Melanie J. Scroble

Commercial Property Owners Must Address Unique Issues Before They Lease to Cannabis Dispensaries

Ansell Grimm March 28, 2024

The cannabis industry has been legalized at the state level in New Jersey for some time now as licenses continue to be applied for and distributed. While some cannabis businesses are purchasing their own properties at which they can operate, many are seeking leases from local commercial property owners. These commercial landlords are jumping at the chance to take advantage of the lucrative opportunities in leasing their premises to cannabis businesses for rental rates much greater than market in the areas permitting this use. However, the inherent conflict and contradictions between federal and state cannabis laws, as well as other industry-specific concerns, must impact the decisions of landlords considering doing business with cannabis enterprises.

The overwhelming majority of marijuana businesses lease their spaces rather than own them. According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the share of NAR members reporting purchases of real property by marijuana businesses over leasing dropped from 29% to 18% since 2021. But even as more commercial property owners become comfortable with the idea of leasing to a cannabis dispensary, they also recognize they need to carefully tailor their leases to address the legal, financial, and practical concerns unique to the cannabis industry. Failure to account for these issues could expose landlords to potential civil and criminal liability, conflicts and defaults with lenders, and the loss of substantial cash flow.

While commercial property owners should always consult with experienced counsel before leasing to a cannabis dispensary, the following are just a few of the many matters that should be addressed before signing on the dotted line.

Lender/Mortgage Concerns

If their property is secured by a mortgage, owners should carefully review their loan documents to ensure that renting their property for purposes that remain illegal under federal law does not constitute a default. Loan documents often contain language stating that the loan may be accelerated if the real property is used in connection with illegal activity. Leasing space for a federally prohibited purpose could also trigger any “bad boy” covenant in a personal guaranty and make it more difficult to refinance in the future as there could be issues finding a new lender and obtaining a loan title policy due to the federally illegal use.

Use of Premises

The lease should clearly define the permitted uses of the leased space, limiting it to the specific nature of the cannabis business allowed by the license obtained by the cannabis operator. In addition, the landlord will want to make sure that the company complies with all state and local laws, including confirming that the local municipality has approved the use. As to licensing specifically, the landlord will want to make sure that the tenant always complies with the terms of its state-issued license and continues to renew it as required by law. When it comes to the particulars of the use itself, the landlord may want to specifically prohibit the onsite use of cannabis products anywhere on the landlord’s property or other considerations based upon the nature of the property.

Cash/Rent Payments

Robust security should be a necessity at any premises involved with the cannabis industry due to the cash-intensive operations (another consequence of the failure to modify federal banking laws to accommodate cannabis businesses). The landlord may want to limit the amount of cash that is kept at the premises at any given time or require the tenant to remove such cash from the premises at specific intervals. And that cash, derived from the sale of cannabis products, should not be used to pay rent as that could be deemed a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The landlord will want to require all rental payments to be made by check or wire transfer. For similar reasons, commercial landlords should never use a percentage rent formula on their dispensary leases, as it could potentially be deemed to be income from federally illegal activities.

Termination of Lease/Surrender of Premises

The commercial landlord should require that its departing tenant remove all cannabis products remaining on the premises upon the expiration or earlier termination of the lease, as a landlord never wants to be in possession or have to dispose of illegal substances. As such, typical abandonment clauses would not be ideal in this situation.

If possible, the landlord may also want to consider an early exit clause in the event of any changes in the current applicable federal laws and regulations that trigger an increased risk to the landlord or its ownership of the property.

As noted, these are the broad contours of only a few issues that commercial property owners need to consider and incorporate into their leases with cannabis operators. If you would like to discuss leasing your property to a cannabis business or need assistance drafting a lease, please contact Melanie Scroble at Ansell.Law.

Most Commercial Property-Owning Entities and HOAs Must Now Report Ownership Information to the Federal Government Under the Corporate Transparency Act

Ansell Grimm February 13, 2024

By Nicole D. Miller and Melanie J. Scroble

Most entities that own commercial property, as well as homeowner and condominium associations (“Community Associations”), are among the over 36 million other American businesses and organizations that must now provide the federal government with detailed information about their ownership and controlling interests.

