Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Now that’s the Kool aid induced thought process that you are know for.
A few things, they clearly mentioned acquire and acquisition in the press release. Some how you became confused with merger which they did not mention. I’ll let you refer to a dictionary to help you understand.
Company statement “I am pleased to announce that we have executed a nonbinding letter of intent to acquire a plant-based food company in Europe and “Closing of this important strategic acquisition”
Next, we have a stock swap, why? What if the company is private. There not doing a merger, their buying. Cash is always good.
Then we have creative math. The company has a value of a little over 3 million dollars. You can pound all the shares you want, dilute to the high heaven, doesn’t make the company worth more. 3 mil is 3 mil. I understand your new to this investing thing but if you would happen to notice when a company dilutes the price of the stock comes down. If you plan to dilute 300 million shares, well, it will be a learning experience for you.
Go ahead and enjoy yourself with this new toy you have to promote. I’ll just sit back and wait to see. They will have to present to the shareholders, then we’ll all see what’s what.
Have you even read the 3rd qt 10Q. You list profit margin but we both know they haven’t had a profitable qt in OVER 5 YEARS.
You have assets at 16 percent. However if you look at the 10Q you will notice they LOST 3 million in assets last qt. Why is that a big deal. Because the whole entire company only has a market cap of a little over 4 million. And the Enterprise Value, what the company would be expected to sell for has been cut in half the last 3 mo , now down to 3.07 million from 6.26.
You are using bogus current numbers, make believe at that. Try not to embarrass yourself further.
So, exactly what flavor is that Kool aid your drinking? Back in the 0.02's again huh, well so be it.
From the 10Q - Known Trends or Uncertainties- There can be no assurance that the Company’s business and corresponding financial performance will not be adversely affected by general economic or consumer trends. In particular, global economic conditions remain uncertain, and if such conditions continue, recur or worsen, this may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, inflation has risen, Federal Reserve interest rates have increased recently, and the general consensus among economists suggests that we should continue to expect a higher recession risk to continue for the foreseeable future, all of which may also materially adversely our business and corresponding financial position and cash flows.
Additionally, in March 2023, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were closed and taken over by the FDIC, and subsequently in May 2023 First Republic Bank was taken over by the FDIC and a substantial portion of it sold to JPMorgan Chase, which created significant market disruption and uncertainty for those who bank with those institutions, and which raised significant concern regarding the stability of the banking system in the United States, and in particular with respect to regional banks. Although we did not have any cash or cash equivalent balances on deposit with Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank or First Republic Bank, investor concerns regarding the U.S. or international financial systems could result in less favorable commercial financing terms, including higher interest rates or costs and tighter financial and operating covenants, or systemic limitations on access to credit and liquidity sources, thereby making it more difficult for us to acquire financing on acceptable terms or at all. If other banks and financial institutions enter receivership or become insolvent in the future in response to financial conditions affecting the banking system and financial markets, our ability to access our cash may be threatened and such events could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. If current levels of market disruption and volatility continue, the Company might experience reductions in business activity, increased funding costs and funding pressures, as applicable, a decrease in the market price of shares of our common stock, a decrease in asset values, additional write-downs and impairment charges and lower profitability.
