 The state of Florida is being sued for allegedly not following it’s own state laws on cannabis.
A lawsuit just filed alleges that the state cannabis regulators approved a cannabis investment firm’s owning more licenses than allowed under state law, according to the complaint, and, that they have failed to provide public records. In Canada, where the company is based, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a proposal for the cannabis investment firm Gotham Green to take control of iAnthus in 2020 after iAnthus defaulted on a loan. The proposal, however, does require regulatory approvals from U.S. states. Florida’s medical marijuana laws prohibit an individual or entity from “directly or indirectly” having an ownership stake of greater than 5 percent in more than one medical marijuana licensee. Florida's Office of Medical Marijuana Use granted an exception to Gotham Green, allowing it to own more than 5 percent of two state-licensed medical marijuana companies: MedMen and iAnthus. Investor Michael Weisser, a plaintiff in the suit, said, “This is such a blatant violation of the regulations, it’s unbelievable.” His lawsuit says this allowance to Gotham Green "would illegally authorize an ownership structure that violates [state law].” Patient advocates who are plaintiffs in the suit are concerned that “there is an effort to consolidate and limit the number of opportunities that patients have to obtain [different types of] products." In other words, monopolies. The second part of the lawsuit is that they state regulators have failed to provide public records. Weisser has been trying to obtain documents through public records requests concerning the excepetion granted to Gotham Green. Weisser says the regulator has not been forthcoming in producing the relevant documents, but did provide a redacted report from a third-party consulting firm. The redacted draft report found that the “proposed recapitalization structure for iAnthus does not appear to meet the requirements of Florida Statute.” Stephen Menton, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an interview that it is highly unusual for a state agency to pre-emptively edit or obscure information from public records. He said typically, a company must submit a request in court to validate a trade secret claim, but in this case, it seems the state regulators “made their own determination” to obscure information from public record. Menton said that some of the other documents the agency provided as part of the records requests were several pages long and “completely redacted.” He added, “We don’t even know what [the document] is." When asked for comment, Florida's Office of Medical Marijuana Use said, “The Department does not comment on any pending litigation.” The Plaintiffs lawsuit is hoping to force the department to provide all the (unredacted) documents they’re seeking through public records requests. They’re also asking the court to invalidate the department’s decision to grant the variance and declare that the approval exceeds its regulatory authority. All across the county, it’s becoming a strong concern that large cannabis corporations are monopolizing the industry. There is a similar situation with iAnthus that was just granted in Massachusetts, as well. Weisser said, “We think they’re in clear violation of the regulations in Massachusetts [too].” Comments are closed.
|
RSS Feed