BLOOMINGTON, Ind., Feb. 11, 2021 – PRESS RELEASE – Marc Byers and his team of odor mitigation experts recently announced the launch of Byers Scientific (Byers), which brings two industry-leading companies—Byers Scientific & Manufacturing and Pacific Environmental Analytics—together under one roof. Through this internal restructuring, Byers has expanded its comprehensive and data-driven odor mitigation solutions across multiple industries.
Byers Scientific & Manufacturing, now Byers Mitigation Technologies, has been a leading designer, engineer and manufacturer of equipment for the industrial odor management industry since 2014. Byers’ patented dry vapor-phase odor mitigation systems are an integral part of the odor mitigation plan for numerous industrial-scale facilities. With these vapor-phase systems, in conjunction with its industry-leading MT-6 Molecular Filtration System, Byers is innovating state-of-the-art odor mitigation. This comprehensive approach helps customers and clients achieve regulatory compliance and effectively reduce water and energy consumption to help pave the way for a more sustainable future.
Pacific Environmental Analytics, now Byers Emissions Analysis (BEA), was formed in 2019 to provide a bottom-up approach to assessing and managing commercial agriculture and industrial emissions. Innovated by globally recognized scientists Dr. Alex Guenther and Dr. William Vizuete, BEA employs pioneering gas-phase emissions testing and analysis to determine the impact of cultivation, processing and extraction on air quality using site-specific emissions modeling.
Finally, the newest division, Byers Intelligent Systems, offers other industrial manufacturers the same Bolt-OnTM Cloud-based SCADA (IoT) functionality on-board all Byers’ manufactured equipment. This proprietary technology is made available to other original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to increase automation capabilities, improve equipment efficiencies, collect critical data and drive revenue.
By bringing Byers Mitigation Technologies, Emissions Analysis and Intelligent Systems together, Byers equips customers and clients to tackle today’s most complex odor and emissions challenges across various industries. With science and data-driven mitigation and monitoring solutions, Byers helps significantly reduce liability associated with odor and emissions from commercial cannabis, solid waste, industrial-scale composting and more.
Cresco Labs Ends Lawsuit Against Co-Founder Joe Caltabiano
The multistate operator alleged in a British Columbia court that Caltabiano created a “toxic work environment” for employees and disregarded regulatory compliance, among other claims.
Vertically integrated, multistate operator (MSO) Cresco Labs and its co-founder Joe Caltabiano have ended a multifaceted dispute in a Canadian court after Cresco alleged in a lawsuit that Caltabiano engaged in inappropriate behavior and created a “toxic work environment” while working at Cresco and breached his contract with the company, which he left last year.
On Jan. 29, Cresco filed a civil suit in British Columbia’s Supreme Court against Caltabiano, who was Cresco’s president and a member of its board of directors, and against Ken Amann and Choice Consolidation Corp. (Though it operates in the U.S., Cresco has an office in Vancouver, B.C., and is publicly traded on the Canadian Securities Exchange.)
By Feb. 4, the case was discontinued.
“The claims outlined in the lawsuit have been resolved through a mutual settlement agreement and Cresco has successfully mitigated the regulatory issues referred to in the complaint,” Cresco spokesperson Jason Erkes told Cannabis Business Times and Cannabis Dispensary in a Feb. 11 email. “The lawsuit has been discontinued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.”
“This lawsuit was quickly dismissed on Feb. 4,” Shawna McGregor, a publicist who represents Caltabiano, told CBT and CD in a Feb. 12 email. “Had it proceeded, Mr. Caltabiano and Choice Consolidation Corp would have denied the allegations as untrue. Like all legitimate organizations, Choice Consolidation Corp. has every right to exist and operate within the U.S. cannabis marketplace.”
In its suit, Cresco claimed that Caltabiano bullied and intimidated female employees at the company and “sought to embarrass his female employees at every turn.”
The company also alleged that Caltabiano and Amann, Cresco’s former chief financial officer and a former senior employee, “misused confidential information belonging to Cresco, including information about existing Cresco investors, and information about Cresco's business plans and M&A targets” to benefit a separate, competing venture, the special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) Choice Consolidation.
In addition, Cresco alleged, “Caltabiano routinely directed subordinates to act without proper regard for regulatory compliance, and he personally showed disregard for regulatory compliance.” Cresco stated that it had to spend large sums of money to remedy a regulatory issue in Illinois that occurred because of “Caltabiano’s misconduct,” though the suit did not specify what the alleged misconduct was. Illinois regulators could not be reached for comment by CBT and CD's deadline.
The lawsuit also claims that when Cresco attempted to remove Caltabiano from various licenses, he “refused to cooperate, and advised Cresco that he would assist with such process only if he received substantial compensation for doing so.”
