Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It has now been a couple months since the pell-mell months of July and August, when we had 13 leases, two options and multiple letters of intent to negotiate, finalize, execute or terminate for various clients in the span of a few weeks in connection with their applications for medical cannabis licensure in the state of New Jersey.
During this past summer, New Jersey decided to double the number of medical cannabis licenses from six to 12. Existing license holders were not eligible to apply for new licenses in this round. New applicants had essentially six weeks to compile a licensure application, file the required licensure fee and paperwork, and submit their no-more-than-300-page application. Since the licensure was for both growing cannabis and the distribution of medical cannabis, the application included various background checks, qualifications and submissions intended to show that the applicant had the necessary business knowledge, financial capability and growing and distribution ability.
Over 825 potential applicants arrived for a mandatory meeting of interested parties in June 2018, which ultimately resulted in 146 actual applications being filed on August 31 (51 in southern New Jersey, 50 in northern New Jersey, and 45 in central New Jersey) for six available licenses. As of August 1, there were over 28,500 approved medical cannabis patients in New Jersey, up from 10,000 in 2016.
Interestingly, the applications called for a tiebreaker, which indicates that site control of a leased or owned site and a letter from the applicable municipality showing support for the given use from the mayor or town council will be taken into consideration as a tiebreaker. This tiebreaker is what led some applicants to span the state, engage brokers or canvas the markets on their own, and attempt to line up and negotiate and sign leases for their sites. Licenses were to be granted with two grow-and-dispense licenses in the north, two in the central region, and two in the south, with winners announced in the beginning of November 2018.
The leases were intended to be for either:
It should be noted that site control needed to be demonstrated for both types of facilities as applicants needed to show ability to control both within a particular region.
|Particular issues that arose within the leasing context included landlords that were generally unfamiliar with the landscape of cannabis, requiring a lot of up-front education of their brokerage team, their legal team and the landlord themselves that had to occur in a relatively short period of time. Issues included the following, as well as many others:
In this ever-evolving space, where 30 states have permitted medical cannabis and nine states have permitted adult-use cannabis, there are many more issues of note that are beyond the scope of this article that come into play in a lease tailored to cannabis dispensing or grow facilities. The goal of this article is to sensitize the reader to the notion that these types of leases are not “business as usual,” and that they have their own nuances that should be taken into consideration when drafting and negotiating this type of deal. While cannabis leasing is not the equivalent of splitting the atom by any stretch, it does come with its share of key legal and business considerations that need attention-or they can become traps for the unwary.
*****
Brad A. Molotsky is a partner with Duane Morris in Cherry Hill. He practices in the area of real estate law with a focus on commercial leasing, particularly for the cannabis industry. This article also appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM sibling publication of this newsletter.
|ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.