Report: Cannabis In-House Counsel Expect to Spend More to Keep Up With Market
Many in-house counsel, according to the report, having increasing concerns over cannabis-related litigation.
July 15, 2019 at 05:25 PM
4 minute read
Fifty-six percent of general counsel and in-house counsel believe in the next couple of years they will need to increase their legal resources to keep up with the cannabis market, according to a report published by ALM and Shook, Hardy & Bacon.
Many in-house counsel according to the report having growing concerns over cannabis-related litigation. Jean Smith Gonnell, general counsel at STWC Holdings Inc., said she will not be surprised if more resources are spent on litigation.
“It's a very competitive market and it's going to grow and it's going to continue growing,” Gonnell said. “Litigation is definitely one of those things that is going to grow.”
According to the report, general counsel overwhelmingly believe they will need to tackle product labeling and product liability in the next two years. Some 10% of respondents indicated they spend resources for product labeling now; however, 32% of respondents believe they will need to dedicate more resources to product labeling in two years. Some 15% of respondents say they now dedicate time to product liability concerns; however, in two years, 31% say they plan on dedicating more resources to product liability cases.
“At the moment there is not a lot of pending litigation in that space,” said Michael Barnett, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Missouri.
Barnett said litigation concerns increase with the industry as it matures. He explained there are a lot of claims made about cannabis products that the Food and Drug Administration and regulators have taken positions on, and that is where the litigation will come from.
“Generally plaintiffs' lawyers take some guidance from those agencies and start to piggyback on top of them,” Barnett said. “As the industry matures we expect to see more things moving from simple enforcement actions into the private litigation world.”
Katie Gates Calderon, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, said those types of risk analyses and concerns in the cannabis industry are not unique.
“Our clients who are getting into this industry are concerned about the same types of things that they would be with any other product like what do their labels say, are they making claims, what can they do with marketing, what can't they do?” Calderon said.
An area that remains a high priority for in-house counsel cannabis companies is the FDA and other regulators, according to the report. About 58% of respondents said in the next two years they expect a majority of their legal needs will be surrounding the FDA and growing state regulation.
“In places like Colorado, for instance, there are more regulations pertaining to hemp,” Gonnell explained. “I think it's going to expand. There are a lot of industry groups that want guidance so you're seeing different portions of state governments putting forth their own stamp on different things.”
FDA regulatory guidance is one of the larger concerns, Calderon said.
“The CBD industry and all the various forms of how it is ingested kind of took before FDA had the chance to get its arms around everything,” Calderon said. CBD, or cannabidiol, is a compound found in cannabis.
FDA has stated CBD in food products is prohibited, Calderon said, although there are stores that sell those products and the industry for those products continues to grow. There is also an issue of states that allow CBD-infused food, while acknowledging that the FDA says those products are prohibited.
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 AllFDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
FactSet Finds New Legal Chief at Financial Data Rival S&P
State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
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