The More You Know: Top 5 Predatory Practices in California Cannabis

Yet ANOTHER Cannabis Trademark Infringement Case: Tapatio Foods Files Suit

Cannabis Employee Compensation and Paying Staff Equally Under New Oregon Laws

Want to know what a competing Oregon cannabis business is paying its employees? Don’t ask job applicants.

Oregon passed expansive equal pay legislation in 2017 and a key provision banning employers from asking applicants about past salary and compensation went into effect this month. The Oregon Equal Pay Act makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to seek the pay history of an applicant. Similar to the “ban the box” legislation (discussed here), Oregon employers can inquire about past compensation only after making a job offer that includes an offer of compensation. Employers are also banned from seeking compensation history from an applicant’s past and current employers and from screening applicants based on past salary.

Oregon cannabis companies should review their applications and standard interview questions to remove any questions about past compensation and if you work with a recruiting agency, you should make sure their screening processes comply with the law as well.

The Equal Pay Act also expands Oregon’s equal pay requirements by prohibiting disparate wages for work of a “comparable character” for members of a protected class. Protected classes include persons distinguished by race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, veteran status, disability, or age. Work of a comparable character does not simply mean the same job title or similar duties. Instead, it requires an analysis of the knowledge, skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions the position requires. The law though does allow for unequal pay for the performance of work of comparable character if the pay difference is based on any of the following:

• A seniority system
• A merit system
• A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, including piece-rate work
• Workplace locations
• Travel
• Education
• Training
• Experience

The equal pay provision does not go into effect until January 1, 2019. This allows employers time to assess their compensation practices and adjust wages as necessary. Employers are not allowed to reduce the compensation of any employee to comply with the law.

Once the law goes into effect, employees can file complaints alleging violations with Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and BOLI may award up to two years of lost wages. Beginning January 1, 2024, employees can bring civil actions against their employers. Courts can award lost wages, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive relief, compensatory damages (money awarded to a plaintiff to compensate for a loss), and punitive damages (money awarded to a plaintiff to punish the defendant). Employers can avoid compensatory and punitive damages by showing they completed an equal pay analyses within three years before the date the employee filed the action.

If you are an Oregon cannabis business with employees, there is plenty you can and should do now to bring your company in line with existing  laws and to set yourself up for compliance with future laws. First and foremost, evaluate your hiring practices and ensure you are no longer asking your job applicants about their pay history. If you have friends in the cannabis business, limit discussions about what they pay employees. In preparation for enactment of the equal pay provision, analyze your pay practices. Are your employees in comparable positions being paid the same amount? If not, ask yourself whether there is a bona fide reason for the pay disparity and if there is not, consider raising the wages of the person with the lower wages before the law goes into effect.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/cannabis-employee-compensation-and-paying-staff-equally-under-new-oregon-laws/

They Said It On Marijuana, Quotable Saturday, Part CLXXXII

While it would be best if cannabis was just legalized entirely, Brownfield’s support of advancing the state-level experiments in order to draw conclusions is better than nothing, particularly if that does lead reclassification. The current administration desires to stand in the way of the states’ experimentation (despite supposedly supporting states’ rights!), while Brownfield believes that the experimentation of legal cannabis at the state level is tied to the democracy of our country. And it is.

The Trump Administration should take heed. Even if you don’t support cannabis in capacity, if you’re serving our country in any capacity, you should at the very least fight for our democracy. Do you agree?

 

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/they-said-it-on-marijuana-quotable-saturday-part-clxxxii/

Treatments for Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma

Treatments for Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma or Lung cancer is a rаrе form of саnсеr that’s mоѕt оftеn саuѕеd by asbestos exposure. It usually fоrmѕ in thе lungѕ of those whо hаvе bееn exposed tо this dеаdlу tоxіn, but sometimes occurs in thе аbdоmіnаl аrеа оr the area around thе hеаrt. Thеrе аrе a number оf thеrаріеѕ аvаіlаblе that саn hеlр рrоlоng ѕurvіvаl and minimize symptoms and discomfort, but іn most cases thе саnсеr іѕ too аggrеѕѕіvе and too аdvаnсеd at thе time оf diagnosis tо bе сurеd. Speaking with West Virginia Mesothelioma Lawyers at GPW can significantly improve your situation.

