Lp,s are doomed!
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.
Can you trust cannabis experts?
A lot depends on who these “experts” are. A cannabis farmer with decades of experience? A budtender with extensive knowledge of cannabis goods?
Those people are experts.
What about doctors and other healthcare workers? Many presume them to be experts in all fields related to medicine and nutrition.
But is this extending their expertise too far? For example, during the covid hysteria of 2020-21, many healthcare professionals advocated for lockdowns and domestic passports.
This was “science,” and opposition to it was misinformation. But covid restrictions were normative statements, not indisputable facts.
Of course, the is/ought distinction has been lost on a generation of scientists who see no value in philosophy.
So with this in mind, it’s crucial to differentiate between real cannabis experts and the pseudo-experts of “public health.”
I only bring it up because of a recent paper published in Public Health Nutrition.
Regarding the “experts” who decide US Government Dietary Guidelines, they found “95% of the committee members had Conflicts Of Interest with the food, and/or pharmaceutical industries.”
CAN YOU TRUST CANNABIS EXPERTS?
Can You Trust Cannabis Experts?
Generally, you can trust your local cannabis experts, whether budtenders, growers, or extractors. Even when “illegal” or “unregulated,” these people consume the product they’re producing. They have zero incentives to harm themselves or others.
But what about so-called public health experts on boards and member committees? In the study referenced above, 95% of these so-called experts had financial ties to lobbying groups and large corporations.
Companies like Abbott, Cargill, Dannon, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft, Mead Johnson, McDonald’s, Nestle, Pepsi, and Syngenta.
The people dictating the optimal American diet are in bed with corporations selling ultra-processed junk food and pesticides. Is it any wonder that American obesity rates have tripled over the last sixty years?
Likewise, 75% of the Food & Drug Administration’s funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Should we be surprised that reefer madness is making a comeback? A non-toxic flower Pharma cannot patent does not bode well for their profiteering scams.
Consider what Robert F. Kennedy Jr told Joe Rogan,
I realized during these conversations [with vaccine regulators] that none of these people had read any of the science; they just repeated things that they had been told about the science. And they kept saying to me, ‘Well, I can’t answer that detailed question. You need to talk to Paul Offit.’ Well, Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made a $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine. It was odd to me that government regulators were saying, ‘You should talk to someone in the industry.’ It’s like, you know, I used to talk to EPA people all the time. Asking them, what does this provision mean in the permit? Why did you put it in there? And if they said to me, ‘I don’t know, why don’t you go talk to the coal industry, or this lobbyist for the coal industry, and he will tell you what we’re doing,’ I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indigent. It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me go talk to somebody who’s an industry insider because we don’t understand the science.
CUI BONO?
Can You Trust Cannabis Experts
Can you trust cannabis experts? Some yes, others not at all. The corporate press will claim certain facts are “misinformation” without explanation.
But it’s up to you to determine what is accurate. And you can only do this when presented with all the available information, whether factual or not.
But we’re in a world where “doing your own research” has negative connotations. Which is telling. It’s similar to the Bill Hicks joke. “What are you reading for?” Not what are you reading, but what are you reading for?
Don’t you know the experts have already established the correct opinions?
Never mind that the “experts” crafting the government’s diet and medicine guidelines have clear conflicts of interest. These people are not, nor will ever be, cannabis experts.
It’s little wonder RFK Jr. is condemned as an “anti-vaxxer,” that saturated fat is associated with heart disease, or that cannabis “causes” psychosis and schizophrenia.
Who benefits from your trust? Are they worthy of it? Is it in your best interests to listen to them? Or should you do your own research?
FOOTNOTE(S)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35311630/
2. Canada's failed cannabis clemency system means thousands of people are barred from employment in *some* aspects of the "legal" industry, which require background checks.
Some of those who suffered the most under prohibition can't even get a job in the newly legal industry. ??
Doomed.
1. Clemency is inseparable to ending cannabis prohibition. Arguing otherwise would be absurd.
Data shows that communities of color disproportionately suffered under criminalization. They lose if this isn't fixed.
This federal failure needs independent scrutiny.
Doomed.
Matt Lamers ??
@matt_lamers
·
21 min
En réponse à
@matt_lamers
et
@MJBizDaily
Background: Only 148 cannabis-related pardons were granted in Canada last year—one of the biggest failures of cannabis legalziation in ????.
One would think that area of federal responsibility would be part of the independent review.
It's not though.
Matt Lamers ??
@matt_lamers
·
21 min
En réponse à
@matt_lamers
et
@MJBizDaily
Background: Only 148 cannabis-related pardons were granted in Canada last year—one of the biggest failures of cannabis legalziation in ????.
One would think that area of federal responsibility would be part of the independent review.
It's not though.
Matt Lamers ??
@matt_lamers
·
51 min
EXCLUSIVE: Documents obtained by
@MJBizDaily
via #ATIP raise questions about the panel reviewing Canada's cannabis legislation, including its scope, alleged independence from Health Canada, and why it started nearly a year late
#cannabisindustry #cdnpoli
mjbizdaily.com
Internal documents raise questions about Canada's Cannabis Act review
Matt Lamers ??
@matt_lamers
·
18h
En réponse à
@matt_lamers
The math:
In the 2021-22 FY, cannabis authority sales (i.e. LP revenue from prov. wholesalers)=$3.1 billion
Of that, net income of government wholesalers + total taxes + other gov. revenue = $1.56 billion
Thus, the gov't gouge of the cannabis industry amounts to ~50% of sales
Doomed.
Hard working canna naive Bureaucrats…
Internal documents raise questions about Canada’s Cannabis Act review
Matt Lamers
June 29, 2023
Hundreds of emails, documents and reports obtained through a Canadian federal records request paint a more complete picture of the Cannabis Act review currently underway – a reexamination that could have far-reaching implications for operators in the country’s 5.6 billion Canadian dollar ($4.3 billion) legal marijuana industry.
The 1,700-page package of documents reveals fresh details about the government-appointed expert panel undertaking the review, in particular the group’s tardiness in launching, the scope of the topics covered – as well as what’s not covered – and the panel’s level of independence from federal officials.
Canada’s landmark 2018 Cannabis Act legalizing recreational marijuana requires the federal health minister to initiate a review of the adult-use legalization law three years after its passage and implementation, meaning the review ought to have kicked off in late 2021.
But the review was ultimately launched nearly a year later, on Sept. 22, 2022 – with only one identified member, the chair, Morris Rosenberg, a former deputy minister under two federal governments.
The trove of documents indicates the government’s cannabis review was “broadened” at the behest of a minister’s office in the immediate days after the panel was launched, though the documents don’t reveal whether it was health ministers Jean-Yves Duclos and/or Carolyn Bennett who made the request.