That is because the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which became effective on January 1, 2024, mandates that all “Reporting Companies” covered by the law disclose “Beneficial Ownership Information” (BOI) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) division of the U.S. Treasury Department.

With an effective date of January 1, 2024, and with mandatory reporting deadlines approaching, commercial property owners and Community Associations need to understand what obligations, if any, they have under the CTA, whether they are a covered “Reporting Company,” and what information they need to provide FinCEN by the applicable deadline.

What Is the Corporate Transparency Act?

Signed into law in 2021, the CTA is part of an expansive federal government effort to crack down on illegal money laundering and “the use of shell and front companies by illicit actors who use them to obfuscate their identities and launder ill-gotten gains through the United States.” Unlike most federal regulatory schemes that primarily apply to larger companies, the CTA targets “smaller, more lightly regulated entities,” according to FinCEN. This focus on small entities is one reason FinCEN estimated that 90% of businesses and organizations in the U.S. are subject to the CTA’s disclosure requirements.

Almost All Property Owning-Entities and HOAs Are Covered “Reporting Companies”

Subject to significant exceptions, as discussed below, a “Reporting Company” that must comply with the CTA is any corporation, limited liability company, or any other entity created by filing a document (e.g., Articles of Incorporation) with a secretary of state or equivalent agency. Entities like general partnerships or sole proprietorships that can be established without such filings are not subject to the CTA’s disclosure and reporting requirements.

Accordingly, individuals and general partnerships that own commercial property have no obligations under the act. But, unless they fall within one of the listed exceptions, all other property-owning entities will need to provide their BOI to FinCEN.

Most Community Associations are “Reporting Companies” under the act since they are usually organized by filing articles of incorporation with a secretary of state. Their tax-exempt status under Section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code does not spare Community Associations from their reporting obligations. While the CTA specifically exempts 501(c) non-profit organizations from reporting requirements, it does not exempt Section 528 organizations.

Entities Excluded From the CTA’s Reporting Requirements

Most entities excluded from the CTA’s reporting requirements are already subject to beneficial ownership reporting and disclosure obligations under other laws, so filing such disclosures under the CTA would be redundant.

As stated in Section(a)(11)(B) of the CTA, these entities do not have to comply with the CTA’s BOI reporting requirements:

Banks.
Bank holding companies.
Credit unions.
Insurance companies.
Issuers of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that must file supplementary and periodic information under Section 15(d) of the 1934 Act.
Brokers, dealers, and any other entities registered with the SEC under the 1934 Act.
Registered investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Public accounting firms.
Companies employing more than 20 people full-time in the U.S. or that filed a federal income tax return in the prior year showing more than $5 million in gross sales or receipts and have an operating presence in the U.S.
Any entity that:
- Has existed for over one year.
- Has not sent or received funds over $1,000 or experienced an ownership change in the previous 12 months.
- Is not actively engaged in business.
- Is not owned by a foreign individual.

and

Does not otherwise hold any assets, including ownership interests, in any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.

Disclosures Required About “Company Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners”

In addition to basic corporate information such as name, address, and tax ID number, Reporting Companies must provide FinCEN with BOI about two groups of individuals: “Company Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners.”

As defined in the Final Rule, a “company applicant” is “the individual who directly files the document that first creates the domestic reporting company” and “the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing of the document.” Effectively, the person who filed the documents required to create the entity will be considered the “Company Applicant,” whose BOI must be reported.

Notably, the reporting of applicant information only applies to Reporting Companies created from and after January 1, 2024. Such new Reporting Companies need not provide FinCEN with updates regarding Company Applicant information after their initial disclosure.

“Beneficial Owner” = 25% Ownership OR “Substantial Control” Over Entity

All Reporting Companies must disclose information about their “Beneficial Owners.” As defined in the Final Rule, a “Beneficial Owner” is any person who, directly or indirectly, either:

Owns or controls at least 25% of a reporting company’s ownership interests; or
Exercises substantial control over a reporting company.

Importantly, ownership interests through intermediary entities qualify as ownership of a Reporting Company. As specified in the Final Rule, a person may be deemed a beneficial owner “through ownership or control of one or more intermediary entities, or ownership or control of the ownership interests of any such entities, that separately or collectively own or control ownership interests of the reporting company.”