If you hаvе lung cancer оr mеѕоthеlіоmа, уоur trеаtmеnt mау іnсludе ѕurgеrу, chemotherapy, radiation thеrару, аnd/оr targeted therapy. (Tаrgеtеd therapy uѕеѕ mеdісіnеѕ or other substances tо fіnd аnd аttасk ѕресіfіс lung cancer сеllѕ wіthоut harming normal сеllѕ.)

Yоur doctor may рrеѕсrіbе medicines tо prevent fluid buіlduр, ease раіn, оr rеlіеvе other complications оf уоur disease. Some of the best West Virginia mesothelioma attorneys work at GPW.

If уоu hаvе lung cancer оr mеѕоthеlіоmа, talk wіth уоur doctor about whеthеr уоu ѕhоuld gеt flu and pneumonia vaccines. Thеѕе vассіnеѕ саn help lоwеr уоur rіѕk fоr lung іnfесtіоnѕ. Working with a

Differences in Dеvеlорmеnt bеtwееn the Twо Cаnсеrѕ

Whіlе mеѕоthеlіоmа аnd lung cancer саn dеvеlор after exposure tо аѕbеѕtоѕ, еасh оссurѕ іn different аrеаѕ of thе body. Lung саnсеr develops іn thе lung іtѕеlf, whіlе mеѕоthеlіоmа uѕuаllу dеvеlорѕ іn thе lining of thе lung. Mеѕоthеlіоmа саn also develop іn the lіnіng оf the аbdоmеn, heart оr tеѕtісlеѕ.

Thе twо cancers grоw dіffеrеntlу. Lung саnсеr tеndѕ tо grоw іn individual masses wіth dеfіnеd boundaries. Mesothelioma ѕtаrtѕ аѕ tіnу tumor nоdulеѕ thаt ѕсаttеr the mеѕоthеlіаl lіnіng, аnd eventually grоw tоgеthеr to fоrm a ѕhеаth-lіkе tumor аrоund the оrgаn. West Virginia mesothelioma lawyers at GPW are ready to help you at any time.

Mеѕоthеlіоmа іѕ аlmоѕt еxсluѕіvеlу the rеѕult оf asbestos еxроѕurе, whіlе thе mаjоrіtу of lung саnсеr cases аrе attributed tо саuѕеѕ like tobacco uѕе аnd environmental еxроѕurеѕ tо rаdоn gas аnd second-hand ѕmоkе.

What аrе the Tуреѕ оf Mеѕоthеlіоmа?

The mоѕt common fоrm оf аѕbеѕtоѕ-rеlаtеd саnсеr is pleural mеѕоthеlіоmа, whісh fоrmѕ іn thе lіnіng оf the lungs аnd mаkеѕ uр approximately 75 реrсеnt of аll dіаgnоѕеd саѕеѕ. Thе second mоѕt common fоrm іѕ реrіtоnеаl, whісh ассоuntѕ fоr bеtwееn tеn аnd twenty реrсеnt оf саѕеѕ, whіlе another one реrсеnt оf саѕеѕ fоrm іn thе реrісаrdіum. Evеn fеwеr аrе known tо fоrm іn the testicles. A West Virginia mesothelioma lawyer at GPW will always be ready to listen to your case.

Pleural Mesothelioma 

Thіѕ tуре of аѕbеѕtоѕ-rеlаtеd саnсеr іmрасtѕ the lіnіng of the lungs. Bесаuѕе іt іѕ mоѕt соmmоn, the mаjоrіtу of rеѕеаrсh іntо treatment has fосuѕеd оn thіѕ tуре. Wіth long-term еxроѕurе tо аѕbеѕtоѕ fіbеrѕ, a реrѕоn mау іnhаlе a lot оf thе раrtісlеѕ. Thе fіbеrѕ gеt еmbеddеd іn thе рlеurа whеrе they cannot bе rеlеаѕеd. A West Virginia mesothelioma attorney at GPW would be more than happy to give you a consultation.

