Here’s the meat of the piece however we very a lot advise all critical readers to take a more in-depth take a look at this text greater than as soon as.  There are extra huge finish of city M&A’s to come back in the subsequent 12 months and it appears like there are some battles to be fought.

Here, for instance, is a core matter that can have to be thought-about, amogst might others.

Once cleared to the DOJ, Delrahim confronted a authorized conundrum that was a matter of first impression in the historical past of the Department of Justice.  As he defined in his letter, “the Division was forced to consider whether the antitrust laws could or should be applied to protect and promote lower prices and increased output of a substance that is facially illegal under federal law.” 

Author:
Roger P. Alford joined the Notre Dame Law college in January 2012. Alford teaches and writes in a variety of subject-matter areas, together with worldwide commerce, worldwide arbitration, worldwide antitrust, and comparative legislation.In addition to publishing broadly in main legislation critiques and journals, Alford is the common editor of Kluwer Arbitration Blog and on the Executive Committee of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration.

He writes for Just Security

Before addressing the particular query of how the Antitrust Division investigated the proposed mergers in query, it’s helpful to offer some historic context of how the Department of Justice has seen the marijuana trade.  This historical past belies the allegation that federal enforcement coverage towards the sale and distribution of marijuana is predicated on the private animus of specific DOJ officers.

Given the altering public attitudes about marijuana use, it could be troublesome for a lot of to understand the federal authorities’s official positions on the distribution and sale of marijuana.  As states more and more moved towards the legalization of marijuana use, the Department of Justice has clarified its steering on federal investigations and prosecutions.

In October 2009, the Obama Administration reiterated that “marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime.” The Obama DOJ introduced that it’s “committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States,” significantly on condition that “marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.”  Among the enforcement priorities the Obama DOJ introduced was the “prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit.”

In June 2011 the Obama Administration offered additional guidance in response to states authorizing “multiple, large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers” with “revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.”  The Obama DOJ warned that “persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law.” The Obama DOJ additionally warned “[t]hose who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.”

In August 2013 the Obama Administration offered still more guidance, stating that it’ll depend on state and native enforcement to handle marijuana actions that don’t implicate sure federal insurance policies.  However, it reiterated that “state or local laws” don’t present a “legal defense to a violation of federal law” and “evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances.”  The Obama DOJ emphasised that “a marijuana operation’s large scale or for-profit nature may be a relevant consideration for assessing the extent to which it undermines a particular federal enforcement priority,” together with priorities corresponding to “preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels,” and “preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states.”

Finally, in January 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that “[g]iven the Department’s well-established general principles, previous nationwide guidance specific to marijuana enforcement is unnecessary and is rescinded, effectively immediately.”  This had the effect of returning “local control to federal prosecutors who know where and how to deploy Justice Department resources most effectively.”

Thus, removed from “personal dislike or animus” towards the trade, these pronouncements present helpful context on the federal authorities’s official positions on the sale and distribution of marijuana in the United States.  They additionally present essential perception on how the federal authorities would possibly reply to efforts by marijuana firms to merge in order to extra successfully promote and distribute marijuana in potential violation of federal legislation and federal priorities.

Read full article

Regarding Those Marijuana Mergers: A Response to Accusers Who Question the DOJ

Source link