“Substantial Control”

Determining whether a person exercises “substantial control” over an entity so they are considered a “Beneficial Owner” involves an analysis of the person’s actual authority and the actions they are empowered to take on behalf of an entity. Under the Final Rule, an individual has “Substantial Control” over an entity if they:

Serve as a senior officer of the entity.
Have authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body) of the entity or
Direct, determine, or have substantial influence over important decisions made by the entity, such as:
- Entry into and termination of contracts.
- Acquisition, sale, or lease of the company’s principal assets.
- Reorganization, dissolution, or merger.
- Selection or termination of business lines or venture.
- Amendment of any governance documents of the reporting company.

For Community Associations, this means that the voluntary members of the board of directors or board of trustees will be considered individuals with “substantial control” over the covered entity, i.e. the association.

Information That Must Be Reported to FinCEN

Non-exempt Reporting Companies must provide FinCEN with the following information regarding individuals who qualify as Company Applicants or Beneficial Owners:

Full legal name.
Date of birth.
Street addresses (identified as a current residential or business street address).
Non-expired state identification document or passport.

Reporting Deadlines

As noted, the CTA’s compliance deadlines largely depend on when the “Reporting Company” was formed.

Entities Formed in Calendar Year 2024: Covered Reporting Companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2025, must submit their BOI report within 90 days after the date of the entity’s formation (i.e., the filing date of its Articles or Certificate).
Entities Formed Before January 1, 2024: Covered Reporting Companies formed before 2024 must report their BOI on or before January 1, 2025.
Entities Formed on or After January 1, 2025: Covered Reporting Companies formed after 2024 must file their BOI within 30 days after its date of formation.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Commercial property owners and Community Associations that fail to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements face significant penalties. Any entity or person that “willfully provides, or attempts to provide, false or fraudulent information or willfully fails to report when required” faces civil penalties of $500 per day, criminal fines of up to $250,000, and a maximum of five years in federal prison.

Given the complexities in determining an entity’s beneficial ownership and non-compliance consequences, property-owning entities and Community Associations should consult with experienced counsel to ensure they satisfy any reporting obligations under the CTA. For further information and assistance with your entity’s CTA compliance, please contact one of the attorneys in Ansell Grimm & Aaron’s Commercial Real Estate or Community Association practice groups.

Ansell.Law Attorneys Secured Numerous Successful Client Outcomes in Q2 2023

Ansell Grimm June 29, 2023

Ansell.Law attorneys are laser-focused on achieving our clients’ goals. We listen to our clients and craft compelling legal strategies to preserve their business interests. A sampling of our recent successes follows.

Commercial Real Estate

Jonathan Sherman, in collaboration with Melanie Scroble, successfully negotiated multiple commercial leases for cannabis retail in various cities, including Verona and East Orange, New Jersey. In a separate matter, Jonathan successfully completed a corporate restructure for his clients, enabling each LLC member to effectively execute a 1031 Exchange and achieve their desired financial goals.

Jonathan presented to over 100 realtors, providing valuable insights into using the 1031 Exchange process and Delaware Statutory Trust. Jonathan and Melanie Scroble partnered to deliver an informative Commercial Zoom series to more than 100 realtors, covering the acquisition, sale, and leasing of commercial real estate.

Jonathan also shared his expertise at a Coldwell Banker roundtable. Engaging with over 50 residential and commercial brokers, the discussion revolved around the intricacies of buying multi-family properties in New Jersey.

Litigation

Joshua Bauchner, Layne Feldman, and Anthony Sango obtained dismissal of a counterclaim on behalf of our client, a well-known real estate development firm, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County. The counterclaim alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. AGA successfully argued that subsequent amendments to the parties’ original agreement defeated the defendants’ counterclaims as a matter of law, securing a dismissal with a prejudice precluding amendment.

Gabriel Blum and Seth Rosenstein secured summary judgment in favor of a firm client in a complex design and construction defect case. The firm convinced the Court that our client only provided job site materials and did not engage in construction work, contrary to the allegations in the Complaint. As New Jersey trial courts often disfavor granting summary judgment, this was a significant win for our client and saved them ongoing defense costs.

