pain treatment service, includes references to medicinal cannabis, even in the company name or trading name, a reasonable consumer may conclude that the advertisement seeks to promote both the use of medicinal cannabis for pain relief and the pain treatment service itself. Including a disclaimer, such as advising the consumer to consult a health professional regarding suitable treatment options, does not exempt the advertiser from complying with legislative requirements.

The distinction between promoting a health service and the therapeutic product utilised in its delivery can be nuanced. Therefore, it is crucial for advertisers to consider how a typical consumer might perceive their advertisement in relation to the promotion of the therapeutic product.

Legal Compliance

To ensure legal compliance in promoting a business or service, advertisers should focus on the health services they provide and avoid referencing medicinal cannabis. For instance, stating “Our clinic offers consultations related to pain management” is a more compliant approach. The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s interpretation of advertising for medicinal cannabis is broad, covering all methods of promoting its use or supply. This includes company names, product names, abbreviations such as CBD and THC, colloquial terms, and any imagery related to cannabis. Any combination of statements or images that implies medicinal cannabis can be considered advertising, even in the absence of explicit promotional language.

Summary

In summary, it is prohibited to mention prescription medications in advertisements for therapeutic goods. If content discusses health conditions and consumers can reasonably infer, either from the context or through direct or indirect references, that medicinal cannabis or any other prescription medication is intended for use concerning these conditions, the content may be deemed an unlawful advertisement for therapeutic goods. Not all information related to therapeutic goods is classified as advertising. However, if the content aligns with the definition of ‘advertise’ as outlined in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)—which includes anything that is directly or indirectly intended to promote the use or supply of therapeutic goods—then the relevant legislative requirements for advertising such goods must be complied with.

“Indirect intent” in this context does not refer to the explicit intention of the party responsible for the content, but rather to what a reasonable consumer might infer as the intent behind the content. Terms such as “plant-based medicine,” “plant medicine,” “cannabidiol” and “CBD oil,” which relate to medical cannabis products, may be considered promotional if they suggest a connection to medicinal cannabis. Businesses promoting a health service must ensure they do not inadvertently advertise a prescription medicine in their marketing materials. If the consumer is encouraged to seek out a health service based on the therapeutic goods available, the content is likely to be regarded as an advertisement for those therapeutic goods.

For additional information, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has established the Medicinal Cannabis Hub, accessible at https://www.tga.gov.au/products/unapproved-therapeutic-goods/medicinal-cannabis-hub, and has also provided advertising guidance for businesses involved in the medicinal cannabis sector, which can be found at https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/advertising-guidance-businesses-involved-medicinal-cannabis-products.pdf. These resources are designed to assist both consumers and industry professionals in understanding their obligations.

Good news, bad news if you’re a cannabis operator that owes money to a creditor. But probably bad news for the rule of law.

A federal appellate court has ruled that a cannabis operator is obligated to repay his debts to an ex-business partner, but it raised questions about whether the money used to repay the debt could violate federal marijuana laws.

What does this mean for a cannabis operator and potential investors?

The Facts

As usual, our friends at Law360 set the stage:

A Tenth Circuit panel has rejected a cannabis entrepreneur’s attempt to undo a $6.4 million judgment in a dispute with an ex-business partner, but it ordered a district court to revisit an enforcement order that could require the entrepreneur to violate federal drug law to pay the damages.

A Maryland federal judge entered a $6.4 million damages award against Mackie A. Barch and his company Trellis Holdings Maryland Inc. for failing to restore David Joshua Bartch’s stake in a Maryland cannabis cultivation and dispensary business, Culta Inc.

When they failed to pay up, Bartch filed suit in the District of Colorado seeking an order that would require Barch and Trellis to sell off their equity in Culta to satisfy the judgment, which the court granted.

Barch and Trellis claimed that their ex-partner lacked standing to seek enforcement of the judgment because the order would require them to engage in conduct in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Cultivating and selling marijuana is legal under Colorado and Maryland laws, but still prohibited under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The Ruling

The three-judge panel sided, in a divided decision, against Barch and Trellis. According to the court, Barch and Trellis have no path for relief from the judgment because the law only allows a party to seek such relief for violations of due process.

The rift between the majority and the dissent came down to questions of enforceability and practicality. As Law360 wrote:

The dissent argued that Culta’s business practices – which are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act – should have doomed Bartch’s breach of contract suit from the start. By validating the parties’ contract, the majority has instead decided to “ignore the elephant in the room that is the federally illegitimate business enterprise known as Culta,” Judge Baldock wrote.

“Plaintiff’s cause of action is based entirely upon an illegal contract to establish Culta, notably an enterprise in which federal law recognizes no property interest. I simply do not understand why a federal court would lend legitimacy to any of this,” according to the dissent.