Another legal . From the 10Q - On March 17, 2015, Michael Ruth filed a shareholder derivative suit in Nevada District Court alleging breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement (the “Ruth Complaint”). The claims were premised on the same events that were the subject of a purported class action filed in the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2014 (the “Sallustro Case”). On July 2, 2019, the court in the Sallustro Case entered a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Company did not make any settlement payment, and at no time was there a finding of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its directors. Regarding the Ruth Complaint, the parties previously agreed to stay the action pending the conclusion of discovery in the Sallustro Case. Once the Sallustro Case was dismissed, the stay was lifted. Plaintiff’s counsel later informed the Court that Mr. Ruth sold his shares of CVSI stock and thus he no longer had standing to pursue this claim. However, the Court allowed plaintiff’s counsel to substitute CVSI shareholder Otilda Lamont as the named plaintiff. On September 20, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Ruth Complaint and the court issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss on November 24, 2020. A Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 11, 2020 substituting Otilda Lamont as plaintiff. The Company filed an answer to the Ruth complaint on January 11, 2021. The parties agreed to a settlement in principle in January 2022 whereby the Company agreed to make certain corporate governance reforms in exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement on June 1, 2022. The court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on February 7, 2023. A hearing seeking final approval of the proposed settlement was held on May 15, 2023, and the court indicated it would likely approve the proposed settlement and reschedule the hearing with regard to plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. On June 23, 2023, the Company received notice of a court order dated May 23, 2023 without any hearing, granting plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses of approximately $250,000, which the Company accrued as of September 30, 2023. On July 19, 2023, the Company requested to vacate the court order from May 23, 2023 and set a hearing date. If the court grants final approval, the Company will have 60 days to implement the corporate governance reforms.
On going legal issue. From the 10Q - On November 5, 2021, Mona Jr. filed a complaint against the Company in Nevada state court seeking to recover federal and state taxes from the Company associated with the RSU release in 2019 - refer also to Note 11. Related Parties, for further information. On December 22, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 12, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss the case. On November 3, 2022, the court ordered the case into arbitration. On December 6, 2022, Mona Jr. filed a demand for arbitration against the Company and its officers with the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). On January 31, 2023, the Company and management filed a case in the San Diego Superior Court for declaratory relief, seeking to enjoin the arbitration on the grounds that Mona Jr. is barred from proceeding with the arbitration under the doctrines of res judicata and judicial estoppel based on the position that Mona Jr. took against the Company in a prior arbitration. On February 2, 2023, the AAA stayed the arbitration for 60 days. On February 14, 2023, the Company filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Mona Jr. from proceeding with the arbitration. The preliminary injunction motion was scheduled for hearing on October 20, 2023. On March 20, 2023, the Company sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin Mona Jr. from proceeding with the arbitration, which the court denied. After the denial of the temporary restraining order, the Company withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction. On April 5, 2023, the AAA informed the parties that the stay issued on February 2, 2023 had been lifted. On April 28, 2023, the AAA appointed an arbitrator for the matter. On June 6, 2023, the Company's officers filed a motion to dismiss the claims in the arbitration against them, arguing that they are not party to an agreement with Mona Jr. to arbitrate. On July 6, 2023, the Arbitrator issued an order scheduling the hearing on the merits for April 8 through April 12, 2024. On September 12, 2023, the Arbitrator granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Company's officers. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
Generous if not lavish. From the 10Q- On June 1, 2023, the Company’s shareholders approved the adoption of a new 2023 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2023 Plan”), and the Company adopted the 2023 Plan. The 2023 Plan has a term of 10 years. The number of shares of the Company’s common stock authorized for issuance under the 2023 Plan is initially 34,976,000 shares, which number shall automatically increase on January 1 of each fiscal year (for a period of ten years after adoption of the 2023 Plan) during the term of the 2023 Plan, commencing on January 1, 2024, by the lesser of (a) 4% of the total shares of the Company's common stock outstanding on December 31st of the prior year, and (b) a lesser number of the Company's common stock as determined by the Company's Board of Directors. As of September 30, 2023, the Company had 34,976,000 authorized but unissued shares reserved for issuance under the 2023 Plan.
What I can only call a company warning. From the 10q - The Company's financial operating results and accumulated deficit, amongst other factors, raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The Company will continue to pursue the actions outlined above, as well as work towards increasing revenue and operating cash flows to meet its future liquidity requirements. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in any capital-raising efforts that it may undertake, and the failure of the Company to raise additional capital could adversely affect its future operations and viability.