Anthony D’Artiglio and Joshua Bauchner successfully represented the purchaser of a substantial portion of an ice cream company’s assets with numerous locations throughout New York and New Jersey. The ice cream company entered into an assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding where our client won the bid to purchase its IP and equipment while assuming multiple lease locations. We guided the purchaser through the sale’s confirmation, including addressing multiple issues related to liens, transfer of the IP, and landlord disputes.

Joshua Bauchner, Anthony D’Artiglio, and Brian Ashnault are representing a large property management company in a condemnation case in which a New York state agency is acquiring two permanent easements from a Bronx warehouse owned by the client. AGA is guiding its client through the pre-litigation stages of the condemnation process and seeks to secure a multi-million-dollar fair market value award in New York Supreme Court.

Joshua Bauchner, Layne Feldman, and Brian Ashnault obtained dismissal of a counterclaim filed against our client, a retail brokerage firm, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment regarding a brokerage listing agreement, deeming it unenforceable. AGA successfully argued that the counterclaim did not state sufficient facts and that the legal arguments failed as a matter of law, securing a dismissal with a prejudice precluding amendment.

Other litigation victories include:

Secured possession of a luxury home in Westchester County after years of litigation and compelled a highly favorable settlement, resulting in a windfall for clients and strong profit after selling the property to a third-party purchaser.
Obtained a highly favorable settlement for a contractor client after the homeowner sued, alleging breach of contract and consumer fraud in connection with constructing a pool deck. The firm’s efforts minimized the out-of-pocket costs for the contractor, with its insurance carrier paying most of the limited settlement sum.
Successfully prosecuted action on behalf of an automobile repair shop against a vehicle owner who refused to pay for charges after his insurance carrier failed to extend coverage. The settlement reached was significant and avoided the costs related to protracted litigation.
Initiated litigation against a multinational financial consultancy firm under the Fair Credit Reporting Act following the dissemination of inaccurate information concerning a client. The action was settled pre-litigation on favorable terms to the client.
Filed action on behalf of local businesses after a nationwide energy supplier substantially overbilled for provided electricity. After limited discovery, the firm’s efforts resulted in a substantial monetary payment to the local businesses.
Represented a local property developer in securing declaratory relief pertaining to a shopping center and certain master deed restrictions, permitting the construction and operation of a well-known gas station and convenience store at the subject property.

Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC October 2022 Cannabis Law Update

Ansell Grimm October 18, 2022

Joshua S. Bauchner flanked by his Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC colleagues, as he was recently honored as one of the “Innovators of the Year” by the New Jersey Law Journal. — Joshua S. Bauchner, center, flanked by his Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC colleagues, was recently honored by the New Jersey Law Journal as one of its “Innovators of the Year” for 2022. Bauchner is a leading voice in the legal cannabis community, aiding clients in navigating state regulations to find success in the growing cannabis marketplace.

CRC Issues Guidance On WIRES; Raises More Questions Than Answers

On September 9, 2022, the Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) issued long-awaited guidance regarding workplace impairment arising from cannabis use. While the guidance does not address all the issues that employers have faced in recent years, it does provide some needed clarity.

By way of background, on February 22, 2021, Governor Murphy signed the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) into law. In addition to legalizing the use of marijuana for anyone aged 21 and over, CREAMMA prohibited employers from taking adverse employment action against an employee, such as termination, solely “due to the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in the employee’s bodily fluid.” In other words, under CREAMMA, a positive drug test result for marijuana is insufficient for an employer to conclude that an employee is impaired and to take disciplinary action. Instead, CREAMMA requires the employer to use a Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert (“WIRE”) to conduct “a physical evaluation in order to determine an employee’s state of impairment.”

However, CREAMMA did not establish what credentials, experience, or training a WIRE would need and instead directed the CRC to design and implement a certification process. After much delay, the CRC finally published some guidance to assist employers. While the new guidance does not formulate and approve standards for WIRE certification, it does state that a positive drug test result combined with “evidence-based documentation of physical signs or other evidence of impairment during an employee’s prescribed work hours may be sufficient to support an adverse employment action.”