The majority recognized that the trial court’s order could potentially require the violation of federal law but were not willing to overturn the order based on that mere possibility. The majority reasoned that because the order did not specifically require Barch and Trellis to cultivate or sell marijuana, it was at least possible that the debt could be repaid without violating federal law. The case was remanded for further instructions and clarity from the trial court on this point.

The Takeaway

Let’s start with one really obvious point and one just regularly obvious point. First, investors should be extremely cautious when providing funds to marijuana companies. This case illustrates how difficult it can be to recover funds when the source of repayments may largely be the result of federally illegal activity. Second, the marijuana industry is replete with unsavory characters. Sure, many marijuana companies are operated by upstanding businesspeople, but the very nature of the industry and its legal status over the decades make it ripe for those who might not feel compelled to follow the strict letter of the law.

Should you choose to invest in a marijuana company, you should do so with the advice of competent, experienced counsel and you should insist that there are legal methods of recovering your funds should that prove necessary. Doing so may seem a tall task, but with a little diligence you may be able to ensure that your funds are secured by assets that are not subject to the same types of challenges in this case.

And, as with any investment, trust but verify.

Source:  https://www.buddingtrendsblog.com/2024/09/federal-appeals-court-pay-that-man-his-money-unless-that-money-is-illegal-marijuana-money/

In the ever-evolving landscape of American policy, the story of cannabis legalization unfolds as a testament to societal change and the complexities of governance. This narrative, however, is not without its dissonances, particularly in the realm of financial services.

Introduction

In a nation marked by its pioneering spirit and the relentless pursuit of progress, the cannabis industry emerges as a vibrant tableau of innovation, marred by the shadows of regulatory uncertainty. As states across the Union chart their own courses, legalizing cannabis for medical and recreational use, they weave a patchwork of policies that stand in stark contrast to the federal government’s steadfast classification of the plant. This discord at the heart of cannabis commerce sets the stage for a deeper exploration into an issue that transcends mere legality, touching upon the very fabric of economic integration and societal values.

The Current Legal and Regulatory Landscape

At the federal level, cannabis remains ensnared in the Schedule I category of the Controlled Substances Act, a classification that denotes a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This designation, rooted in the drug policy of yesteryears, casts a long shadow over the burgeoning cannabis industry, constraining its access to essential financial services and stifling its growth potential. Banks and financial institutions, wary of the legal ramifications of servicing cannabis-related businesses (CRBs), find themselves at a crossroads, caught between the promise of a new market and the peril of federal reprisal.

Cannabis Banking and Legislation Timeline

The following timeline weaves together the historical context, pivotal moments, and potential future developments in cannabis banking and legislation, including the critical role of the SAFE Banking Act and the impact of reclassifying marijuana. It serves as a guide through the evolving relationship between the cannabis industry and the financial sector, highlighting the journey towards regulatory clarity and economic integration.

1970 – Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Enacted: Marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug, indicating a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, severely limiting research, and banking capabilities.
1996 – California Legalizes Medical Marijuana: Marks the beginning of state-led initiatives diverging from federal law, creating a patchwork of regulations, and increasing the need for banking solutions for cannabis businesses.
2013 – Cole Memorandum Issued: Although not law, it provides some protection against federal enforcement in states that have legalized marijuana, signaling a slight shift in federal attitude but leaving financial institutions wary of engaging with cannabis businesses.
2014 – 2019 – Incremental Banking Guidance: The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issues guidance for banks on serving cannabis businesses in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, but the banking challenges persist due to the overarching federal prohibition.
2019 & 2021 – SAFE Banking Act Proposals: The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act was introduced in Congress, aiming to protect financial institutions that service cannabis-related businesses in states where it has been legalized. Despite passing in the House, it stalls in the Senate.
2020 – Present – Growing Bipartisan Support for Cannabis Banking Reform: As more states legalize cannabis for medical or recreational use, there is increased bipartisan support for federal banking reforms, including the SAFE Banking Act, to provide a safe harbor for banks.
2024 (Not So Hypothetical Future) – Marijuana Rescheduled to Schedule III: In a landmark move, marijuana is reclassified as a Schedule III controlled substance, acknowledging its medical use and lowering barriers for banking and research. This hypothetical future event would significantly alter the cannabis industry landscape. This is happening now.
2024 – 2025 (Future Outlook) – Implementation of the SAFE Banking Act: Following the reclassification of marijuana, Congress passes the SAFE Banking Act, easing many of the remaining financial and banking challenges for cannabis businesses. Financial institutions begin openly serving the cannabis industry, supported by clear federal guidelines.
2025 and Beyond – Normalization and Expansion: With the barriers to banking and finance removed, the cannabis industry sees a period of significant growth and normalization. Financial products and services tailored to the cannabis industry become widespread, and cannabis businesses are integrated into the broader economy.

