Photo of Cole White

Cole White

Subscribe to Cole White's Posts

Cole is a member of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) group. He has a decade of experience working in the attorney general community, having joined the firm from the Wyoming Office of the Attorney General, where he was assistant attorney general.

Contact:Read more about Cole White

With rapid technological advances, expanded regulatory oversight, and constantly shifting market dynamics, owning and operating a business in the modern world has become an increasingly difficult challenge. Chief among the challenges that business owners face is the likelihood of financial distress, a daunting scenario that can arise from market downturns, management issues, or unexpected crises. When a business finds itself in financial turmoil, it is crucial that business owners and investors have viable options for navigating these challenges. Traditionally, bankruptcy is the primary avenue of relief for distressed businesses, offering a structured way to address financial woes and creditor claims.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has drawn criticism for heavily redacting a recommendation letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning the rescheduling of cannabis. HHS said the redactions were justified under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. As Stephen C. Piepgrass, Agustin E. Rodriguez, Jean Smith-Gonnell, and Cole White noted in a recent article published by Law360, this has sparked debates about the balance between necessary secrecy and the public’s right to government information. Legal challenges to these redactions are expected. The deliberative process privilege, which safeguards deliberative discussions within government corridors, is often invoked in the context of FOIA.

The principle of open government is foundational to a healthy democracy, and the availability of government records upon request from the public is one of its chief cornerstones. In the U.S., the primary mechanism by which the public gains access to government records is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[1] FOIA serves as a pivotal tool for ensuring governmental transparency by allowing the public to make requests to governmental entities to access specific government records.

In the latest episode of Regulatory Oversight, Troutman Pepper RISE attorneys Jean Gonnell and Cole White are joined by AGA’s Bruce Turcott, legal editor of the Cannabis Law Deskbook, to discuss the evolution of cannabis regulation in Colorado and Washington, the first two states to legalize marijuana. They discuss the challenges and successes of implementing cannabis laws, including the development of licensing systems, the impact of local authority on licensing, and the role of receiverships in the industry.

The cannabis industry has witnessed significant growth in recent years, marked by the legalization of medical and/or recreational marijuana in 38 states, Washington D.C., and three territories. Alongside this expansion comes the need for robust regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance and safety within the industry. One such regulatory component that has stirred considerable debate over the years is the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag technology in state track-and-trace systems. While RFID tags can offer significant benefits to both regulators and business owners when compared to traditional barcodes, the costs imposed on licensed businesses often outweigh the benefits that state regulators receive from requiring the use of the technology. In fact, in the Colorado Department of Revenue – Marijuana Enforcement Division’s (MED) latest draft rules governing the industry, the agency removed references to the requirements for RFID technology, a step that could signal the beginning of the end of state-mandated RFID tracking of cannabis products.

State attorneys general (AG) are continuing their push for cannabis banking reform, underscoring the need for action to promote public health and safety in legal cannabis markets. On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of 22 state AGs sent a letter to Congress urging passage of the Secure And Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, coinciding…

Introduction

On September 12, the New York Cannabis Control Board (CCB) approved final regulations governing the adult-use cannabis industry in New York,[1] marking a long-awaited moment for industry participants and state regulators alike. The CCB’s approval signifies a significant step forward for the state’s cannabis market. The regulations are designed to govern all aspects of the industry, from cultivation and processing to distribution, retail, on-site consumption, and delivery services. Among these regulations, one rule stands out for its complexity and potential impact on industry participants: the definition of a “true party of interest.”

On August 9, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut that aims to stop all legal cannabis activity in the state and declare the state’s 2021 legalization framework as unconstitutional.[1] The complaint, filed by a local homeowners advocacy group against the Zoning Board of the City of Stamford and the Stamford Mayor, alleges that Connecticut’s legalization framework, the Responsible and Equitable Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis Act (RERACA), violates both the state and federal constitutions by legalizing federally prohibited conduct, and is therefore preempted under both. In addition, the complaint alleges that the state’s social equity council violates the Connecticut constitution by providing exclusive public emoluments or privileges to certain groups based on race, and that the approval by certain board members of changes in zoning regulations was invalid due to several board members terms having previously expired.

Introduction

The cannabis industry in the U.S. is on the cusp of a potential transformation. On August 29, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a significant recommendation that could reshape the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding cannabis. In this post, we will delve into HHS’s groundbreaking proposal to reschedule cannabis from its current classification as a Schedule I substance to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and the effect that rescheduling may have on cannabis industry participants. While this recommendation represents only the first step in the rescheduling processes, it is essential to understand the implications for various stakeholders.

It has been widely reported and confirmed publicly that, on August 29, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recommending that cannabis be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). While this change would not lift the federal prohibition on cannabis, and the DEA will need to perform its own review, the move could have profound implications for researchers and industry participants.