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
© 2025 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 AllAd Agency Legal Chief Scores $12M Golden Parachute in $13B Sale to Rival
3 minute readFTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 2Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 3African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 4Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
- 5Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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