Concerning . From the 10Q - Liquidity Considerations - U.S. GAAP requires management to assess a company's ability to continue as a going concern for a period of one year from the financial statement issuance date and to provide related note disclosure in certain circumstances. The accompanying financial statements and notes have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company generated cash flows from operations of $2.4 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2023, which included the collection of approximately $2.5 million of government tax credits,. However, for the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company generated negative cash flows from operations of $1.9 million and had an accumulated deficit of $83.7 million as of September 30, 2023. Management anticipates that the Company will be dependent, for the near future, on additional investment capital to fund operations, growth initiatives and to continue to make and implement strategic cost reductions, including reductions in employee headcount, vendor spending, and delaying expenses related to its drug development activities. The Company intends to position itself so that it will be able to raise additional funds through the capital markets, issuance of debt, and/or securing lines of credit.
While I wait for the 10Q, we do have the 8q filed today. I see total assets dropped 3 million dollars, didn’t need it I guess. Accumulated deficit is now at $83 million.
Product sales, net was 4.089 million for the last 3 mo.
Cost of goods sold 2.246 million
Gross profit 1.843 million.
But then we have SG&A 2.280 which gives us that loss of .437 million.
Oh well, better luck next qt. Say didn’t somebody say we were going to be 5.00 million this quarter?
Clearly not ready for prime time. Wonder what the tax loss selling is going to be like this year.
So, they still lost money. Bottom line is more losses. I’ll wait for the 10Q on what they didn’t put in the press release. What they did is below.
We generated an operating loss of $0.4 million in the third quarter of 2023.
The Company had negative adjusted EBITDA for the third quarter of 2023 of $0.4 million
Went thru the 10Q. There is a lot going on. But I’m going this way here. If you happen to be a day trader or short-term trader you can pass on going over it. If you are a long-term holder, you absolutely need to go over it. I’m not the one who’s going to rain on the parade or get into any debates. Just read it.
Yup, that would be a momentum breaker, it would be a big slow down.
It's going to have a effect alright, but it should also be viewed with a tax off set. We'll have to see how it plays.
LOL. No chance, you are correct.
I believe you will be correct on that.
FYI- We discussed this before here, and yes, of course it will.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/congressional-researchers-warn-that-high-federal-marijuana-taxes-could-inhibit-industrys-economic-potential/
I’ll wait for the 10q on the qt before I comment on the earnings pr.
I’ll take a hard look at the 10Q, but the short version is revenue is down and SG&A is up. Not a good combo.
Stirring the pot again I see. Maybe we should see what happens first before you take a victory lap.
Way to go wolfy, I post that the failure with this company has been poor sales, falling sales at that. Can’t support themselves on what they sell. And what do you do, you post the people that are accountable and responsible for just that.
Way to go wolfy. That will show them!
CVSI’s problem is a simple one. They are unable to sell enough of their product to support themselves. If sales were flourishing, they would have no need for dilution, loans, government handouts. No, this is a case of a failed business plan to create sales. You can plug in any reason you want for falling sales year after year, it doesn’t matter the reason, only the end result.
Yes, the 5-year trend was posted. Doesn’t matter, 4,3,2 doesn’t matter. The buy and hold thought process would have almost everybody at a loss.
You mentioned depressed stock, yep, but what you did not mention is why. I’ll help you here, it’s lack of selling their product, less and less qt after qt does not make a good investment.
In a handful of days, they will have the latest qt numbers. No reason to guess, just wait. However, I did see you mentioned awesome number coming. We will now see what awesome to you means. You must be expecting big sale numbers coming. I’m thinking not, we’ll see.
As far as what I’m holding, you have no clue but you can assume since your wrong most of the time that you’re guessing once again is in error.
BTW a 5 year down trend is never a good thing. Holding on hope is not a good investment plan either. IMO
Yes, it certainly was from JD. No challenge on that nor did I make any. You seem confused, pity, perhaps the strain of trying so hard to back this losing stock has taken its toll.
No wolfy, you posted the subject matter of how great Mona was for the company.
