Earlier this month, Governor Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1291 (“A.B. 1291”), which amends Section 26051.5 of California’s Business & Professions Code to strengthen California’s pro-union requirements for cannabis companies. Specifically, the new law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2020, rewrites the express union organizing commitments cannabis companies must make as part of their state
Cannabis Law Perspectives
Legal insights into california's cannabis industry
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela Confirms (Yet Again) That Arbitration Agreements Should Be Taken Seriously
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. ____ (2019), reported at 2019 WL 1780275, a case with at least three striking lessons: Lesson #1 Because arbitration agreements are formed by contract through mutual consent, parties negotiating arbitration agreements should pay very careful attention to the specific words used in the contract.
Sometimes California’s cannabis laws can be surprising, even to the experts. Our firm came across one example of this recently: Section 26065 of MAUCRSA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 26065), which provides simply that employees “engaged in the cultivation of cannabis under this division shall be subject to Wage Order No. 4-2001 of the Industrial Welfare Commission.” A Brief
We are offering the following observations so that HR managers in the cannabis field can better understand some of the rules that govern wage and hour requirements here in California. These rules are important because failure to follow them can expose employers (the operating cannabis companies) and sometimes their executives to significant civil fines and penalties and, in the case
Privately held cannabis companies might want to give serious consideration to awarding their employees “phantom stock” rather than equity options. Working so close to Silicon Valley and its “option holder” millionaires, can make it easy for California entrepreneurs to forget the many challenges private companies face when awarding equity options to employees. Obviously, private companies lack a public market for