Pеrісаrdіаl Mesothelioma

Thіѕ еxtrеmеlу rаrе fоrm оf аѕbеѕtоѕ-rеlаtеd cancer оссurѕ in just оnе реrсеnt оf all dіаgnоѕеd саѕеѕ.  Thіѕ is called thе реrісаrdіum. Onlу аbоut 200 cases оf thіѕ tуре оf mesothelioma hаvе ever bееn dеѕсrіbеd іn scientific jоurnаlѕ.

Peritoneal

Peritoneal mеѕоthеlіоmа is the ѕесоnd mоѕt соmmоn form оf thіѕ tуре оf cancer. The tumоrѕ grоw іn thе реrіtоnеum, thе tіѕѕuе thаt lines thе аbdоmіnаl cavity and organs. Pеrіtоnеаl mеѕоthеlіоmа accounts fоr lеѕѕ thаn 20 реrсеnt of аll cases оf thе аѕbеѕtоѕ-rеlаtеd саnсеr.

Mеѕоthеlіоmа аnd саnсеr Treatments

Surgеrу

Thеrе аrе twо main tуреѕ оf surgeries for mesothelioma: рlеurесtоmу dесоrtісаtіоn, which spares the lung, аnd thе more rаdісаl extra pleural pneumonectomy, in whісh the lung itself is rеmоvеd.

Since Roswell Park’s ѕurgісаl program emphasizes lung-ѕраrіng ѕurgеrу, рlеurесtоmу dесоrtісаtіоn іѕ thе рrеfеrrеd ѕurgісаl trеаtmеnt for mеѕоthеlіоmа. Pаtіеntѕ whо undergo pleurectomy decortication fасе аn extended rесоvеrу реrіоd, but the рrосеdurе hаѕ been shown tо extend survival time.

Rаdіаtіоn Thеrару

Rаdіаtіоn therapy is noninvasive аnd uѕеѕ hіgh-еnеrgу rауѕ to tаrgеt thе cancer. It іѕ tурісаllу раіrеd wіth оthеr trеаtmеnt орtіоnѕ tо hеlр ѕhrіnk tumors or mаnаgе tumоr growth. It dоеѕn’t hаvе thе ѕtrоng ѕіdе еffесtѕ thаt сhеmоthеrару dоеѕ, аnd it оftеn hеlрѕ reduce thе physical pain of mеѕоthеlіоmа.

However, bесаuѕе radiation саn be tоxіс tо vаrіоuѕ organs, аnd dаmаgеѕ DNA whіlе killing саnсеr сеllѕ, іt іѕ uѕеd sparingly and оnlу with сеrtаіn tуреѕ оf mesothelioma.

Chеmоthеrару

Chеmоthеrару is thе administration of drugѕ thаt kіll cancer cells. They аlѕо kіll hеаlthу сеllѕ, which іѕ why thіѕ lіnе оf treatment саuѕеѕ ѕо many unрlеаѕаnt ѕіdе еffесtѕ. Mеѕоthеlіоmа, the саnсеr of thе mеѕоthеlіum, most оftеn the lining оf thе lungѕ called the рlеurа, is аggrеѕѕіvе аnd spreads ԛuісklу. Chеmоthеrару is just оnе оf several treatment орtіоnѕ thаt doctors аnd patients have. Work with the top West Virginia mesothelioma law firm.