"In the face of Caltabiano's intransigence, Cresco took steps to remove Caltabiano from various of its licenses in the absence of Caltabiano's cooperation,” it states. “Aware that this was happening, Caltabiano actively intervened with applicable state authorities in Ohio and Arizona in an effort to retain or reinstate his position on Cresco’s licenses in those states. His active interference occurred as recently as January 22, 2021.” Regulators from both states declined comment for this story.
The Jan. 29 filing stated that Caltabiano “also enabled inappropriate, harassing and abusive language by male employees under his direct supervision towards female employees of Cresco.”
Female employees came forward with “numerous complaints,” which Cresco “confirmed through internal and externally led investigations, of harassing conduct by male employees within Caltabiano's area of responsibility,” according to the complaint.
“Caltabiano repeatedly engaged in inappropriate, abusive, harassing and misogynistic conduct directed towards female employees of Cresco,” the lawsuit alleged. “While Caltabiano ‘managed’ … many of the employees through fear, bullying, and intimidation, he repeatedly belittled female employees for minor performance issues, made demeaning remarks about female employees’ appearance and personal characteristics, and sought to embarrass his female employees at every turn.”
Cresco planned to terminate Caltabiano for cause and, in February 2020, placed him on administrative leave, according to the suit, which then states that he resigned on March 2, 2020.
“Caltabiano continued as a director of Cresco until June 2020,” the complaint states. “He resigned as a director immediately before Cresco published its management information circular, knowing that the circular would disclose that he was not being nominated for re-election as a director of Cresco.”
Adobe Stock
State Legalization Bills Are Flying, M&A Is Heating Up: Week in Review
The most notable legalization news this week came out of Connecticut (good) and South Dakota (bad).
We are in the midst of state legislation filing season, and this year’s flurry of reform bills are buoyed by some serious political momentum out of Washington, D.C., and the growing number of adult-use states in the U.S.
In Connecticut, for instance, the governor specifically cited Massachusetts’ booming industry as a reason to legalize cannabis this year—with an eye on May 2022 for sales. “Our neighboring states are offering recreational marijuana on a legal and regulated basis,” Gov. Ned Lamont said in a budget address to the state. “Massachusetts dispensaries are advertising extensively here in Connecticut. And rather than surrender this market to out-of-staters, or worse, to the unregulated underground market, our budget provides for the legalization of recreational marijuana.”
The Connecticut news tops our Week in Review, but there are plenty of other stories to check out in mid-February. Here’s what you need to know:
If Gov. Ned Lamont gets his way, Connecticut will no longer wave the white flag to out-of-state cannabis markets, like neighboring Massachusetts, that are currently deploying advertisements to funnel away potential revenue streams. Read more
According to new data from the Colorado Department of Revenue, 2020 was the highest-selling year for cannabis in Colorado. The state is approaching $10 billion in sales since 2014. Read more
Fox Rothschild attorneys share their specialized perspectives on the M&A landscape in the cannabis industry, as well as what factors play a role in accelerating consolidations in the rapidly expanding market in the U.S. Read more
After South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem supported a lawsuit that questioned the voter-approved amendment from November, Circuit Judge Christina Klinger rules the measure violated one of the state’s constitutional amendments. Read more
A city of 11,000, Ontario, grosses $91.7 million in 2020 to take over ‘Highest County’ title in Oregon after local voters overturn ban on cannabis sales. That’s just the start of it. Read more
And elsewhere on the web, here are the stories we’ve been reading this week:
ESPN: Former Lions Calvin Johnson, Rob Sims believe in the science, potential of cannabis industry. Read more
CalCoastNews.com: California Fast-Tracking Cannabis Business Licenses for Refugees. Read more
Marketwatch: Best-Performing Marijuana ETF Manager Says the Industry Will Be Transformed By Iconic Consumer Brands. Read more
Forbes: Billionaire Beau Wrigley Says His Cannabis Company Will Be Bigger Than the Family Candy Business. Read more
The Street: Aurora Cannabis CEO Talks Q2 Results, Cannabis Industry Outlook. Read more
South Dakota to Postpone Implementation of Voter-Approved Medical Cannabis Measure
Gov. Kristi Noem says eight months is not enough time to successfully enact the measure to ensure it best benefits the people of South Dakota; an additional year is needed.
South Dakota may have been the first state to pass both medical and adult-use cannabis on the same ballot in November 2020, but Gov. Kristi Noem is not in a hurry to implement either.
Initiated Measure 26, the medical cannabis program ballot measure, passed with 69.9% in favor. Based on South Dakota law, constitutional amendments and initiated measures become effective on July 1 each year following an election.
However, Noem said she and leadership in both chambers of the South Dakota state legislature plan to delay implementing a medical cannabis program an additional year, to July 1, 2022, she announced in a press release Feb. 10.
“We are working diligently to get IM 26 implemented safely and correctly,” Noem said in the release. “The feasibility of getting this program up and running well will take additional time. I am thankful to our legislative leaders for helping make sure that we do this right.”