Other insights from documents obtained by Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request include:
An internal draft of the Terms of Reference – essentially the review’s scope and limitations – contains significantly more detail than the scope and limitations that have been issued publicly.
Other federal departments and agencies may undertake parallel, separate reviews beyond the one stipulated by the Cannabis Act.
Compensation for the panel’s chair, almost 200,000 Canadian dollars ($146,000), and the expected workload.
Instructions for the panel to create an Indigenous Engagement Plan to foster Indigenous participation in the review as well as a stipulation that the review “be conducted in a manner that advances core principles outlined in UNDRIP” – referring to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a legally nonbinding human rights instrument that details the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, including in Canada.
A requirement for the Cannabis Act Legislative Review Secretariat – the office, housed at Health Canada, responsible for the panel’s administrative affairs – to keep the panel informed of the findings and recommendations by the federal cannabis “strategy table,” which is a separate business-focused body.
During the “second phase” of the panel’s review, it will work with provinces and territories to identify “priority areas” for action that might have implications for their respective jurisdictions under the Cannabis Act.
Cannabis industry officials are particularly interested in the panel’s scope of work and its key areas of focus, which are laid out in the Terms of Reference.
Those specific areas, such as the economic, social and environmental impacts of the Cannabis Act, could lead to reform down the road that has major ramifications for the regulated industry.
In particular, a large number of insolvent cannabis companies have cited the 2018 law’s restrictions in their Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) filings, the latest being the insolvent retailer Fire & Flower Holdings.
Rahim Dhalla, founder of Ottawa-based medical cannabis business Hybrid Pharm, said knowing what the review process will consider is critical to the longevity of many industry operators.
“As a business owner in a highly regulated industry, it is vital for short-term and long-term strategy to know what focal points the review will consider,” Dhalla said.
Dhalla noted Canada’s cannabis industry directly and indirectly sustained approximately 98,000 jobs annually and contributed more than CA$43 billion to the country’s gross domestic product, citing a report from accounting firm Deloitte.
“The review is critical to the success of the industry,” he said. “Consumers, businesses and industry professionals have given feedback expecting critical changes to be made with little to no communication.
“Being late on a critical review process is frankly insulting,” Dhalla added, referring to the panel’s tardy start.
Why so late?
The documents obtained do not explain the nearly yearlong delay to the review’s launch.
However, in a detailed answer to an question about why the review was launched late, a Health Canada spokesperson said the Cannabis Act requires the review start three years after the law comes into force but does not mandate the start date to be on the three-year anniversary.
The spokesperson also said the chair was appointed first “as the vetting process continued for the rest of the panel members.”
“This allowed time for the chair, working with the secretariat, to support the orientation for the expert panel and plan for future engagements, prior to the other panelists commencing in their roles, as the vetting process continued.”
The 1,700-page package details Health Canada’s original plan for a review that was narrower in scope than the one ultimately launched, including pledges to not scrutinize important areas of federal jurisdiction.
For instance, a document dated “Fall 2022” notes that pardons for cannabis convictions – an area of federal jurisdiction – would not be part of the review and instead “would be referred to federal departments” for consideration.
After the Canadian government estimated that more than 10,000 people would be eligible for the pardons, known as record suspensions, fewer than 1,000 have been granted.
Only 148 were ordered in the 2022-23 fiscal year, according to the Parole Board of Canada.
It also appears there were issues tied to the choice of the panel’s final member.
Health Canada’s Andrea Budgell sent a June 17, 2022, email to Rosenberg, who would later become the panel’s official chair, introducing herself as the director leading the Cannabis Act Legislative Review Secretariat.
This appears to be when Rosenberg, previously a deputy minister under Conservative and Liberal governments, was brought into the review’s fold.
The June 2022 email contained a list of the four proposed members. One of the names and biographies of the four panelists is redacted. (Rosenberg, as the chair, is the fifth member.)
Then, in early September, Rosenberg sent a “draft email” to Budgell outlining the government’s intent “to appoint an Indigenous member of the panel.”
The final list of panelists was not published until the end of November 2022, two months after the panel was officially launched.
The panel members themselves lean heavily into academia and do not include any members with cannabis business experience.
The appointed panelists were:
Oyedeji Ayonrinde, a consultant psychiatrist and associate professor in the departments of psychiatry and psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.
Patricia Conrod, clinical psychologist and full professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Addiction at the University of Montreal.
Lynda Levesque, a criminal lawyer and member of the Fisher River Cree Nation in Manitoba, Treaty Five territory.
Peter Selby, head of mental health and addictions in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto.
Levesque is the only panel member not named in the June 2022 email.
Scope, pay and independence
There appears to have been efforts to broaden the Cannabis Act review in the days after it was launched in September 2022.
An email from Budgell on Sept. 27 informed the panel’s chair, Rosenberg, about changes to the scope of the review “asked for” by the ministers’ office.
Budgell wrote the potential changes included broadening the panel’s scope to cover economic, social and environmental issues.
A document titled “Terms of Reference 09-23-22” was contained in the email.
Responding to a request, Health Canada also provided the most up-to-date version of the Terms of Reference.
The document appears to be nearly identical to the draft version contained in the Sept. 27 email.
Both the draft “09-23-22” Terms and the internal Terms shared by Health Canada contain significantly more detail about the panel’s scope than the Terms of Reference spelled out publicly on the health department’s website.
The documents released under the ATIP law also contain a draft employment contract between Rosenberg and the Canadian government.
Since the contract is in draft form, any details could have been revised before it was concluded.
Some details of the draft contract include:
Rosenberg was expected to work 2.5 days, or 18.75 hours a week.
The contract was set to end Feb. 17, 2024.
The chair would be given an office at a federal Health Canada facility.
The contract is valued at CA$199,444.99 ($148,100), inclusive of CA$22,945 in “applicable tax.”
Some “obligations” listed in the draft contract include a requirement to attend “up to 18 in-person meetings with stakeholders outside the National Capital Region” for the duration of the review.
The Canadian government spokesperson said the panel is “independent from Health Canada,” but some details of the draft contract for Rosenberg raise questions about that degree of independence.
For instance, the draft contract says the “project authority” – in this case, an unidentified Health Canada representative – would give Rosenberg “advance approval” for the 18 in-person meetings.
However, Health Canada’s response to questions said the panel “does not seek approval” for any of its meetings.
The agency’s response also indicates the two federal ministers, Duclos and Bennett – not the panel’s independent chair, Rosenberg – selected the panelists to review the cannabis law.
“The ministers have carefully selected individuals deemed best fit to represent Canada’s diversity, with significant public sector experience, expertise in public health and justice, and experience engaging with Indigenous communities and organizations,” Health Canada said.
Rosenberg is also required to provide status updates to the two ministers throughout the process, per the internal Terms of Reference.
The internal Terms also stipulate that the panel is required to complete an interim report “close to the midway point” for delivery to the two ministers.