From your post ““The company has grown substantially and has flourished under Mr. Mona’s leadership. His presence at the company as well as his work with our suppliers and vendors”
I just added that the 5-year ban is now up and he now can come back. Will he, who knows, frankly I don’t care, but if he was that great and all, what do they have to lose. Currently DEAD IN THE WATER.
Well there you go. Mona can now come back . "a prohibition from serving as an officer or director of a publicly held company for five (5) years, and (b) payment of a penalty in the amount of $50,000"
However if he doesn't want to come back, I would guess then this thing is toast.
LOL. Facts are facts, the picture is for all to see, no amount of BS can change that. Embrace the failure that is.
It’s too bad that the facts get in the way of the constant BS here, but it is what it is!
You are correct. Thomas, aka no clue, and the furry one just try and stir the pot because the company has nothing going for it. DEAD IN THE WATER. I'll post the same on I hub.
LOL. You once again missed the whole point of the post. Think no interest in this one, DEAD STOCK, you can defend and deflect but you can’t change the facts.
2 hr’s in . Already 7 trades today for $104.
Should be roughly 2 weeks till earnings release. Think standard losses and excuses as to why. IMO. Man, what a terrible company!
FYI-Verano Opens MUV(TM) Satellite Beach, Elevating the Company's Retail Footprint to 72 Florida Dispensaries and 135 Locations Nationwide
6:00 am ET October 27, 2023 (Globe Newswire) Print
GlobeNewswireOctober 27, 2023
Located at 106 Florida Highway A1A, MUV Satellite Beach bolsters the Company's retail presence in Brevard County, an area with more than 606,000 residents1
MUV Satellite Beach joins nearby MUV dispensaries in Titusville, Merritt Island and West Melbourne
Verano's active operations span 13 states, comprised of 135 dispensaries and 14 cultivation and processing facilities with more than 1 million square feet of cultivation capacity
CHICAGO, Oct. 27, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Verano Holdings Corp. (NEO: VRNO) (OTCQX: VRNOF) ("Verano" or the "Company"), a leading multi-state cannabis company, today announced the opening of MUV Satellite Beach on Friday, October 27, the Company's 72nd Florida dispensary and 135th location nationwide. MUV Satellite Beach, located on 106 Florida Highway A1A, will be open Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time.
Situated in Brevard County which counts more than 606,000 residents1, MUV Satellite Beach strengthens Verano's presence along the Atlantic Coast, complementing existing MUV dispensaries in Titusville, Merritt Island and West Melbourne.
"As we further expand our retail footprint across Florida, we're thrilled to open a new MUV dispensary in beautiful Satellite Beach, where we'll offer patients our extensive variety of high quality cannabis products," said Joel Noonan, EVP of the Southern Region. "Like the rest of Florida, Satellite Beach continues to experience population growth over the last decade, and we're excited for MUV to join this thriving community where our talented and compassionate team will proudly serve area patients for years to come."
MUV dispensaries feature online menus for effortless browsing of Verano's extensive, award-winning product selection spanning an array of categories, including Verano Reserve(TM), MUV and Sweet Supply(TM) flower; Encore(TM) edibles; On the Rocks(TM) concentrates and extracts; and Savvy(TM) flower and extracts. MUV also offers one-on-one virtual and in-store consultations at no cost to patients and provides patient-centric concierge services via phone, email, web chat and text to address patient questions and inquiries.
For additional convenience and accessibility, patients can visit muvfl.com or the MUV mobile application - available in the Google Play and Apple App stores - for additional information and to place orders for express in-store pickup.
Product images, logos and b-roll footage are available on the Company Newsroom.
About Verano
Verano Holdings Corp. (NEO: VRNO) (OTCQX: VRNOF), one of the U.S. cannabis industry's leading companies based on historical revenue, geographic scope and brand performance, is a vertically integrated, multi-state operator embracing a mission of saying Yes to plant progress and the bold exploration of cannabis. Verano offers a superior cannabis shopping experience in medical and adult use markets under the Zen Leaf(TM) and MUV(TM) dispensary banners and produces a comprehensive suite of high-quality, regulated cannabis products sold under its diverse portfolio of trusted consumer brands including Verano(TM), MUV(TM), Savvy(TM), BITS(TM), Encore(TM), and Avexia(TM). Verano's active operations span 13 U.S. states, comprised of 14 production facilities with over 1,000,000 square feet of cultivation capacity. Learn more at www.verano.com.