That announcement came two days after Circuit Judge Christina Klinger struck down the voter-approved adult-use Amendment A, concluding that it violated South Dakota’s requirement that constitutional amendments be limited to one subject, she said in her ruling. That ruling was sparked after Noem instructed state law enforcement personnel to file litigation against Amendment A.
When it comes to tackling both medical and adult-use cannabis legislation, Noem said she and leadership in the state legislature are geared toward implemented a medical program first, rather than working on both at the same time. That decision came after turning to industry experts Cannabis Public Policy Consulting (CPPC), according to Noem’s release.
The notion from CPPC is that no state in the country has ever implemented both medical and adult-use programs simultaneously; and the successful implementation of a medical program takes more than just eight months—the timeframe IM 26 currently requires.
In a letter sent to the South Dakota Department of Revenue, CPPC consultants said, “Based on our experience with over 15 governments, the fastest timeline to create an effective, sustainable and functioning medical marijuana system, without any existing licensing system, while balancing the need for patient access to safe marijuana with the need for public safety, preventing underage use and divergence into the illicit market, is between 14 to 20 months.”
In a follow-up press release Noem’s office issued Feb. 12, she reiterated her position that the role of the state government is to ensure major policy changes are implemented and regulated in a manner that best benefits South Dakotans, putting safety and effectiveness at the forefront.
In addition to creating a flexible timeline to implement a medical cannabis program, the governor’s plan—in coordination with state legislature leadership—also sets up an interim committee to meet between now and the next legislative session to address the wide-ranging questions that they still have and the diverse policy decisions that should be open for public comment, according to the latter release.
Some of those questions include: Should cities or the state have oversight over licensed establishments, and to what extent? What testing is needed to ensure that products are safe for human consumption, and who is charged with testing? Should cannabis be allowed to be grown at home, as is permitted under IM 26? What will the taxation system look like? And what will the system look like for students taking medicinal marijuana in school?
In the former release, Senate Majority Leader Gary Cammack and House Majority Leader Kent Peterson, both republicans, said they support the people’s will in passing medical cannabis legislation.
“Our Senate leadership fully supports the effort to properly implement a workable medical marijuana program,” Cammack said. “We will honor the voters’ wishes.”
Peterson said, “There is no doubt that IM 26 passed in South Dakota, and it is fully our intention to honor the will of the voters. Based upon the experiences of other states, we know that it takes time to start implementing a safe and workable program. We will get the job done.”
South Dakota H.B. 1100, Establish Criteria Regarding Marijuana, sponsored by Rep. Spencer Gosch, was amended Feb. 10 to be the vehicle for the plan’s passage
Adobe Stock
Your State-by-State Guide to Cannabis Cultivation Business Application and Licensing Fees
Finding out what any particular state is charging prospective cannabis growers to get into the business can be daunting at times.
Finding out what any particular state is charging prospective cannabis growers to get into the business can be daunting at times. Some states make their fees easy to find and easy to digest. Others can take some time digging through page after page on various websites.
Note, too, that some states are not always accepting any new marijuana cultivation business license applications. Those windows of availability open and close at different times in each state.
With that, here are the cultivation business application and licensing fees for the 33 states that allow medical cannabis and, in some cases, adult-use cannabis businesses. We will update this post as fee structures change in U.S. state-regulated markets; let us know what additional application and licensing information you'd like to see on this post.
Application fee: $5,000 ($1,000 of which is refundable if unsuccessful in the application process)
Initial registration fee: $5,000
Annual registration renewal fee: $1,000
In Arizona, medical marijuana nonprofit dispensary licensees are permitted to grow marijuana. The fee for medical marijuana nonprofit dispensary licensees to move into the new adult-use market is $25,000.
In Florida, medical marijuana treatment centers (MMTCs) are authorized to cultivate, process, transport and dispense medical marijuana. A “supplemental licensing fee” of $174,844 was rescinded in 2018.
In Hawaii, medical marijuana dispensary licensees are permitted to grow, process, transport and dispense marijuana. The state does not offer a cultivation license.
No cultivation licensing process. Two cannabis companies have successfully placed bids for growing permits awarded to Southern University and Louisiana State University.
Missouri began accepting medical marijuana business license applications in January 2019. As of early 2021, the state is no longer accepting applications.
Read more about Missouri's medical marijuana industry regulations from Reynolds and Gold here.
Application fee: $2,000 (up to 3,000 square feet of cultivation area for a Level-I cultivator license), $20,000 (up to 25,000 square feet of cultivation area for a Level-II cultivator license)
Cannabis Business Times’ interactive legislative map is another tool to help cultivators quickly navigate state cannabis laws and find news relevant to their markets. View More
Posted by Tony Lange
Patrick Williams
Eric Sandy
Noelle Skodzinski