The midway point for the review was in May.
Asked if Health Canada would release the interim report to the public, the spokesperson said the agency would commit only to releasing a “what we heard” report later this year – which is a separate report.
The same internal Terms of Reference document said Rosenberg would be employed via a “sole source contract” – a contract issued without a competitive bidding process – as a result of the “additional responsibilities” he would have as the panel’s chair.
There appears to be no explanation in the other emails about why the position of panel chair was not open to other candidates.
Rosenberg doesn’t appear to have been available to participate in the Cannabis Act review until midway through 2022.
The former senior public servant had been commissioned by the federal government to prepare a report on threats to Canada’s September 2021 election.
That report was wasn’t published until February 2023.
Other than Rosenberg, Health Canada said the panel members were conducting their review “on a voluntary basis.”
However, according to the internal Terms, the panel members will earn “a nominal monetary payment in recognition of their contribution” after the interim and final reports, in addition to being reimbursed for expenses incurred when traveling.
More detail
The Terms of Reference that has been issued publicly on the health department’s website state that the scope of the panel’s legislative review would focus on:
Protecting young people.
Safeguarding public health.
Protecting public safety.
Deterring criminal activity and displacing the illicit market.
Access to cannabis for medical purposes.
Impacts on Indigenous Peoples and communities.
The scope of the review was subsequently broadened to also cover:
Economic, social and environmental impacts of the Act.
Progress toward providing adults with access to regulated “lower risk” legal cannabis.
The impact of legalization on access to medical cannabis.
Impacts on people who might face barriers to participating in the legal industry.
The internal version of the Terms of Reference acquired contains much more detail, including dozens of specific questions the panel is supposed to examine in each of those areas.
Potentially noteworthy are the panel’s queries pertaining to economics and business.
The section on “deterring criminal activity and displacing the illicit market” notes that Canada sought to dismantle the illicit market, deter cannabis-related criminal activity and reduce the burden on the criminal justice system.
That section directs the panel to assess progress toward achieving those goals.
Some industry-related areas the panel was asked to examine in the internal Terms in this section were:
Is the geographic distribution of retail outlets in communities across the country adequate to provide adults of legal age with access to a legal supply of cannabis, and helping to displace the illicit market?
How has legalization, regulation and the launch of a legal cannabis industry affected illegal activities such as trafficking, the transport of cannabis across the border into the United States and the illicit production and supply of cannabis in Canada?
How has consumers’ sourcing of cannabis from the illicit market changed since legalization?
Two topics for examination were couched under “public safety”:
What progress has been made toward establishing “a diverse, competitive legal cannabis industry” in Canada that serves the principal purposes of the Cannabis Act since the legalization and regulation of cannabis?
To what extent do the law and regulations provide “an appropriate level of regulatory oversight” to advance public-health and -safety objectives?
One area of focus under “protecting young persons” could apply to businesses:
To what extent are the cannabis law and regulations, including restrictions to access and advertising, effective in protecting the health of young people?
Some questions open the door to revising the law from an “equity” standpoint.
For instance, the internal version of the panel’s scope of work calls on members to analyze how segments of the population might face barriers to benefitting from the law, “including barriers to participation in the legal industry,” based on identity or socioeconomic factors, the document says.
Some Indigenous leaders say they were excluded from the Cannabis Act and relevant provincial laws – and thus broadly from the regulated industry.
Less than 1% of all federal cannabis licensees were located in an Indigenous community and less than 1% of the marijuana retailers approved in accordance with federal and provincial laws were situated in Indigenous communities.
The panel’s scope will also touch on the country’s CA$407 million medical cannabis industry.
Some of the questions the panel was instructed to examine include:
To what extent have there been changes in reasonable access to medical cannabis, including affordability, availability, variety of products and the number of “access points” since adult-use legalization?
How has the legalization of cannabis influenced the medical-access framework, including the personal and designated production aspect?
Are the current methods of access and products available meeting the needs of patients?
Parallel reviews
The internal guidelines acknowledge that over the course of the panel’s mandate, other federal bodies may undertake their own parallel reviews or evaluations of Canada’s cannabis policies – in addition to Health Canada’s “independent” review.
The Health Canada secretariat has been tasked with keeping the panel informed of those reviews to minimize duplication, according to the latest version of the internal Terms of Reference.
An earlier version of the internal Terms of Reference asked the panelists to “refrain from providing advice” on cannabis policy that falls outside the scope of the official review.
However, that sentence was removed in the most recent version.
Now the sentence says that “the panel may offer observations” on matters outside the scope of their review.
That’s important, because it opens the door for substantive recommendations that could be good, or bad, for cannabis businesses.
So far, Competition Bureau Canada, the agency that protects and promotes competition in the country, has rolled out recommendations to strengthen competition in Canada’s legal cannabis industry.
“Our report explores the competitive dynamics of Canada’s cannabis industry, investigates potential barriers to competition, innovation and choice, and makes recommendations to enhance competition and support a more competitive legal industry”.
‘Strategy table’ too late?
In April 2022, Canada unveiled a plan to launch a strategy table to provide a forum for government officials and executives to discuss how to bolster the legal cannabis industry.
That was at a time when many business were struggling financially – and still are – including a large number of cannabis companies seeking cover under Canada’s corporate insolvency law.
The secretariat of the legislative review was supposed to “keep the expert panel informed of outcomes” of the cannabis strategy forum.
However, since the strategy table hasn’t yet launched, the group has no outcomes to report to the panel.
That raises the question of whether the strategy forum is already too late to be relevant for the legislative review.
Key deliverables
The internal Terms of Reference contains a detailed “key deliverables” section.
Three of the deliverables outlined are the aforementioned:
Status updates for the ministers.
The “what we heard” report.
The “interim” report.
The panel’s final report is supposed to be delivered to the ministers no later than 18 months after the establishment of the panel.
That would translate to March 2024 – unless the panel is extended.
The panel will operate for 18 months after being confirmed, “at which point the ministers could extend participation of some or all panel members or appoint new members.
Matt Lamers ??
@matt_lamers
2 things can be true:
1) Canada's federal framework, including the fees, taxes & rules imposed, doesn't provide industry with enough oxygen to be sustainable long-term.
2) Some of the largest businesses made critical strategic errors which largely resulted in their
John do not listen to haters…
We all know come back is around the bend!
Medical Cannabis Safety Concerns: Manitoba ReportImage by jcomp on Freepik
CAN YOU TRUST CANNABIS EXPERTS?
Avatar photoCALEB MCMILLAN·JUNE 28, 2023
ALL ABOUT CANNABIS
CANNABIS 101
CANNABIS LEGALIZATION
CANNABIS NEWS
FEATURED
HEALTH
LATEST LEGALIZATION NEWS
LAW
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
MARIJUANA NEWS
POLITICS
POLITICS
THC NEWS
Can you trust cannabis experts?