The post Treatments for Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma appeared first on Goldberg, Persky & White P.C..

from
https://gpwlaw-wv.com/lung-cancer-treatment

source http://gpwlawwv.weebly.com/blog/treatments-for-lung-cancer-and-mesothelioma

Washington Cannabis Sales Reach $1 Billion in 2017

Cannabis Litigation, Part 4: It’s Just Business

The hard truth is that your canna-business is going to get embroiled in litigation sooner or later. Whether it is a dispute among partners, a dispute with a supplier or a commercial landlord-tenant dispute, the regulatory framework around cannabis will change how your business approaches litigation. With that in mind, we intend to expand our current series on cannabis IP litigation (here, here, and here) into litigation of all kinds. Today we will begin with a bit of general information about dispute resolution in these Litigious States of America.

Litigation is not a pleasant experience. It is expensive, time-consuming and incredibly invasive. Even the smallest dispute can cost tens of thousands of dollars to resolve. Once you are in a lawsuit, your opponent will have the legal right to demand you turn over all documents, emails, text messages, recordings, and records tangentially related to the legal and factual issues in dispute (usually defined as “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence”). Your lawyer will ask you to dig through your old physical records, computer files, emails, and text messages for anything that could be relevant. This will usually lead to every judge’s least favorite part of litigation: discovery disputes.

Once the lawyers finish sparring over what documents will or will not be turned over, you will experience the unique joy of a deposition. In today’s practice, it is a near certainty you will be required to sit in a room for up to seven hours (and in some states, even longer) while your opponent’s attorney questions you under oath, trying to dig out from you every bit of information you may have and/or to catch you in a lie. You will be asked questions about conversations and documents you haven’t thought about in years, and whatever you say can and will be used against you.

Though most civil disputes end up settling, there is always a chance your case will go all the way to trial. And if you thought your deposition was unpleasant, you will realize that is nothing as compared to the trial. Everyday you will spend hours in a courtroom, only to go back to your lawyer’s office at night to prepare for the next day. And at the end of it all, you will ultimately be subject to the whims of a jury of your peers who can sometimes be more persuaded by emotion than by the facts or the law.

In light of the financial and emotional burden of litigation, it is critical your litigation decisions focus on what is best for your business. Litigants do not benefit by making decisions based on emotion. To help you make those decisions, this series will address some of the common questions and misconceptions our cannabis litigation team sees/hears so often from our own cannabis clients about litigation, and specifically litigation in the cannabis industry.

Check in next week when we discuss one of the biggest areas of potential frustration with litigation: timing.

 

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/litigating-cannabis-disputes-its-just-business/

Cannabis Business Entity Selection: Effects of Tax Reform

On September 27, 2017, the Trump Administration introduced its framework for tax reform, known officially as the “Unified Framework for Fixing our Broken Tax Code.” Not surprisingly, the proposal leaves the details to Congress. Though the current proposal is short on detail, cannabis businesses should be aware of the impact the overall rate may have on their choice of legal entity.

Up front caveat: there is no chance Congress will pass a tax bill that exactly matches the current proposal. The proposal doesn’t have enough detail, for one. But more important is that the Congressional meat grinder of wheeling and dealing and lobbying generally ends up yielding a product that differs greatly from initial proposals they receive from the White House. Regardless, it’s useful to get an idea of what direction the administration and Congress are likely to push taxes.

Tax Proposal Highlights. The centerpiece of the current tax proposal is to dramatically reduce tax rates, as per the below.

Business Form	2017 Tax Rate	Proposed Tax Rate
Sole Proprietor	10%-39.6%	25%
Partnership/LLC	10%-39.6%	25%
S Corporation	10%-39.6%	25%
C Corporation	15%-39.0%	20%

The current proposal will change how entities treat the costs of equipment and other capital assets under the tax code. Under current law, businesses cannot deduct the full cost of capital equipment — the cost is deducted over a period of years through scheduled depreciation. The new proposal would, at least for a limited time, treat capital expenses the same as operating expenses, allowing companies to deduct the full cost of capital equipment in a given year. This could be a significant benefit to cannabis growers and producers, who can categorize most of their capital equipment as costs of goods sold. Retailers, on the other hand, are unlikely to benefit because deductions for their capital equipment expenses are generally barred by IRC §280E.