FYI- According to Green Market Report, Las Vegas marijuana shop employees voted in favor of unionizing under the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). This particular Ayr Wellness Inc (OTCQX:AYRWF) shop, operating under the name The Dispensary, becomes the second of its kind under the Ayr brand to join the UFCW.
Ayr employee Alberto Villalobos said, "We look forward to negotiating a strong union contract that fairly rewards our labor and respects the contributions we make every day toward making the shop successful."
Both the UFCW and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have been actively engaging with cannabis industry workers across the U.S. Their approach in negotiations with big multistate operators has been notably assertive.
Recent Unionization Efforts
This news follows several other successful unionizing efforts undertaken across the country over the past months in facilities such as Cannabist Company Holdings Inc (OTCQX:CBSTF) in New Jersey, Cresco Labs Stock (OTC:CRLBF) in Illinois, Grassdoor in California, Verano Holdings Corp (OTCQX:VRNOF) in Chicago.
FYI- Lawsuit Seeks Equal Treatment for Cannabis Businesses
1:48 pm ET October 26, 2023 (PR Newswire) Print
Federal criminalization of safe, regulated intrastate cannabis legal in 38 states is unconstitutional—and unfair to small businesses
Cannabis businesses are unconstitutionally prevented from getting small business loans, investments; unable to have normal banking relations; and subject to discriminatory taxes
A coalition of U.S. cannabis operators and investors working in state-legal medical and adult-use cannabis markets today filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney GeneralMerrick Garland. The coalition, represented by the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, seeks to enjoin the federal government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in a manner that interferes with the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of cannabis, pursuant to state law. The lawsuit asserts that the federal government has no basis for enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against intrastate, state-regulated cannabis operations.
Boies Schiller Flexner and Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, and will represent plaintiffs Gyasi Sellers (CEO and Founder of Treevit), Canna Provisions, and Wiseacre Farm, all of which are local independent operators in Massachusetts who have suffered significant harm and business challenges due to federal prohibition. Verano Holdings (OTCQX: VRNOF) is also named as a plaintiff, while foundational supporters of the suit include Ascend Wellness Holdings (OTCQX: AAWH), TerrAscend (TSX: TSND) and Green Thumb Industries (OTCQX: GTBIF), as well as Eminence Capital and Poseidon Investment Management.
The lawsuit seeks to confirm the rights of Massachusetts and other states to regulate cannabis within their borders, and to confirm the corresponding limits on the federal government's power to regulate commerce. The federal government's power to regulate commerce is based on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The law at issue in this suit, the Controlled Substances Act, exceeds that limited authority: it bars the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana, regardless of whether those activities cross state lines or, as in the case of Plaintiffs' cannabis businesses, are intrastate. This unjustified and unconstitutional prohibition on intrastate cannabis harms Plaintiffs and hinders the efforts of states to provide patients and adults with access to strictly-regulated and tested cannabis.
In 2005, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Controlled Substance Act's cannabis prohibitions, but the facts today compel a different result. A critical factor in that decision, Gonzales v. Raich, was that the federal government intended to "eradicate" the market for cannabis nationwide. The Court concluded that the federal goal of eliminating commerce in cannabis, combined with the assumption in 2005 that intrastate marijuana could not be differentiated from interstate cannabis, justified the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on intrastate cannabis. Neither of those facts, however, are true today. In the eighteen years since Gonzales, Congress and the Executive Branch have abandoned any intent to "eradicate" cannabis, and numerous states have developed regulatory programs for legal marijuana that is not fungible with, and is readily distinguished from, illicit cannabis.
