Connect with us

Cannabis News

Missouri cannabis growers file class action against Good Day Farm

Published

2 months ago

on

CPC of Missouri-Smithville, LLC and GF Saint Mary LLC, licensed cannabis growers and manufacturers in Missouri, filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on behalf of independent wholesalers, alleging that Good Day Farm (GDF) and its network of conspiring companies and investors were harmed by an intentional, coordinated and unconstitutional scheme. The complaint alleges that the “GDF Cartel” illegally controls or manages the state’s share of dispensary licenses and uses that market power to manipulate Missouri’s $1.52 billion cannabis market for its own profit.

GDF and its co-conspirators allegedly built the cartel by arranging for third parties to invest in limited liability companies (LLCs) that then acquire additional dispensaries, cultivation and processing facilities, all of which are owned, operated or controlled by GDF. The result: The alleged cartel exercises effective control over at least 61 dispensaries, nearly triple the 22 allowed by the Missouri Constitution, with more than 10% of dispensary licenses “under substantially common control, ownership or management.” With 224 dispensaries currently licensed statewide, the alleged GDF Cartel controls more than one in four dispensary licenses in Missouri. But its influence is even greater, with alleged Cartel dispensaries accounting for more than 40% of wholesale cannabis in the state, giving it significant — and illegal — influence over all independent growers and manufacturers forced to sell through its network.

To avoid the Missouri Constitution’s 10% licensing limit and avoid regulatory oversight, the alleged cartel operates under five different brand names:

  • Good Day Farm (21 dispensaries),
  • CODES (20 dispensaries),
  • Green light (10 dispensaries),
  • Fresh Karma (6 dispensaries), and
  • 3 Fifteen Primo (4 medications).

But they’re all part of a single, coordinated operation, the complaint says.

  • Purchase cannabis products from non-Cartel wholesalers at artificially depressed prices;
  • They supply their 61 dispensaries with the same products—mainly those produced by Cartel growers—significantly excluding products from independent wholesalers;
  • Force independent drug wholesalers to purchase the Cartel’s finished products as a condition for their wholesale products to be placed on the Cartel’s drug store shelves; and
  • Boycott non-cartel wholesalers who refuse to agree to anti-cartel demands.

Bob Hoffman, one of the attorneys leading the case, said: “The GDF Cartel is removing competition from the wholesale cannabis market and enriching itself with illegal profits through a counterproductive, clandestine business conspiracy. Missouri growers and manufacturers have been suffering under this scheme for a long time; many of them know something is wrong, but we don’t realize how the cartel has manipulated the market through this manipulation framework. Missourians to approve recreational cannabis in 2022 They voted for a fair and competitive market. Missouri licensed cannabis businesses that have suffered these practices should join us because they may be entitled to substantial damages.”

The complaint alleges the financial toll the Cartel has taken: Since the Cartel began illegal price-fixing, it has used its collective market power to lower wholesale prices by more than 20%, and continues to squeeze wholesalers and threaten the viability of their operations.

The unconstitutional complaint alleges that GDF knew its plan to build cartels could create legal risks for the company under the Constitution’s 10% licensing limit. The complaint quotes from a document provided by GDF to potential investors: “There can be no assurance that the Missouri Department of Cannabis Regulation will not dispute the number of marijuana dispensaries operated or supervised by the operator or its affiliates…”.

This action is brought on behalf of a putative class that includes all licensed independent wholesalers in Missouri that are not members of the alleged GDF Cartel for purposes of injunctive relief. Wholesalers who believe they have been financially harmed by the alleged Cartel’s practices should join the case because they may be entitled to substantial damages. The putative class is represented by the law firms of Feuerstein Kulick LLP and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

Source: Feuerstein Kulick LLP and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Guido de Buijn (Agrofair) consolidates his leading position, whilst fruit and vegetable lawyer Hans Borsboom enters the top five

Published

14 hours ago

on

June 24, 2026

By






FreshPublishers 2026 World Cup Group Stage






Today, it is the Dutch who are making their mark in the Fresh Publishers’ World Cup rankings. Guido de Bruijn, Agrofair’s account manager, correctly predicted the results of the Argentina – Austria and France – Iraq matches, thus consolidating his leadership. He is followed by quality controller Mark Libregts of JNV Produce, while food and agriculture specialist Cindy van Rijswick of Rabobank has once again rounded out the top three. In fourth place is Dirk van den Hurk, aaff’s relationship manager. He has a three-point lead over fruit and vegetable lawyer Hans Borsboom, who is competing under the name HerikLegal United. Interestingly, the main contestants predict very different winners. Guido supports Portugal, Mark supports France, Cindy supports Germany and Dirk and Hans support Spain.