In determining the legal structure for your cannabis business, you have two fundamental choices. Do you form a corporation, which is subject to federal income tax itself, or do you form a “pass-through-entity” (typically a limited liability company) where the entity pays no tax, but profits or losses are allocated to the company owners, and those owners must pay individual taxes?

C Corporations. C Corporations are liable for federal income tax at the entity level. Shareholders are not individually liable for those taxes, but they are liable for taxes paid on dividends they receive. This is the dreaded “double taxation” people refer to when criticizing the corporate tax system. But if the corporate tax rate for C Corporations is reduced to 20% across the board, C Corporations may become very attractive to cannabis businesses.

C Corporations can offer additional benefits. If the IRS audits a C corporation, additional taxes assessed are a liability of the corporation, not a personal liability of the shareholders. Compare to a partnership, where even if a partner were completely innocent of any blame in a situation where prior year profits were understated, that partner would be individually liable for any assessment of unpaid taxes. The IRS treats shareholders active in a C corporation as employees and thus not subject to the 15.3% self-employment tax. C Corporations also typically offer greater flexibility regarding employee benefits and incentive compensation.

Limited Liability Companies. Limited liability companies have become the most common entity choice for those starting a business, cannabis or otherwise. They protect their members from personal liability like a corporation, and they also provide considerable management flexibility, lacking the mandatory formal structures of corporations.

For income tax purposes, the LLC is a chameleon and may take on many forms. An LLC with a single individual member is treated as a disregarded entity — individual members report business operations directly on their personal tax returns. Under the current tax proposal, a sole proprietor’s (or single member of an LLC’s) income from his or her business activity would be taxed at 25%, however, it also indicates that a “wealthy individual” may not avoid “the top personal tax rate.” But the proposal does not have any details on how exactly that exception would be included in a final tax bill.

An LLC with more than two members is treated as a partnership and tax is imposed at the partner level, with the partners’ share of income or losses reported on their personal income tax returns. Again, under the proposal, each partner’s tax rate is capped at 25%.  Presumably, a partner that is a C Corporation will be taxed on 25% of its pass-through income.

Finally, an LLC may “check-the-box” and elect to be treated as C or S corporation. S Corporations are pass-through-entities and S Corporation shareholders are taxed at the shareholder level similar to partners in a partnership. The income of an LLC that elects to be treated as a C corporation would presumably be taxed at the 20% corporate tax rate.

One benefit of a pass-through-entity is that a partner is not subject to double taxation as cash distributions to a partner may be received tax-free. In addition, an LLC/partnership generally may be dissolved with a lower risk of triggering recognition of income on the liquidation. For example, let’s say that a C corporation buys a piece of real estate for $400,000, and two years later the real estate has appreciated in value to $600,000. If the corporation dissolves and the shareholders receive the real estate, they have to pay tax on the appreciated amount — $200,000. But in an LLC/partnership, the liquidation of the partnership would not be a taxable event, so the partners would not immediately pay tax on that value. 

There are a few drawbacks to partnerships in the cannabis space. As discussed earlier, partners have individual liability for tax that the partnership owes, so all partners must be diligent to ensure they are making sufficient tax payments. Additionally, because of some quirks in the partnership tax code, IRC 280E has the effect of making a partner that is selling its interest pay more tax on the sale of that partnership interest than a similarly situated shareholder in a C corporation would pay. Finally, members/partners that work for the company in exchange for pay must pay for all of their employment taxes at the 15.3% rate, double the amount that a shareholder employee in a C corporation would pay.

If you are making an entity selection decision soon, keep an eye on Congress. The tax code can be hard to understand, and the media doesn’t always concentrate on details that can have a dramatic effect on things like business entity selection. Any major tax reform will create a lot of confusion and will change some common assumptions, so stay vigilant.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/cannabis-business-entity-selection-effects-of-tax-reform/

California Cannabis: What’s In Your Water?