Today, 38 states including Washington D.C. have medical or adult-use cannabis programs with significant regulatory oversight. They require compliance with a multitude of stringent regulations aimed to protect patients, customers, and the public at large, including video surveillance and seed-to-sale tracking. The cannabis that is cultivated, processed, and distributed under these regulations is not fungible with, and is readily distinguishable from, illicit interstate cannabis. The regulated cannabis products in these states can be traced back all the way to the original batch of seeds from which they grew.
These changed facts compel a different result than was reached eighteen years ago in Gonzales. Absent the relief sought in this lawsuit, Plaintiffs and other state-regulated cannabis operators will continue to suffer severe harms. State-regulated cannabis businesses are deemed illegal under the CSA; their everyday activities are considered federal crimes. As a result, they are cut off from numerous federal programs and protections (including small business loans), they are subject to discriminatory tax penalties, and many organizations—including banks and credit card processors—refuse to do business with them, rather than risk being deemed conspirators, aiders and abettors, or money launderers.
The result is that many cannabis businesses are suffering, people are losing their jobs and individual wealth is being destroyed. In addition, social equity licensees harmed by the War on Drugs and who were supposed to have equal access to the industry do not have the same benefits as otherwise situated business owners to start a business and build their wealth.
"The federal criminalization of safe, regulated marijuana commerce in states where it is legal unfairly burdens legal operations and expands the production and sale of illegal marijuana that is unregulated, can be unsafe, and is likely to find its way to other states," said David Boies, Chairman, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. "Federal criminalization also denies small, legal marijuana businesses of access to SBA loans, investors, benefits for their employees, and normal banking regulations (which among other things, forces them to rely on cash transactions with all of the dangers to them, and to the community, that result) - as well as burdening them with discriminatory taxes," said Mr. Boies. "Americans believe that cannabis should be legal and available subject to reasonable regulation by the states. 38 states have legalized some form of cannabis. The federal government lacks authority to prohibit intrastate cannabis commerce. Outdated precedents from decades ago no longer apply - the Supreme Court has since made clear that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate purely intrastate commerce; moreover, the facts on which those precedents are based are no longer true," said Mr. Boies.
"While reforms such as the SAFER Banking Act and rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act would improve certain aspects of this broken and antiquated system, they will not solve the fundamental issue. The application of the CSA to lawful state-run cannabis business is an unconstitutional overreach on state sovereignty that has led to decades of harm, failed businesses, lost jobs, and unsafe working conditions," said Darren Weiss, President of Verano. "We are prepared to bring this case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to align federal law with how Congress has acted for years. We believe that the Supreme Court will adhere to the core value on which our country was founded and which is central to guaranteeing freedom: that the federal government's powers are limited."
"We want to be treated equally, on an even playing field with any other small business in Massachusetts," said Meg Sanders, CEO and co-founder of Canna Provisions, an award-winning independent craft cultivation, with two retail dispensaries in Western Massachusetts.
Plaintiffs are represented by David Boies, Jonathan D. Schiller, Matthew L. Schwartz, Joshua I. Schiller, and David Barillari of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Thomas Lesser and Michael Aleo of Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP.
FYI- Cannabis companies hire Microsoft antitrust lawyer David Boies to sue U.S. government for federal pot prohibition
11:40 am ET October 27, 2023 (MarketWatch)
Print
By Steve Gelsi
A group of cannabis companies said late Thursday they hired law firm Boies Schiller Flexnor to file suit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in U.S. federal court in Massachusetts in an attempt to overturn federal prohibition of cannabis because it restricts state-legal commerce.
The group listed as plaintiffs in the federal suit include Verano Holdings Corp. (VRNOF), Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and Gyasi Sellers, who is the chief executive of Treevit.
Foundational supporters of the suit include Ascend Wellness Holdings (AAWH), TerrAscend Corp.. (TSNDF), Green Thumb Industries Inc. (GTBIF), Eminence Capital and Poseidon Investment Management.