A lot depends on who these “experts” are. A cannabis farmer with decades of experience? A budtender with extensive knowledge of cannabis goods?
Those people are experts.
What about doctors and other healthcare workers? Many presume them to be experts in all fields related to medicine and nutrition.
But is this extending their expertise too far? For example, during the covid hysteria of 2020-21, many healthcare professionals advocated for lockdowns and domestic passports.
This was “science,” and opposition to it was misinformation. But covid restrictions were normative statements, not indisputable facts.
Of course, the is/ought distinction has been lost on a generation of scientists who see no value in philosophy.
So with this in mind, it’s crucial to differentiate between real cannabis experts and the pseudo-experts of “public health.”
I only bring it up because of a recent paper published in Public Health Nutrition.
Regarding the “experts” who decide US Government Dietary Guidelines, they found “95% of the committee members had Conflicts Of Interest with the food, and/or pharmaceutical industries.”
CAN YOU TRUST CANNABIS EXPERTS?
cannabis experts
Generally, you can trust your local cannabis experts, whether budtenders, growers, or extractors. Even when “illegal” or “unregulated,” these people consume the product they’re producing. They have zero incentives to harm themselves or others.
But what about so-called public health experts on boards and member committees? In the study referenced above, 95% of these so-called experts had financial ties to lobbying groups and large corporations.
Companies like Abbott, Cargill, Dannon, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft, Mead Johnson, McDonald’s, Nestle, Pepsi, and Syngenta.
The people dictating the optimal American diet are in bed with corporations selling ultra-processed junk food and pesticides. Is it any wonder that American obesity rates have tripled over the last sixty years?
Likewise, 75% of the Food & Drug Administration’s funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Should we be surprised that reefer madness is making a comeback? A non-toxic flower Pharma cannot patent does not bode well for their profiteering scams.
Consider what Robert F. Kennedy Jr told Joe Rogan,
I realized during these conversations [with vaccine regulators] that none of these people had read any of the science; they just repeated things that they had been told about the science. And they kept saying to me, ‘Well, I can’t answer that detailed question. You need to talk to Paul Offit.’ Well, Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made a $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine. It was odd to me that government regulators were saying, ‘You should talk to someone in the industry.’ It’s like, you know, I used to talk to EPA people all the time. Asking them, what does this provision mean in the permit? Why did you put it in there? And if they said to me, ‘I don’t know, why don’t you go talk to the coal industry, or this lobbyist for the coal industry, and he will tell you what we’re doing,’ I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indigent. It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me go talk to somebody who’s an industry insider because we don’t understand the science.
CUI BONO?
cannabis experts
Can you trust cannabis experts? Some yes, others not at all. The corporate press will claim certain facts are “misinformation” without explanation.
But it’s up to you to determine what is accurate. And you can only do this when presented with all the available information, whether factual or not.
But we’re in a world where “doing your own research” has negative connotations. Which is telling. It’s similar to the Bill Hicks joke. “What are you reading for?” Not what are you reading, but what are you reading for?
Don’t you know the experts have already established the correct opinions?
Never mind that the “experts” crafting the government’s diet and medicine guidelines have clear conflicts of interest. These people are not, nor will ever be, cannabis experts.
It’s little wonder RFK Jr. is condemned as an “anti-vaxxer,” that saturated fat is associated with heart disease, or that cannabis “causes” psychosis and schizophrenia.
Who benefits from your trust? Are they worthy of it? Is it in your best interests to listen to them? Or should you do your own research?
FOOTNOTE(S)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35311630/
New auditor is PKFOD, whose "team" (for cannabis) appears to be 2 people. Unclear what experience they have in the cannabis industry.
CANNABIS COMPANY ACCOUNTING & CONSULTING
For entrepreneurs involved in cannabis and CBD ventures, the opportunities are enticing. Yet, standards are being forged, tested, and refined as uncertainties surround licensing, tax liability, cash flow, and government regulation. Pioneers are wise to seek the support of professionals with proven backgrounds in accounting, audit, tax, business valuation and advisory.
Meet the Team
Jeffrey Gittler
Noam Hirschberger
PKF O’Connor Davies specialists have been integral to the success of companies in emerging industries since 1891. Over the years, we have earned the respect of both clients and colleagues for guiding innovators through early-stage, often first-time, audit and tax filing processes. Our business acumen is invaluable to organizations launching enterprises in uncharted waters.
We deliver the background, experience, knowledge, and insight today’s innovators need to navigate a new world of opportunity.
Audit Capabilities that Add Genuine Value
Securing the support of experienced auditors often proves essential to enhancing the credibility of a business and its ability to attract funding. Our assurance teams provide comprehensive audit, reviews, and compilation services – from financial statement compliance audits to internal control reviews and attestation reports for financing activities. Our teams include both partners and professionals who maintain regular communication to produce reports that meet all industry standards and benchmarks and to keep clients informed of legal and regulatory developments.
Regulatory Expertise
As government tries to keep pace with this emerging industry, inconsistencies in federal, state, and local regulations make it difficult for businesses to understand and comply with the new rules. Investors also face hurdles when evaluating the potential of Qualified Opportunity Zones to deliver revenue and capital appreciation as regulators have yet to determine whether cannabis enterprises may participate. Discerning how to operate amid these substantial and unresolved issues demands the elevated tactical knowledge and acuity our teams deliver.
Extensive Tax Insight
From growers to dispensaries, companies involved with cannabis struggle with tax planning and filing because the IRS has offered little guidance in identifying which expenses qualify for deduction. Tax preparation is complicated by the fact that an entity’s tax liability may differ substantially depending upon whether it uses a cash or accrual accounting method. To help businesses forecast, manage and meet tax obligations, we leverage our understanding of how these rules have evolved in the past, watch for opinions and rulings, and apply the insights we’ve gained from working with other entrepreneurial clients.
Advisory Services for Investment Funds
We deliver a unique blend of strengths, in a cost-efficient manner, to the private equity, hedge fund and corporate acquisition communities. With the increased scrutiny on valuations from investors, regulatory agencies and auditors, it is imperative that owners and managers stay abreast of valuation standards and implement best practices. Our valuation team is experienced with cannabis- focused private equity funds and provide valuations of portfolio companies and purchase price allocations. Our transaction advisory services can help clients maximize value, minimize risk, uncover vital data and identify potential partners.
Whether in pursuit of growth through acquisition or capital through divestment, these transactions are complex; they demand superior financial acumen, focused attention to detail, insight borne of success. Our fund administration practice performs investment, entity, partnership, tax and investor accounting and provides complete middle- and back-office services. We prepare custom reports, including financial statements and portfolio performance analytics for stakeholders.