While WIRE certification is unavailable, the CRC recommends that employers “[d]esignate an interim staff member to assist with making determinations of suspected cannabis use during an employee’s prescribed work hours.” The designated employee “[s]hould be sufficiently trained to determine impairment and qualified to complete [a] Reasonable Suspicion Observation Report [which is a form created by the CRC].”

The report should document “the behavior, physical signs, and evidence that support the employer’s determination that an employee is reasonably suspected of being under the influence during an employee’s prescribed work hours.” The CRC recommends that a second person in addition to the observer, such as a manager or supervisor, be involved as well. Employers should consider using “cognitive impairment test, a scientifically valid, objective, consistently repeatable, standardized automated test of an employee’s impairment, and/or an ocular scan, as physical signs or evidence to establish reasonable suspicion of cannabis use or impairment at work.”

Although this guidance is helpful in some respects, it still leaves employers with much uncertainty. The best course of action is for the CRC to adopt WIRE certification standards as soon as possible as the Legislature intended with the passage of CREAMMA.

Ansell Expands Cannabis Law Practice Group

The Firm added a number of new attorneys to the Practice Group to best serve clients in this multidisciplinary field. Kelsey Barber has taken the lead on applications, Irina Moin is assisting with corporate formation, structure, and governance, and Melanie Scroble and David Lang represent cannabis clients with commercial real estate needs, including leasing, site acquisition, and zoning. Rahool Patel also continues to represent clients in litigation matters, including the still ongoing (and successful) appeal of the 2018 Request for Applications, as well as challenges to municipalities for failing to employ objective criteria in awarding resolutions of support to prospective state applicants.

As a full-service law firm, Ansell attorneys are able to bring their collective experience and skills to serve every client need in this ever-growing, and ever-changing, area of the law.

Second Circuit Holds Classifying Cannabis As A Schedule I Narcotic Is Irrational; Does Nothing About It

According to a ruling recently handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the federal government’s classification of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance without medical utility isn’t unconstitutional, but it is “irrational.”

In the matter of United States of America v. Green, Nos. 19-997(L), 19-1027 (Con), __F.4th__ , 2022 WL 3903654 (2d Cir. Aug. 31, 2022), defendants were charged by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the narcotics conspiracy count on the grounds that the classification of marijuana under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act violates their Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, and that marijuana’s scheduling has no rational basis because it does not meet the statutory criteria for inclusion on Schedule I. The District Court therein denied defendants’ motion, finding they incorrectly sought to tether the rational basis inquiry to the statutory criteria.

On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, determining:

“[T]he Act’s scheduling criteria are largely irrelevant to our constitutional review because the rational basis test asks only whether Congress could have any conceivable basis for including marijuana on the strictest schedule. Because there are other plausible considerations that could have motivated Congress’s scheduling of marijuana, we conclude that its classification does not violate the [plaintiffs’] due process or equal protection rights.

While the Judges acknowledged that defendants “convincingly argued that it is irrational for the government to maintain that marijuana has no accepted medical use,” they ruled that defendants were required to “do more than show that the legislature’s stated assumptions are irrational; [they] must discredit any conceivable basis which could be advanced to support the challenged provision, regardless of whether that basis has a foundation in the record, or actually motivated the legislature.”

While disheartening, the Second Circuit’s ruling is consistent with other federal courts’ refusal to strike Schedule I classification, reasoning instead that it is the responsibility of federal lawmakers, not federal courts to repeal the prohibition on marijuana.

Psilocybin May Be Next On The List Of Legalized Substances In NJ

In recent years, efforts to decriminalize and legalize the use of psilocybin (colloquially known as “hallucinogenic mushrooms”) for medical, recreational and scientific purposes has been advancing rapidly. In the State of New Jersey, the potential passage of the “Psilocybin Behavioral Health Access and Services Act” (the “Psilocybin Behavioral Act”), introduced by Senate President, Nick Scutari in June of 2022 would see such legalization and sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms in New Jersey businesses and medical facilities, similar to the State’s recent success in recreational cannabis facilities.

If passed, the Psilocybin Behavioral Act would authorize the production of psilocybin for therapeutic use under a controlled environment, and decriminalize and expunge past convictions for certain psilocybin related conduct, including possession.