"Federal criminalization of safe, regulated, intrastate cannabis legal in 38 states is unconstitutional and unfair to small business," according to a statement from the group.
The plaintiffs also said cannabis businesses are "unconstitutionally prevented" from obtaining loans and investments, which makes them unable to maintain normal banking relations. They're also subject to discriminatory taxes.
Boies Schiller Flexnor was the firm that won an antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) on behalf of the U.S. government. The firm also overturned California's same-sex marriage ban.
Jefferies analyst Owen Bennett said he'd take no view on the success of the suit, but added that the legal cannabis landscape is much different than it was when a similar case failed in 2005. At that time, far fewer states allowed medical cannabis and no states permitted adult use of cannabis.
"Circumstances have now materially changed, as even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in 2021, argued national prohibition may be unconstitutional," Bennett said.
The suit argues that many cannabis businesses are suffering, people are losing their jobs and individual wealth is being destroyed.
Verano President Darren Weiss said the group is prepared to bring the case to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit marks a third branch of the federal government considering cannabis reforms: Congress, the White House and now the federal courts.
The SAFE(R) Banking legislation to open up the financial system to legal cannabis companies has been winding its way through Congress for a decade, although its fate remains uncertain in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, is considering a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services to re-schedule cannabis to Schedule III from Schedule I. Attorney General Merrick Garland is also working on an update of the Cole memo which instructs federal prosecutors to avoid going after legal cannabis companies.
The AdvisorShares Pure U.S. Cannabis ETF (MSOS) fell 0.6% on Friday. The index is down by 30.8% in 2023 compared to a 21.5% increase by the Nasdaq .
Well, I think you need to help me here. I thought I had this right. What I thought is you talking about this is “The Florida Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for next month in a case on whether voters will be able to decide on a marijuana legalization initiative on the 2024 ballot. The state attorney general is pushing to block the vote”. This the one that will have it’s court date on Nov 8.
CASE NUMBER SC2023-0682
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
Summary of Argument
The people of Florida retain ultimate political power. They can
amend the Florida Constitution directly through the ballot initiative
process. Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. While the Florida Supreme Court,
legislature, and state officials can ensure ballot integrity, they cannot
interfere with the will of the people.
Yet, the Florida Supreme Court sometimes prevents ballot
measures from reaching voters. The Court has struck down citizen
initiatives on grounds not based in the text of the Constitution. It has
invited inappropriate judicial review on the merits of initiatives.
Finally, it has decided cases based on certain objections while
ignoring others. This all comes at great cost to citizens.
The Court must return to constitutional grounds of review
under Article XI, Section 3 and Article XI, Section 5(e) of the Florida
Constitution (as codified by § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat.). It must provide
clear rules to enable citizens to draft valid amendments. Finally, it
must identify every defect in a ballot measure to give citizens an
opportunity to redraft it.
Hello Cabos. Regarding: Jim, you think the immediate future of our investment is in the hands of a Florida Supreme Court that so far, hasn’t given a rats ass on what Floridian’s want .
There are many issues at hand concerning FL and MJ. I believe your talking about Smart & Safe Florida, you have Ron DeSantis and Ashley Moody pushing one way { which is a real problem} and the Supreme Court which will be listening to arguments on Nov 8.
https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/85dca015-d108-4595-8cdb-d4488890aa88
So, yes in an answer to your question. There will be impact to what they decide. It’s a We the people vs the politicians and their personal views. Need better lobbyists in FL IMO.
Just a reminder here, but a reschedule from 1 to 3 would be helpful it would not change the law. It would still be illegal FED wise.
Should be noted that the HHS has given this matter to the FDA. Both the FDA and DEA are doing their study of this now.
Stages in rescheduling proceedings
Filing of Petition with DEA
Acceptance of Petition by DEA
Initial Review by DEA
Referral to HHS
Scientific and Medical Evaluation by HHS
HHS Report to DEA
Evaluation of Additional Information by DEA
Publication of DEA Decision
(Judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals)
(Public Hearing on Disputed Matters of Fact)