Comprehensive Support
Unlike many of our peer firms, PKF O’Connor Davies offers a broad range of capabilities to support entrepreneurs and investors. Our services include:
Valuation
Private Equity Financial Reporting: Portfolio Company Valuations
409A
Business Combinations: Purchase Price Allocation
Accounting Advisory
Cost Accounting and Cost of Goods Maximization (280E)
Outsourced CFO Services
Monthly and/or Annual Bookkeeping
Fund Administration
Tax
Corporate Structuring (280E Minimization)
State and Local
International
Business Advisory
Operations Reviews
Internal Control Reviews
Fraud Risk Assessment
Business Plan Review
Due Diligence
Yikes. Canopy Growth's auditor, KPMG, resigned as the company’s independent accounting firm.
EX-16.1 2 d507693dex161.htm EX-16.1
Exhibit 16.1
June 27, 2023
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We were previously principal accountants for Canopy Growth Corporation (the “Company”) and, under the date of June 22, 2023, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended March 31, 2023 and 2022 and on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2023. On June 22, 2023, we declined to stand for reelection and resigned.
We have read the Company’s statements included under Item 4.01 of its Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 27, 2023 (the “Form 8-K”), and we agree with such statements except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with the Company’s statements that the Audit Committee of the board of directors of the Company accepted our resignation and the statements in Item 4.01(b) of the Form 8-K.
Very truly yours,
/s/ KPMG LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
Home / Finance
Marijuana MSO Ayr Wellness to defer paying $69 million in debt obligations
By MJBizDaily Staff
June 26, 2023
SHARE
Tickets for MJBizCon 2023 in Las Vegas are on sale now! Dare to grow and discover the business solutions to elevate your cultivation operation. Buy your ticket.
Multistate marijuana company Ayr Wellness has reached agreements to defer by two years principal or amortization payments on debt obligations worth roughly $69 million.
To achieve those deferrals, Ayr is amending agreements regarding vendor notes and promissory notes related to a series of acquisitions.
Including previously announced amendments to “vendor notes, promissory notes, and earn-out payments, the company has now successfully extended the payment terms of a cumulative of $96.9 million of obligations,” the Miami-based company said in a Monday news release.
The latest amendments were made to debt agreements related to:
Ayr’s acquisition of Pennsylvania medical cannabis dispensary operator PA Naturals.
Its purchase of New Jersey medical marijuana company GSD NJ.
Its acquisition of Pennsylvania cannabis company CannTech PA.
“Promissory notes assumed by certain subsidiaries of (Ayr) in connection with the GSD and CannTech acquisitions in favor of former minority interest holders.”
Ayr’s purchase of Illinois-based Herbal Remedies Dispensaries.
Its acquisition of Pennsylvania cultivator and processor DocHouse.
In connection to the amendments, Ayr said it had “agreed to interest rate adjustments that will result in a blended interest rate increase of approximately 0.5% across the $69 million aggregate principal amount.”
The company is also paying amendment fees worth $400,000.
Ayr noted in its release that “the effectiveness of the maturity and amortization deferrals referenced above is contingent on an amendment to the company’s 12.5% senior notes to extend the maturity date of the senior notes to December 10, 2026 or a later date,” or an exchange of those notes for new notes.
In January, Ayr canceled its plan to acquire Chicago cannabis retail operator Dispensary 33.
In February, Ayr announced layoffs affecting 180 employees and also sold assets in Arizona while announcing plans to acquire assets in Ohio.
Ayr currently operates in eight states.
Analyst?
They are share pumpers.
None of them know the cannabis market.
They don’t even know what cannabis is.,.
Get a grip!
Bleeding cash, assets, employees and investors, analysts are now questioning how much longer Canopy Growth can survive.
theglobeandmail.com/business/artic… $WEED
Going down!
Time to buy!
Home / All U.S.
Less than 25% of US cannabis operators profitable, study finds
June 25, 2023
Only 24.3% of businesses in the U.S. cannabis sector report they are profitable, according to a new report by Oregon-based cannabis data and research company Whitney Economics, further underlining the industry’s struggles.
Last year’s Cannabis Operator Sentiment and Business Conditions survey report found that 42%of marijuana businesses were turning a profit, according to a news release.
A total of 224 respondents from 13 states participated in this year’s survey, representing 1.1% of licensees in those states, Whitney Economics founder Beau Whitney wrote in an email to MJBizDaily.
“By conducting this survey, Whitney Economics strives to bridge the gap between the theories of business economics and the daily lives of operators within the cannabis industry,” he said in a statement.
Operators also said that:
Rising costs and falling wholesale cannabis prices are pressuring them to find creative solutions.
State regulations can make or break the chances of success in a legal cannabis market, and they haven’t kept up with changing market and business conditions.
Too many licenses are being issued. More than 70% of respondents favor limiting cannabis licenses.
Taxes remain too high.
ADVERTISEMENT
The report forecasts the next seven quarters will have “slower-than-normal” growth because of the above factors, which aren’t expected to change any time soon.
The survey also gathered information about revenues, profits, margins, costs and materials.
this industry is dead in Canada only matter of time until Canopy and the others fill for bankruptcy
That seems patently ridiculous when they are literally soda. Truth in advertising matters, IMHO.
Something that remains very unclear:
Canada now saying cannabis businesses can't use the words "soda" etc for infused beverages, because they MAY appeal to youth.
But what about gummies and flower? Those words commonly appear on those products too. This is going to be messy.
Industry is not happy about it.
The latest crackdown could have a big impact on the increasingly popular carbonated cannabis beverage category, which accounts for almost 60% of all cannabis bev sales.
About half of the best-selling carbonated bevs could potentially be affected.
Home / Legal
Canada cracking down on words ‘soda’ and ‘cola’ on cannabis labels
author profile pictureBy Matt Lamers, International Editor
June 23, 2023 - Updated June 23, 2023
SHARE
MJBizCon 2023 tickets are now on sale! Discover the business solutions to elevate your cannabis retail game. Buy your ticket today.
Image of a woman's hand pouring a soda into a glass sitting on a table
Health Canada is asking federally licensed cannabis producers to stop using certain words on labels and in promotions for infused beverages, warning they could appeal to young people.
The words – “soda,” “cola,” “root beer” or “ginger ale” – do not comply with Canada’s strict labeling and promotions requirements for cannabis, according to an email obtained by MJBizDaily that was sent by Health Canada to companies producing the affected products.
ADVERTISEMENT
Health Canada is requesting businesses to “cease all non-compliant promotion and labelling of cannabis,” the email reads.
The apparent crackdown could have a big impact on the increasingly popular carbonated cannabis beverage category, which accounts for almost 60% of all cannabis beverage sales.
About half of the best-selling carbonated cannabis beverages could potentially be affected, according to an analysis by Seattle-based market analytics firm Headset.
George Smitherman, CEO of the industry group Cannabis Council of Canada, is perplexed by Health Canada’s latest actions.
