General Counsel Share Why Cannabis M&A Deals Are Having Trouble
Experts in the field discuss the underlying causes of recent mergers and acquisitions in the cannabis space either being changed significantly or abandoned entirely.
November 25, 2019 at 04:27 PM
4 minute read
Many mergers and acquisitions in the cannabis space this year have either been changed significantly or abandoned entirely. Experts in the field say M&A in the cannabis industry has been difficult largely because of the volatile ever-changing cannabis market, federal prohibition and a patchwork of state laws.
In October 2018, MedMen Enterprises planned an all-stock acquisition of PharmaCann valued at approximately $682 million. A year after plans for the acquisition was announced, MedMen pulled out of the deal entirely. MedMen reportedly cited the changing market and how long it took for regulators to approve the deal. In May, Curaleaf reworked its all-stock deal with Cura Partners. Cura Partners was supposed to be given 95.6 million shares of Curaleaf stock, worth approximately $950 million at the time, in the deal. However, the deal was amended so Cura Partners could be bought for 55 million shares of stock valued at approximately $293 million.
Jeff Schultz, the general counsel and chief compliance officer of Navy Capital LLC, an investment firm that exclusively deals in the cannabis industry, said the common thread between all of the M&A deals in the industry is the volatile marketplace, a limited investor pool and the length of time the Department of Justice takes to approve those deals.
"That long window, coupled with rapid tectonic shifts in the industry, has led to a lot of re-cutting," Schultz explained.
Schultz said the lack of capital in the market for acquisition leads to stock option deals that are subject to change over time.
"The larger issue is a lack of traditional investment capital and a limited investor pool," Schultz said. "At best, there is very minimal participation from debt capital markets. What that leads to is highly dilutive financing opportunities."
Many of the deals are done for stock options rather than cash. This is because there is a lack of traditional investment in the industry and those stock prices are subject to change.
"Most deals in Canada and many deals in the U.S. are stock for stock deals because many companies today are short on cash," Schultz said. "Even if they do have cash, until the recent dramatic drawdown in stock prices, they've preferred to use their high-multiple stock as acquisition currency."
Because the industry is ever-changing, it also becomes difficult to draw up numbers that will hold up in the time it takes for a deal to come together.
"When you're putting the numbers together you're trying to hit a moving target," John Moynan, general counsel of Toronto-based -based cannabis company SLANG Worldwide, said. "When you're contemplating these transactions the numbers may be dramatically different on the date of the signing."
Moynan said, in his eyes, federal prohibition is what makes M&A in the cannabis space difficult.
"What you have is these wholly distinct entities, agreements and ownership structures. If you look at that in an M&A context, it's not as simple as up to the parent entity," Moynan said. "That is further complicated by each state having its own regulatory framework."
Outside of waiting for the Department of Justice to approve a deal, companies must also contend with state regulators and transferring licenses, which can take several months. There is not a predictable amount of time to expect when a cannabis license will be transferred.
Moynan said lifting the federal prohibition on cannabis would make things easier for M&A, but there would still be some short-term difficulties.
"The tricky part is that you have multimillion-dollar businesses formed under the current structure," Moynan said. "These businesses are largely structured to fit the old regime. There will be a hangover effect that we see from everyone sprinting to capture market share."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250