In sixth place is Seth Karstens, who manages retail sales for Gerbera United. Marcos Miedema – again from Agrofair – is seventh, ahead of Andre Filippov from the German company Global Fruit Point. Rob Welles of plant grower Ovata and Italian potato and vegetable trader Luigi Giacomello have slipped a little further up the table and are in ninth and tenth place. However, there is still a long way to go to win the 1,000 euros. Starting with the next four matches: Portugal – Uzbekistan, England – Ghana, Panama – Croatia and Colombia – Congo.

© FreshPublishers



Publication date:













Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Marijuana Moment Asks DEA Judge To Allow Livestreaming Of Rescheduling Hearing For Transparent Public Access

Published

14 hours ago

on

June 24, 2026

By

Marijuana Moments is asking a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge to reconsider his decision hearings on the Trump administration’s cannabis deregulation proposal begin next week and features only the opponents of the reform as invited participants.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julis last week issued a preliminary order setting out the rules and timelines for the marijuana reorganization proceeding, recognizing at the same time that “the national public interest in this matter favors a policy of transparency” and, at the same time, specifying that “the hearing will not be televised, live or otherwise.”

As a result, people who want to see the historic cannabis reform process must go directly to Arlington, Virginia, by court order.

In a letter to Julius on Tuesday, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph Bondy noted that the DEA had previously authorized, then canceled the hearing process, the Biden administration’s proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to the Controlled Substances (CSA) Schedule III.

“That prior decision was correct. The public interest rationale for contemporary access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If the DEA believes that security, witness management, or operational concerns require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow requirements rather than a categorical ban.”

“Arlington’s limited physical seating is not a meaningful substitute for a live broadcast. Marijuana Moments, like much of the press and public following federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on the few available seats as a practical way to observe and report on the hearing. This is precisely why the DEA’s advance live broadcast was important: it allowed them to follow these directives without physically obstructing the venue. burdening security, or making anyone a party.”

“In a proceeding of this public importance, and in light of the DEA’s prior direct directive, the public hearing is not publicly accessible if the case is based on limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for timely observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It’s a guarantee.”

“For a large public audience seeking serious coverage of federal cannabis policy, Marihuana Moment is an important channel through which the public can understand these proceedings.”

The letter makes clear that Marihuana Moments “does not seek to participate as a party, present evidence, examine witnesses, present proposed findings, or alter the schedule of merits” and “seeks only temporary public and press access to an administrative hearing of recognized national public interest.”

Bondy asked Julius for an answer by Thursday.

—
Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you, who value this work enough to support us monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reports to stay informed of important developments in cannabis, please help us do this becoming a permanent subscriber today.

Backing us at the $25/month level, you’ll have access to our Bill Tracker so you don’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state.
—

Meanwhile, he is also a lawyer A representative of a major cannabis reform organization is calling for the DEA to reconsider decision to participate in the hearing as an interested party.

The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which represents the interests of people who use cannabis, filed an “emergency petition for reconsideration” through Bondy on Friday, saying “the public interest will be significantly harmed if the registry ignores the consumer perspective.”

The DEA made the announcement last week Only select participants—and opponents of reform—have been invited to the marijuana redistricting hearing to participate, and some of them have filed a lawsuit trying to block the reform. Supporters of the reform who expressed their intention to participate were not invited.

“NORML’s rejection, if not addressed immediately, will deprive NORML and the cannabis consumers it represents of meaningful participation in hearing proceedings, the presentation of witnesses, the designation of exhibits, cross-examination, legal briefs, and any other proceedings necessary to complete a complete record,” wrote Bondy, NORML director Terrance as chairman of the DEA’s board of directors. “Prejudice is immediate. It cannot be cured after the hearing is closed.”

According to several rejection letters seen by Marijuana Moment from cannabis reform advocates, the DEA said they do not meet the definition of “interested person” to participate because they “would not be harmed or harmed by any rule or proposed rule that may be issued.”

NORML said in its request for reconsideration, however, that “DEA’s denial is based on a flawed premise: that NORML has not been harmed or prejudiced by the proposed rule because NORML allows marihuana to be removed from Schedule I and Schedule III.

“That is not NORML’s position. NORML supports delisting from schedule I. But NORML does not support schedule III as the final correct federal treatment of marijuana,” Bondy wrote. “NORML’s position is that marijuana should be removed from the CSA schedules and regulated under a specific federal framework that addresses public health, consumer safety, product integrity, youth prevention, truthful labeling, testing, access to research, impaired driving policy, diversion, state-regulated market realities, and illegal displacement.”