“The array of beverages available to adults in a store where kids cannot go has improved significantly, but many companies will be put out of business by these prohibitions on nomenclature that are not rooted in science,” he said in a phone interview.
Another industry executive, who requested anonymity, voiced concerns about how Health Canada’s move could undermine the marketing of infused beverages.
“It’s unclear to me what alternative labeling would satisfy Health Canada, yet also properly inform potential consumers of what kind of product is on offer,” the executive said.
Replying to queries from MJBizDaily via email, Health Canada acknowledged it is communicating with the cannabis industry “regarding beverages containing ‘soda’ terms in their name.”
Citing a policy statement on the Cannabis Act, the spokesperson said Health Canada’s decisions about whether a product is appealing to young people are made “based on the facts of each case and after considering a range of factors.”
Those factors include a product’s: shape, color, smell, flavor, name and how it’s presented to consumers.
“The terms ‘soda,’ ‘cola,’ ‘root beer’ and ‘ginger ale’ are considered potentially appealing to youth because they commonly refer to a soft drink, which is one of the examples set out as being prohibited under the policy statement,” the spokesperson said.
The email sent by the federal regulator to licensed producers stated, “It is Health Canada’s position that the use of certain terms commonly referring to a sweetened soft drink, such as ‘soda’, ‘cola’, ‘root beer’ or ‘ginger ale’ may result in the sale of cannabis with packaging/labelling that is prohibited.”
“If required, Health Canada may take enforcement measures to address non-compliance or mitigate risks to public health or public safety,” the spokesperson wrote.
The letter states that the Cannabis Act prohibits:
The promotion of cannabis, accessories or any service where there are reasonable grounds to believe it could be appealing to youth.
The sale of cannabis or accessories if there are reasonable grounds the package or label could appeal to young persons.
MJBizDaily asked Health Canada if the ban on the word “soda” extends to other products, such as dried herb and gummies.
The agency has not yet responded.
ADVERTISEMENT
Market impact
Carbonated cannabis beverage sales have grown substantially in recent years.
In 2021, carbonated cannabis beverage sales amounted to approximately 22.7 million Canadian dollars ($17 million) in provinces tracked by Headset.
That figure jumped 70% year-over-year to CA$38.6 million in 2022.
Through the first five months of 2023, the products reached CA$22 million in sales, putting the category on pace to approach CA$50 million this year.
Headset monitors sales in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, which together account for approximately three-quarters of all legal sales of recreational marijuana in Canada.
Approximately half of the top 20 carbonated cannabis beverages in terms of sales between June 2022 and May 2023 had at least one of the prohibited words in their brand name, the Headset data suggests.
The three top-selling carbonated cannabis beverages in that time were:
“Cream Soda,” an XMG-brand produced by Truss Beverage Co.
“Cherry Cola,” produced by Sweet Justice, a brand by Electric Brands Inc.
“Mango Pineapple Sparkling Drink,” by Truss.
Industry pushback
Smitherman of the Cannabis Council of Canada said industry officials are in communication with Health Canada over the move.
“We haven’t conceded this one,” he said.
“We have a very active beverage caucus group. We’ve been in a letter-writing frenzy back and forth with Health Canada, and we’re not ceasing in our efforts to press them to demonstrate what science is behind their actions.”
Smitherman said Canada’s rules leave legal businesses with too little leeway to define and differentiate products.
“It’s really galling that Health Canada has got this attention to picayune matters related to cannabis, which has got all this protective wrap around it, built in a context of precaution, and alcohol is a complete free-for-all,” he said.
The executive who requested anonymity said cannabis consumers expect to be able to purchase legal, infused beverages with common beverage flavors and characteristics, “like soda and cola.”
“Obfuscating these legal products simply benefits the illicit market, which makes competitive products that have no restrictions on naming or design elements, etc.
“This restriction imposed by Health Canada harms the ability of legal, regulated products to compete with illicit ones.”
“the biggest problem with the MJ business in Canada is consumers”
I have to disagree.
Business is bankrupt because growing weed in Canada is way too costly.
No future.
CANNABIS
EDUCATION
BUSINESS
LIFESTYLE
HEALTH
LAW
VIDEOS
TRENDING
IS THE U.S. CANNABIS INDUSTRY COLLAPSING?
Avatar photoCALEB MCMILLAN·JUNE 23, 2023
BUSINESS
CANNABIS 101
CANNABIS LEGALIZATION
CANNABIS NEWS
FEATURED
LATEST LEGALIZATION NEWS
LAW
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
MARIJUANA NEWS
POLITICS
POLITICS
THC NEWS
Is the U.S. cannabis industry collapsing? A new report from Whitney Economics answers yes. While the Biden administration kicks the rescheduling of cannabis down the road for the 2024 election, only 24% of U.S. cannabis businesses are profitable.
Whitney Economics is a consulting and research firm that compiles cannabis economic data into annual reports. They published their findings in their second annual Cannabis Operator Sentiment and Business Conditions.
U.S. CANNABIS IS COLLAPSING
U.S. Cannabis Industry Collapsing
According to the survey report, yes, it appears the U.S. cannabis industry is collapsing. Only 24.4% of cannabis operators in the U.S. are profitable. This is down 42% from the year before.
Little-to-no access to banking, rising supply chain costs, and lower cannabis prices all contribute to this collapse. The report suggests at least seven quarters of below-average growth.
But is the U.S. cannabis industry collapsing beyond repair? That depends on what state you find yourself in.
The report found that government regulators determine if you succeed or fail. Rules and requirements that are too burdensome and capital-intensive negatively affect cannabis businesses.
The report highlights that markets and business conditions have changed, but regulators’ policies have not.
However, instead of moving toward freer markets, 70% of the respondents want regulators to cap licences. While this would limit competition and thus make the existing operators profitable, it does so at the expense of consumer choice.
According to the report, U.S. cannabis is collapsing because legislatures and regulatory policies focus on generating tax revenue instead of creating a viable and sustainable cannabis industry.
“Operators continue to be impacted by taxes, strict regulatory rules, and lack of access to capital. Only one quarter (24.4%) of respondents reported profitable operations.”
Whitney Economics Q4’22 Cannabis Operator Sentiment & Business Conditions Survey Report
3 WAYS TO REVERSE THE U.S. CANNABIS INDUSTRY COLLAPSE
U.S. Cannabis Industry Collapsing
If the U.S. cannabis industry collapses, how can we reverse it?
The Whitney Economics report cites taxes, regulations and lack of capital as the three major obstacles negatively impacting the industry. While conventional wisdom may suggest tweaks here and there, we recommend a more radical approach.
After all, if a report said the American dairy industry or the automobile industry collapsed by 42% in one year, the President would be on TV declaring a national emergency.
But cannabis? Crickets.
Fortunately, the solutions we present here would benefit all industries if implemented. Not just cannabis.