Navigating the Dissonance: The Case for Reform

Amid the thicket of regulatory challenges and banking quandaries, a beacon of consensus emerges from the legislative realms. On May 2, 2024, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) issued a compelling appeal to the Department of Justice, urging the reconsideration of cannabis’s Schedule I status. “Currently, a total of 47 inclusive of states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories except American Samoa have legalized cannabis for medical and/or adult recreational use,” the NCSL articulated, highlighting the stark contrast between state-led initiatives and federal policy inertia. This plea for reclassification is not merely administrative; it is a clarion call for alignment, seeking to reconcile the federal stance with the lived realities of millions and the operational exigencies of a burgeoning industry.

Discussion Points

This moment of potential transformation invites a broader reflection on the implications of such a shift. The reclassification of cannabis and the enactment of measures like the SAFE Banking Act could herald a new era for not just the cannabis industry but for American society at large. It prompts us to question the role of federalism in drug policy, the dynamics of change in a conservative sector like banking, and the societal values that underpin our approach to regulation and commerce.

Furthermore, the push for reform illuminates the intricate dance between innovation and regulation. As we stand on the precipice of change, it is imperative to consider how financial institutions can navigate this evolving landscape. The integration of cannabis into mainstream commerce offers a unique opportunity to redefine the relationship between the state, the market, and the individual, challenging us to reimagine the boundaries of entrepreneurship, responsibility, and community in the 21st century.

So…Now What?

The conversation surrounding cannabis banking and federal reform is more than a policy debate; it is a reflection of our collective journey toward a more nuanced understanding of progress, governance, and the human experience. As we ponder the path forward, it is clear that the resolution of this dissonance will require not just legislative change but a reevaluation of societal norms and values. In this endeavor, entities like Ankura play a pivotal role, not as advocates for a particular outcome, but as navigators helping to chart a course through uncharted waters, ensuring that regardless of the direction we take, we move forward with insight, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the common good.

Solutions: A Blueprint for Navigating the Green Wave Together

In the evolving narrative of cannabis legalization and its implications for the financial sector, the role of consultancy firms becomes not just relevant but indispensable. Amidst this backdrop, Ankura emerges not as a mere participant but as a guiding force, navigating the intricate interplay between regulation, commerce, and innovation. This section, far from a sales pitch, is a contemplation on the utility and insight that Ankura brings to a landscape at the cusp of transformation.

The Art of Navigation in Uncharted Waters

In the realm of cannabis banking, where the regulatory environment remains as fluid as the sea, Ankura stands as the seasoned navigator, charting a course through tumultuous waters. The firm’s approach, deeply rooted in expertise and foresight, transcends the conventional consultancy model. Ankura’s role is akin to that of a cartographer mapping the unknown, transforming the complexities of legislation and market dynamics into a navigable blueprint for its clients.

Crafting Compliance Amid Complexity

The crux of Ankura’s value lies in its nuanced understanding of compliance within the cannabis sector—a field where the ground beneath one’s feet shifts with regulatory whims. The firm’s expertise illuminates the path forward for financial institutions entangled in the Gordian knot of federal and state regulations. Through a bespoke blend of strategic advisory, Ankura empowers these institutions to not only meet the current compliance benchmarks but to anticipate and adapt to the regulatory evolutions on the horizon.

Fostering Growth Through Insight

Beyond the minutiae of compliance, the Ankura vision extends to the broader horizons of growth and sustainability for both financial institutions and cannabis-related businesses. The consultancy’s insights into market trends, consumer behavior, and legislative forecasts act as a beacon for clients navigating the competitive landscape of the cannabis industry. In this capacity, Ankura is more than a guide; it is a partner in cultivation, helping to sow the seeds of long-term success in the fertile ground of opportunity.

A Convergence of Expertise and Innovation

At the heart of the Ankura methodology is a commitment to innovation, a principle that resonates deeply within the cannabis sector. The firm leverages cutting-edge technologies and data analytics to provide solutions that are not only effective but forward-thinking. This approach reflects a broader philosophy: that the challenges of today’s cannabis industry are not roadblocks but catalysts for innovation, driving the development of more sophisticated, transparent, and efficient financial services.

And Finally: A Partnership for Progress

Ankura’s role exemplifies the partnership between expertise and ambition. This narrative is an acknowledgment of the critical role that insight, foresight, and strategic guidance play in navigating the complexities of cannabis banking. As cannabis legislation evolves, Ankura’s contributions are a testament to the power of collaboration and knowledge in shaping the future of industries and economies alike.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.