Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Smoke & Mirrors: The New York Cannabis Law's Illusory Lease Mandate
New York's recently enacted cannabis law, the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation of 2021 (MRTA), created a maze of new legal requirements. These provisions affect not only cannabis companies, but also the companies that conduct business with them. Navigating this maze can be tricky, especially since much of the MRTA conflicts with federal law. One particularly complex area is the regulation of New York real estate as it relates to cannabis companies. Cannabis companies and landowners alike should be wary of the legal pitfalls in this area and seek appropriate legal guidance.
Under the MRTA, New York will grant licenses to companies to distribute cannabis. Although these companies will be state-licensed, it likely will violate the federal "stash-house law" to lease property to them. Landowners may be reluctant to lease to licensed cannabis businesses and risk federal criminal liability, when they could lease to other types of businesses without that risk. This landowner reluctance could create a Catch-22 for cannabis companies: to get a state license, they need property from which to operate their cannabis business; but to get property, under federal law, they cannot plan to sell cannabis from it.
The MRTA contains a provision that seems like it could help cannabis companies with reluctant landowners; specifically, it has a lease mandate, which prevents landowners from discriminating against at least some participants in the legal cannabis market. Precisely who the lease mandate protects, though, is subject to debate. While it could be read to prevent landowner discrimination against cannabis consumers and cannabis companies — as opposed to just cannabis consumers — such an interpretation likely would result in federal preemption of the mandate. To avoid preemption, courts likely will interpret the mandate narrowly, prohibiting discrimination only against cannabis consumers. So, cannabis companies should not put too much stock in this mandate when attempting to secure a property.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?