1. TAXES
Cut taxes across the board and gut entire categories. States charge an “excise tax” on cannabis. Another name for excise taxes is sin taxes because that’s essentially the idea.
Some actions are morally wrong but legally permissible. Ergo, the government charges an additional “excise” tax.
But this idea is incompatible with individual liberty. As well, who decides what is moral and immoral? We’re not talking about hiring hitmen on the dark web. We’re talking about a benign, nontoxic herb.
Millions use it for medicinal purposes. Almost everyone uses it for therapeutic purposes; otherwise, why consume it?
Cutting taxes would help all businesses, not just the collapsing U.S. cannabis industry. As well, lower taxes means less money going into government coffers. And that’s always a good thing.
2. REGULATORY RULES
A market economy without regulation is impossible. The question is: who is doing the regulating?
Entrepreneurs regulate each other by competing for consumers. Consumers regulate entrepreneurs by patronizing different competitors.
The only way to profit – absent government privileges – is by exchanging goods and services with people.
But not every business owner is honest. Some will cut corners at others’ expense. And disputes will inevitably arise. That’s the argument for regulation.
But these large government regulatory bureaucracies are an invention of the 20th century.
Before, Western civilization relied on English common law. For centuries we’ve developed rules and regulations from actual cases and settlements.
Politicians didn’t preemptively create new rules and then empower expensive bureaucracies to enforce them.
In this way, regulations were procedural and adapted to change. A common law legal system complements free markets. A government-regulated market creates the conditions for regulatory capture and, in effect, economic fascism.
3. ACCESS TO CAPITAL
U.S. Cannabis Industry Collapsing
Would the U.S. cannabis industry collapse if government regulators didn’t make arbitrary demands based on their definitions of “public health and safety?”
Possibly, but access to capital goes beyond the regulatory structure.
For over a century, the Federal Reserve has been dedicated to transferring capital from the middle class to the richest of the rich.
The Fed creates asset price bubbles by manipulating the money supply and interest rates. This benefits the wealthy who own assets and harms individuals on low and fixed incomes.
When the bubbles burst, as seen in 2008, the subsequent economic recession disproportionately affects the middle and lower classes. Meanwhile, the big banks (who cause the problem) get a taxpayer-funded bailout.
Americans can end this over-a-century-long con job by ending the Fed and legalizing private, competitive currencies. And thereby reversing the collapsing U.S. cannabis industry.
FOOTNOTE(S)
https://whitneyeconomics.com/reports
Klein is bullish.
Predicts better days ahead.
Dude wants to keep his job.
Haircuts are expensive.
Be patient John.
Bottom is not far away.
5 analyst$ called it a hold.
These guys really know the canna market well.
Not to worry. Your money is safe with Crappy Growth.
"Our actions are already yielding results and we expect to realize significant benefits from our cost reduction program in Fiscal 2024" - David Klein, Canopy CEO.
Doomed.
Home / Legal
Canada cracking down on words ‘soda’ and ‘cola’ on cannabis labels
author profile pictureBy Matt Lamers, International Editor
June 23, 2023 - Updated June 23, 2023
SHARE
Don’t miss the opportunity to connect with 30,000 cannabis business leaders and entrepreneurs at MJBizCon 2023! Dare to join us? Buy your ticket today.
Image of a woman's hand pouring a soda into a glass sitting on a table
Health Canada is asking federally licensed cannabis producers to stop using certain words on labels and in promotions for infused beverages, warning they could appeal to young people.
The words – “soda,” “cola,” “root beer” or “ginger ale” – do not comply with Canada’s strict labeling and promotions requirements for cannabis, according to an email obtained by MJBizDaily that was sent by Health Canada to companies producing the affected products.
ADVERTISEMENT
Health Canada is requesting businesses to “cease all non-compliant promotion and labelling of cannabis,” the email reads.
The apparent crackdown could have a big impact on the increasingly popular carbonated cannabis beverage category, which accounts for almost 60% of all cannabis beverage sales.
About half of the best-selling carbonated cannabis beverages could potentially be affected, according to an analysis by Seattle-based market analytics firm Headset.
George Smitherman, CEO of the industry group Cannabis Council of Canada, is perplexed by Health Canada’s latest actions.
“The array of beverages available to adults in a store where kids cannot go has improved significantly, but many companies will be put out of business by these prohibitions on nomenclature that are not rooted in science,” he said in a phone interview.
Another industry executive, who requested anonymity, voiced concerns about how Health Canada’s move could undermine the marketing of infused beverages.
“It’s unclear to me what alternative labeling would satisfy Health Canada, yet also properly inform potential consumers of what kind of product is on offer,” the executive said.
Replying to queries from MJBizDaily via email, Health Canada acknowledged it is communicating with the cannabis industry “regarding beverages containing ‘soda’ terms in their name.”
Citing a policy statement on the Cannabis Act, the spokesperson said Health Canada’s decisions about whether a product is appealing to young people are made “based on the facts of each case and after considering a range of factors.”
Those factors include a product’s: shape, color, smell, flavor, name and how it’s presented to consumers.
“The terms ‘soda,’ ‘cola,’ ‘root beer’ and ‘ginger ale’ are considered potentially appealing to youth because they commonly refer to a soft drink, which is one of the examples set out as being prohibited under the policy statement,” the spokesperson said.
The email sent by the federal regulator to licensed producers stated, “It is Health Canada’s position that the use of certain terms commonly referring to a sweetened soft drink, such as ‘soda’, ‘cola’, ‘root beer’ or ‘ginger ale’ may result in the sale of cannabis with packaging/labelling that is prohibited.”
“If required, Health Canada may take enforcement measures to address non-compliance or mitigate risks to public health or public safety,” the spokesperson wrote.
The letter states that the Cannabis Act prohibits:
The promotion of cannabis, accessories or any service where there are reasonable grounds to believe it could be appealing to youth.
The sale of cannabis or accessories if there are reasonable grounds the package or label could appeal to young persons.
MJBizDaily asked Health Canada if the ban on the word “soda” extends to other products, such as dried herb and gummies.
The agency has not yet responded.
ADVERTISEMENT
Market impact
Carbonated cannabis beverage sales have grown substantially in recent years.
In 2021, carbonated cannabis beverage sales amounted to approximately 22.7 million Canadian dollars ($17 million) in provinces tracked by Headset.
That figure jumped 70% year-over-year to CA$38.6 million in 2022.
Through the first five months of 2023, the products reached CA$22 million in sales, putting the category on pace to approach CA$50 million this year.
Headset monitors sales in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, which together account for approximately three-quarters of all legal sales of recreational marijuana in Canada.
Approximately half of the top 20 carbonated cannabis beverages in terms of sales between June 2022 and May 2023 had at least one of the prohibited words in their brand name, the Headset data suggests.