Although the Psilocybin Behavioral Act posits itself as mental health, rather than revenue generation for the State, it does take some inspiration from the current Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization (CREAMM) Act. Specifically, applicants will be eligible to pursue four different types of licenses, including, a psilocybin product manufacturer, psilocybin service center operator, psilocybin testing laboratory, and psilocybin service facilitator, as well as a psilocybin worker permit.

Ansell Launches Psychedelics Practice

On the heels of its successful cannabis practice, which has included numerous granted licenses for its clients as well as successes in Court litigating cannabis matters, the Firm is excited to announce it is expanding into the realm of psychedelics.

The Firm has an established record in the cannabis space enabling us to serve our clients unlike any other area law firm. By example, we co-hosted the first-ever Cannabis Symposium in New Jersey which drew nearly a thousand people (two other Symposia followed). Joshua S. Bauchner, head of the practice group, is co-chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association Cannabis Law Committee, has spoken at the Cannabis World Congress and Business Expo at the Jacob Javits Center, and has presented CLE’s on cannabis at the NY and NJ State Bar Associations, and at the NORML Legal Conference in Aspen, among other fora across the country.

The Firm also recently was honored by the New Jersey Cannabis Insider as one of three finalists for Excellence in Cannabis Law and has been covered by numerous media outlets and published on the topic.

Now, with the federal government and many states looking to legalize psychedelics, Ansell is expanding the practice to include this emerging area of law. Please contact us at (973) 247-9000 if you are interested in exploring opportunities.

Biden Administration Open to Health Department Role in Potential Use of Psychedelic Therapies

The Biden Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is actively anticipating that the FDA will approve psychedelic therapies — using psilocybin and MDMA — in the next two years, leading the way for alternative mental health treatments on a federal level.

The plan was revealed in a document coined the “May letter,” a correspondence sent by Assistant Secretary for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Miriam Delphin-Rittmon to Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa.

Dean had contacted HHS and proposed an interagency task force to lead a public-private partnership to address issues associated with anticipated approval by the FDA of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin for depression “within approximately 24 months,” the letter notes.

Delphin-Rittmon responded:

“SAMHSA agrees that too many Americans are suffering from mental health and substance use issues, which have been exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and that we must explore the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies to address this crisis.”

Delphin thereafter confirmed that SAMHSA was exploring the prospect of establishing a Federal Task Force to monitor and address the numerous complex issues associated with emerging substances including the private sector, and that “collaboration across federal agencies with outside stakeholders will be the most effective way to ensure we are thoughtfully coordinating work on emerging substances.”

The letter marks an about-face from decades of federal drug policy, which classified psychedelics like MDMA and psilocybin as Schedule I narcotics, with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

About Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC
Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC was founded in 1929 and has a long history of delivering for clients who come to us to resolve legal matters that are often urgent, stressful, and of great importance. A general practice law firm, Ansell Grimm & Aaron is powered by experienced attorneys who understand that the best outcome is the one that serves the needs of each client.

About the Cannabis Law Practice
Among the leading cannabis firms on the East Coast, we work with cannabis entrepreneurs, industrial hemp producers, ancillary businesses and governing bodies seeking regulatory counsel.

The above is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Transmission of the materials and information contained herein is not intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute the formation of, an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising.

ANSELL GRIMM & AARON NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER 2021

Ansell Grimm November 1, 2021

Jennifer Krimko Secures Variance for New Tesla Gallery and Service Facility

Jennifer Krimko, a Shareholder and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Land Use and Zoning Department, recently represented the property owners for the upcoming Tesla automobile gallery and factory-authorized service facility in Eatontown. The project required approval by the Eatontown Zoning Board of Adjustment because car sales are not permitted in the borough’s zoning rules. In addition to the selling and servicing of electric vehicles, the store will provide a free-standing charging station open to the public along the Route 35 corridor.

x

(more…)

Cannabis Law October Update

Ansell Grimm October 19, 2021

New Jersey Weekly Bar Report

On Monday, October 18, 2021, the New Jersey Law Journal’s weekly Bar Report spoke with NJSBA Cannabis Law Committee Co-Chairs Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. (of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC) and Lisa Gora, Esq. (of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PA) about the legal landscape surrounding the new state law and what can be expected in the early days of this new industry. The Report includes a Q&A that touches on the new law’s impact on attorneys, opportunities for New Jersey entrepreneurs, municipal involvement, and current expected timelines. A copy of the report can be viewed here.