The lawyer wrote that the injury to marijuana’s Schedule III status “is not a mere ideological desperation.”

“NORML members would remain subject to federal controlled substance status and the legal consequences that flow from it. Adult consumers who legally participate in state-regulated markets would be excluded from consistent federal recognition,” Bondy said. “Schedule III would keep illegal federal cannabis activity outside of federally authorized medical, research, or registrar channels. It would continue to cause federal-state conflict, public confusion, stigma, side effects, and harm to consumer safety.”

The hearing it will start on June 29 and end before July 15.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April He issued an order that immediately reclassified the state’s licensed medical cannabisas well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Schedule I through Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

According to a separate order signed by the acting attorney general, the upcoming hearing will include Class III marijuana.

In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, the parties had to submit requests, indicating their interest in the procedure, the claims or issues they want to hear and their position on these issues.

“The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receive factual evidence and expert opinion’ on whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III of the controlled substance list,” Blanche’s initial statement in April said.

The attorney general also selected an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings.

“The ALJ’s authority includes the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues at the hearing or to consider other matters that may assist in the expeditious resolution of the hearing; to require the parties to state their position in writing; to sign and issue subpoenas; to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; to examine witnesses; to direct, exclude, or testify; the Rule on Procedural Matters and the President’s DEA Hearing Procedures and Administrative Procedure Actions allowed under the law, Blanch wrote.

Preliminary hearing process on the marijuana redistricting process initiated by the Biden administration It was halted last year amid allegations of improper communications and witness selection.

the current The marijuana redistricting process is being challenged in several ways which have been upheld by a federal Court of Appeals. those pieces of State attorneys general have filed lawsuits against cannabis reform, Opponents of marijuana legalization and a a cannabis-based biopharmaceutical corporation.

Meanwhile, the reorganization of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having a major impact.

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current rescheduling of cannabis Certified patients with medical marijuana from state licensed dispensaries are now eligible for Class III. “The order appears to allow end users to use marijuana medically without a CSA prescription,” he says.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has published a Draft update to a gun purchase form to recognize the legal status of medical marijuana in the reprogramming. The revised section of the question states that only the “recreational use or possession of marijuana” is federally prohibited, omitting the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis.

The US Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issued new tax guidelines for the marijuana industry after reprogramming. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions that are currently prohibited under IRS Code Section III, known as Section 280E.

Even the DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and accused the Biden administration of stalling the initiative in the reorganization process, has done so. It launched a registration process for legal marijuana businesses in the state to take advantage of the federal benefits that come with the reform.

The Department of Transport, on the other hand, issued guidelines stating this use Legal medical cannabis in the state is still no excuse for truck drivers to test positive for drugspilots and other safety-sensitive personnel.

A congressional committee recently Federal officials voted to block further steps to reschedule cannabis.

read it the letter Marijuana Moment’s attorney to the DEA judge below:

Marihuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Judge declines to block New Jersey cannabis Labor Peace Agreement requirement in Curaleaf case

Published

2 days ago

on

June 23, 2026

By











U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp, for the District of New Jersey, ruled against Curaleaf Holdings Inc.’s request for emergency relief to block the requirement that New Jersey cannabis companies sign Labor Peace Agreements (LPAs) to keep the rule in place while the underlying case continues.

Under Bloomberg Law, Judge Shipp issued an unpublished opinion that Curaleaf failed to demonstrate the “irreparable harm” courts require before issuing a preliminary injunction. That rule requires a party to prove that it will later suffer irreparable injury if the judge waits for full proceedings. Judge Shipp concluded that Curaleaf did not meet that threshold.

The resolution is not a decision on the substance of the regulation. Judge Shipp expressed skepticism that the LPA’s requirement is supported under federal law, although he declined to block it. A court may find that a challenger has failed to meet the standard of emergency assistance without adopting the challenged rule.

The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement Assistance and Market Modernization Act, known as CREAMMA, was signed into law by then-governor Phil Murphy in February 2021. It set up a 2020 legalization referendum and established the state’s adult cannabis market. Under CREAMMA, cannabis operators must sign an LPA and engage in collective bargaining with organized labour. These are two different obligations, both licensing requirements, not optional practices.

Curaleaf is opposing this dual mechanism. For New Jersey cannabis operators, the immediate consequence is that compliance remains mandatory while the case moves forward. The question of whether the LPA’s mandate is compatible with federal law remains unanswered.

Source: HeadyNJ



Opening photo: © Curaleaf

Publication date:













Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media