The three top-selling carbonated cannabis beverages in that time were:
“Cream Soda,” an XMG-brand produced by Truss Beverage Co.
“Cherry Cola,” produced by Sweet Justice, a brand by Electric Brands Inc.
“Mango Pineapple Sparkling Drink,” by Truss.
Industry pushback
Smitherman of the Cannabis Council of Canada said industry officials are in communication with Health Canada over the move.
“We haven’t conceded this one,” he said.
“We have a very active beverage caucus group. We’ve been in a letter-writing frenzy back and forth with Health Canada, and we’re not ceasing in our efforts to press them to demonstrate what science is behind their actions.”
Smitherman said Canada’s rules leave legal businesses with too little leeway to define and differentiate products.
“It’s really galling that Health Canada has got this attention to picayune matters related to cannabis, which has got all this protective wrap around it, built in a context of precaution, and alcohol is a complete free-for-all,” he said.
The executive who requested anonymity said cannabis consumers expect to be able to purchase legal, infused beverages with common beverage flavors and characteristics, “like soda and cola.”
“Obfuscating these legal products simply benefits the illicit market, which makes competitive products that have no restrictions on naming or design elements, etc.
“This restriction imposed by Health Canada harms the ability of legal, regulated products to compete with illicit ones.”
Doomed!
Right folks for the job… lol
Hanson is the only other director with supposed "cannabis industry experience" besides CEO Klein.
*supposed*
Hanson appears to live in San Francisco. He's a former Wine + Spirits guy who also used to be CEO of a jewelry company.
Big shot CPG guy. Former CEO at American Eagle.
Canopy Growth's board of directors is filled with people who have no experience in the cannabis industry.
See chart below.
The CEO, David Klein, appears to still not be living in Canada, the company's only meaningful market.
By the way, Canopy Growth's losses in 2018-2020 amounted to a total of $2.2 billion.
Since Canada legalized cannabis in 2018, Canopy Growth has lost approx $7.53 billion.
*I think* Canopy employed approx. 3,259 people at its peak as of March 31, 2021
Today's workforce is about 50% smaller than that.
Significant job losses in #Smithsfalls and #niagaraonthelake (nearby me).
Sticking with the y-o-y comparison, let's look at Canopy Growth's people. People are important.
Canopy drastically cut its workforce.
As of March 31, Canopy had 1,621 employees, a 49% reduction from one year ago—or 1,530 people.
Its ???? workforce was cut 45% to 1,185 people.
Canopy's sales have have still not stabilised.
Compared to last year, revenue from:
—Canada cannabis ?? 27% to $187 million
—International ?? 50% to $39 million
—Storz & Bickel ?? 24% $65 million
—BioSteel up 100% to $69.6 million
—This Works ??19.4% to $26 million
NEW: Cannabis producer Canopy Growth reported a $3.3 billion net loss in fiscal year 2023 amid its ongoing business transformation plan
Losses in previous years:
2021: $1.7 billion
2022: $330.6 million
TOTAL losses in last 3 years under current CEO's watch: $5.33 billion
Lps irradiating cannabis kills the mold & taste.
Folks are not buying bunk weed.
David Wylie
@okanaganz
23-06-2023
Does irradiating cannabis flower make a difference, in your opinion?
Yes
58,1 %
No
16,7 %
I dunno
25,1 %
22756 votes
·
Résultats finaux
Taking a little water…
Not to worry… you are sitting on the good side of the sub…
Who’s your daddy?
Where’s the beef?
Klein needs a raise!
Surely he can do better next time…
Total Compensation of David Klein, CEO of $CGC:
2023: $6,459,521 ??
2022: $4,541,890 ??
2021: $2,793,688 ??
Net Losses:
2023: -$3.3 billion ??
2022: -$320 million ??
2021: -$1.7 billion ??
Stock Performance:
-98.6% since 2021 ??
Home / Finance
Canadian cannabis operator Organigram consolidating shares to stay on Nasdaq
By MJBizStaff
June 21, 2023
Canadian cannabis cultivator and manufacturer Organigram Holdings plans to consolidate its shares on a 4-to-1 basis in order to maintain its U.S. equity listing on the Nasdaq exchange.
Nasdaq warned Organigram in January that its share price had fallen below the exchange’s $1 minimum bid price requirement for 30 consecutive days, risking possible delisting.
Organigram’s shares have lost value since then, opening at $0.40 on the Nasdaq on Wednesday.
The share consolidation is also meant to “reduce volatility and to enhance the marketability of the common shares to institutional investors,” Organigram in a news release.
The reverse share split is expected to take place July 7 and will also affect Organigram’s shares listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) in Canada.
Both exchanges must approve the consolidation.
Organigram isn’t the only cannabis company to face issues complying with stock exchange requirements.
Hexo Corp. consolidated its shares in December 2022 in order to meet Nasdaq’s minimum bid price.
Aurora Cannabis consolidated its New York Stock Exchange-listed shares in 2020 and later moved its U.S. listing to the Nasdaq, where it has been under a minimum bid-price warning since March.
Another Canadian cultivator, Canopy Growth Corp., was recently cut from the benchmark S&P/TSX Composite Index, although its TSX share listing remains intact.
Organigram posted a net loss of 7.5 million Canadian dollars ($5.7 million) for the quarter ended Feb. 2 on CA$39.5 million of net revenue.
The company’s shares trade as OGI on the Nasdaq and the TSX.
Doomed.
“I believe that (Fire & Flower’s) underlying business is strong and that a fire sale at this time is not necessary and not in the best interests of all stakeholders” — Shawn Dym, part second-largest shareholder of Fire & Flower
Lost in space… lol
Not in the story for @mjbizdaily, but it also appears that Fire & Flower owed at least 2 dozen cannabis producers over $10 million when they received bankruptcy protection
Biggest debts:
Tilray: $2.7 million
Auxly: $1.5 million
Organigram: $1.2 million
Independent cannabis businesses in Canada, whether stores or producers, have advantages over larger Bay St-funded competitors: They're much smarter with $, make more informed, strategic decisions & they're not accountable to a board that has no knowledge of the cannabis business.
POT TV – The CBC reported on the Competition Bureau of Canada’s submission to the review of the Cannabis Act.
Delayed after a scheduled three years, a review of Canada’s Cannabis Act has finally come.
As part of the review, the public, selected stakeholders, and government organizations, were asked to submit their recommendations to improve the law. The Act was much maligned by the cannabis culture prior to being enacted, and has resulted in massive financial losses for investors and the public.
The Competition Bureau of Canada has recommended three remedies for businesses, but made no recommendations that would improve cannabis overall in Canada. One of their recommendations was to increase the allowable THC limits in recreational edible products.
Licence producers have difficulties raising THC levels above 10 when public wants 30 plus…
They also recommended reducing the costs and policies related to licensing and regulation for legal cannabis companies and new entrants before they run out of liquidities.