Cannabis Regulatory Commission Meeting

On Friday, October 15, 2021, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission held a meeting during which they voted on and issued recommendations for applicants for Cultivator and Vertically Integrated Licenses as part of the 2019 RFA round. The Commission did not take any action with regard to applicants for Dispensary Licenses. Initially, it was expected that five (5) Cultivator Licenses and four (4) Vertically Integrated Licenses would be awarded. At the meeting, the Commission announced that they would be recommending double the number of Cultivator Licenses. The Commission stipulated that these Cultivator Licensees will need to operate for one (1) year prior to being able to begin adult-use sales. A recording of the meeting will be available on the Commission’s website shortly.

New Jersey Law Journal

On Monday, October 18, 2021, the New Jersey Law Journal published HIGH-lights: A Look at Personal Use Cannabis Rules Adopted by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. The article, a collaboration between Zachary L. Windham, Esq., of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC and Lisa Gora, Esq., of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PA, focuses on the upcoming adult-use application process in light of the initial regulations released by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. The article discusses who will receive “prioritization” in the application process and the impact of receiving such priority, as well as surmising when and what to expect for application submission window(s) given the limited details on the topic within the Commission’s initial rules. A copy of the article can be found here.

2018 RFA Awards Still Outstanding

Despite the Commission’s award of 14 new licenses to applicants from the 2019 RFA, the results of the 2018 RFA are still pending. It has been nearly three (3) years since several rejected applicants filed suit against the state due to lack of transparency and endemic errors in the scoring process implemented by the Department of Health. Last November, a three-judge appellate court vacated the initial 2018 awards and ordered the DOH to develop a new rating system for applications and to increase transparency. The responsibility for reevaluating these applications has been transferred to the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. The Commission has stated that the 2018 RFA applications are still under review. Appellants recently wrote the CRC requesting information on resolving this three-year old matter, however there is no indication of when this review might be completed.

Cannabis Regulatory Commission Cannabis Informational Webinar

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission held an informational webinar. During the webinar, the Commission briefly explained the equity and safety provisions in the initial rules as well as providing general guidance for municipalities. The Commission also discussed basic application requirements and what preliminary steps businesses can take to prepare for applying. The biggest news from the webinar was likely the Commission’s statement that Class 5 Retail License holders will be permitted to provide delivery services for their own products without holding a separate Class 6 Delivery Service License. A recording of the webinar can be viewed here.

NJSBA CLE: Latest Developments In Cannabis Law

On Thursday, October, 28 2021 the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Cannabis Law Committee will be hosting a seminar to discuss The Latest Developments In Cannabis Law, including the Cannabis Regulatory Commission’s initial regulations for the industry. In addition to the personal use cannabis regulations, there will be a panel of township officials to discuss Municipalities and Town Councils, as well as a discussion of corporate and real estate transactions; whether that be the acquisition or disposition of a cannabis operation or the real estate considerations when acquiring real property for, and when leasing to or by, a cannabis operation.

Program Chairs are Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, and Lisa Gora, Esq. of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PA. Speakers will include John Barree AICP, PP of Heyer, Gruel & Associates, Jack Fersko, Esq. of Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis, LLP, Mollie F. Hartman Lustig, Esq. of Cappuzzo, PC, Michael A. Hoffman, Esq. of The Hoffman Centers, PC, Mayor Ryan Martinez of Butler, Morris County, Ronald P. Mondello, Esq. of Law Offices of Ronald P. Mondello, Robert E. Schiappacasse, Esq. of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C, Mayor Domenick Stampone of Haledon, Passaic County, and Sarah Trent, Founder and CEO of Valley Wellness.

For more information and to register for the NJICLE Seminar – Latest Developments In Cannabis Law click here.

