There is no substitute for proven expertise when it comes to international law. That’s why leading media around the world so often turn to Harris Bricken for our insight.
Vince Sliwoski, an attorney with the Harris Bricken law firm, theorized that federal courts are “sliding backward” in regards to honoring contracts involving cannabis companies. He cited several recent decisions to make the case that cannabis litigants might be better served in state courts.
Read“I think it also shows [that federal agencies] are working in good faith and want to make rules that work for the industry,” he said. “They actually want it to grow, and taking feedback from folks in the industry is a good way to help understand what needs to be done.”
ReadImplementation of the DEA’s Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (21 CFR Parts 1308 and 1312) is hugely problematic, warns Nathalie Bougenies at Canna Law Blog, because intermediary hemp is a necessary component of the cannabinoid industry.
ReadFor some, the reshoring discussion often begins and ends with China. One of my favorite blogs is the China Law Blog that is authored by Dan Harris and the lawyers at Harris Bricken.
Read“There’s a fear they could show up in middle of the process,” Steenstra says. And Daniel Shortt, an attorney specializing in cannabis policy with Harris Bricken in Seattle, tells Agri-Pulse “I do think there’s a risk” that DEA could come into shops and charge processors with violating the Controlled Substances Act.
Read“In light of the DEA’s historical control of cannabis,” writes attorney Nathalie Bougenies, “and its lack of enthusiasm in the legalization of hemp—USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has repeatedly blamed the DEA for interfering with the development of hemp regulations—it is clear that the Rule is a pretext for the DEA to maintain its authority over cannabis.”
Read