Cannabis Symposium draws hundreds to NJPAC

Ansell Grimm January 26, 2018

NBC 4's video of the crowd at the NJ Cannabis Symposium — NBC 4 New York was among the media outlets that covered the NJ Cannabis Symposium which drew a crowd of nearly 800 to the New Jersey Performing Arts Center, Newark on Jan. 25 .

Nearly 800 people interested in taking a role in the legal adult use cannabis industry attended the NJ Cannabis Symposium at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center last night.

As Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC Partner Joshua S. Bauchner told the Asbury Park Press, “The time is now. If you’re starting today or tomorrow, you need to ramp up. There’s a tremendous amount of work to be done before we get to the actual filing of the licenses – getting your team together, getting your capital, finding your space, figuring out your banking.”

Media coverage of the event was extensive with reports appearing on New York’s NBC and ABC affiliates, on FIOS1 News, in NJBiz.com, and this morning on NPR and Good Morning America.

Bauchner, a featured speaker at the symposium, leads AGA’s dedicated Cannabis Law Practice Group which also co-hosted the Symposium alongside the BSC Group, Longview Strategic, Marcum LLP, and the New Jersey Cannabusiness Association.

“We already are planning the next event to be held on March 29 right back at the NJPAC. It will focus on the financial and financing side of the cannabis industry, including banking, raising capital, corporate structure, private lending, and more.” Bauchner explained. Registration for the March 29 Symposium is open at www.njcannabissymposium.com.

ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, PC’s Cannabis Law Practice Group is prepared to assist in all aspects of this emerging field and is committed to helping our clients understand their rights and the opportunities in this complex and evolving area of law. For more information visit our Cannabis Law Practice Group, follow us on Twitter at @THCCounselors, or contact Joshua Bauchner at jb@62q.f7d.myftpupload.com or (973) 247-9000.

C6 Real Estate Partners Close on $27M Garfield property

Ansell Grimm July 12, 2017

ANSELL, GRIMM & AARON, PC partner, Melanie J. Scroble, Esq., recently closed a $27 million real estate transaction on behalf of C6 Real Estate Partners, in connection with its acquisition of River Edge at Garfield, a newly constructed 100-unit Class-A multifamily apartment building complex located in Garfield, New Jersey. The acquisition was made through a joint venture with Citymark Capital.

C6 Real Estate Partners specializes in acquiring and operating residential, mixed-use and commercial property in New Jersey and the surrounding area. Brian DiSalvo, a partner with C6, commented, “The transaction involved numerous counterparties with differing agendas and methodologies. The documents were complex and required several layers of negotiation. Ms. Scroble proved critical to the success of the transaction with proficient and reliable counsel and management of the process from contract signing to closing.”

Further details about the transaction are available here:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb14433516.htm

Ms. Scroble focuses her practice on the acquisition, financing, leasing and development of commercial real estate both in the Tri-State area and through-out the Country. She has handled a wide range of sales, acquisitions, leases and financings involving different types of real estate, including retail shopping centers, triple net properties, office buildings and multi-family apartment projects. She is a member of the International Council of Shopping Centers and prior speaker at their annual law conference.

* * *

For more than 85 years, ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, PC has been dedicated to providing excellent legal services in nearly all areas of the law, focusing primarily on New Jersey, New York and Federal matters. In providing zealous advocacy and skilled legal advice to our diverse clientele, our attorneys all practice with a common philosophy… commitment to excellence and commitment to people.

For additional information, please contact Melanie J. Scroble at (973) 247-9000 or mjs@62q.f7d.myftpupload.com.

North Jersey Office Relocation

Ansell Grimm March 30, 2015

Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. is pleased to announce the relocation of its North Jersey office from Clifton to Woodland Park. The new office address is 365 Rifle Camp Road. All other contact information remains the same.

ICSC U.S. Shopping Center Law Conferene

Ansell Grimm December 12, 2014

Melanie J. Scroble, Esq., recently attended the 2014 ICSC U.S. Shopping Center Law Conference in Orlando, Florida, as a round table speaker. Ms. Scroble led a roundtable discussion on the topic of When is Your Due Date …for Possession? A discussion of the rent commencement clause in the commercial lease. Roundtable speakers are chosen for their prior expertise with the particular topic. The conference is held by the International Council of Shopping Centers and hosts over 1,200 legal professionals in the retail real estate industry.