This past week the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”), along with a number of other state regulatory agencies, held three cannabis business licensing workshops – the last one in Sacramento. These licensing workshops received a lot of attention but they weren’t as informative or as consequential to the California cannabis industry as the staff report and Cannabis Cultivation Policy (“Policy”) released by the State Water Resources Control Board (“Board”) on October 17, 2017 — the same day as the Sacramento workshop. For many, this might be the first you’re hearing of the Board’s report or perhaps of the Board’s involvement in cannabis regulation at all. If you need a little refresher, you’ve come to the right place.

After enactment of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MCRSA”), Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (“SB 837”) into law. SB 837 added a number of environmental protection provisions to the MCRSA and tasked the Board with coming up with guidelines to protect the environment. When the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”) was enacted this past June, the Board’s role in regulating the cannabis industry was solidified. MAUCRSA specifically states that the California Department of Food and Agriculture shall include in any license for cultivation all of the following:

“Conditions requested by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the State Water Resources Control Board to (A) ensure that individual and cumulative effects of water diversion and discharge associated with cultivation do not affect the instream flows needed for fish spawning, migration, and rearing, and the flows needed to maintain natural flow variability; (B) ensure that cultivation does not negatively impact springs, riparian habitat, wetlands, or aquatic habitat; and (C) otherwise protect fish, wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. The conditions shall include, but not be limited to, the principles, guidelines, and requirements established pursuant to Section 13149 of the Water Code (emphasis added).”

In its report, the Board divided California’s 163,696 square miles into fourteen regions — nine of which are identified as priority regions because they support salmon. The nine priority regions are: Klamath, Upper Sacramento, North Coast, Middle Sacramento, Southern Sacramento, North Central Coast, South Central Coast, San Joaquin, and South Coast. The Board is particularly concerned with the discharge of pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, and trash into California’s waters. The unfortunate truth is that not all cannabis cultivators are good stewards of our precious environment. Furthermore, when combined with years of drought, the practice of water diversion threatens water quality and aquatic habitat. The Board then listed the following twelve items of concern when addressing waste discharges:

1. Site development and maintenance, erosion control, and drainage features;
2. Stream crossing installation and maintenance;
3. Riparian and wetland protection and management;
4. Soil disposal;
5. Water storage and use;
6. Irrigation runoff;
7. Fertilizers and soil;
8. Pesticides and herbicides;
9. Petroleum products and other chemicals;
10. Cannabis cultivation waste;
11. Refuse and human waste; and
12. Cleanup, restoration, and mitigation

The Board’s Policy provides for a statewide-tiered approach for permitting waste discharges from cannabis cultivation, depending on whether the cultivation is for personal use, indoor commercial cultivation, or outdoor commercial cultivation. The criteria for outdoor commercial cannabis cultivators will vary depending on the size of the disturbed area, but they’ll mainly focus on the slope of the disturbed area and the proximity to a surface water body. The Policy also details the different ways for cultivators to register and establish their water rights.

The Policy comes in at a hefty eighty-nine pages and contains too many regulations for one blog post to cover it all. What’s clear is that the Board takes its role as an environmental steward very seriously. We’ll have to wait and see whether cannabis cultivators in California will be able to satisfy the Board’s proposed regulations. A cultivator’s state license will depend on it.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/california-cannabis-whats-in-your-water/

Asbestos Removal Cost

Asbestos Removal Cost

Asbestos removal cost, how much do I really need to get this removed from my house? Asbestos is hazardous when airborne; if inhaled, tiny particles can cause lung or stomach cancer. Details about where asbestos might be found are provided by the Environmental Protection Agency. You can also check out some of our recent post on asbestos household items you need to be aware of.

Tearing asbestos releases tiny airborne particles, so it’s best to cover or otherwise control asbestos rather than removing it. If it’s completely intact and in good condition.

How Much Does Asbestos Removal Cost?

The top West Virginia mesothelioma law firm is Goldberg, Persky & White. Removal costs vary widely depending on circumstances: the scope of work, risk level, access, and amount of waste generated, materials required and timeline are all factors that will dictate the cost of asbestos abatement. Potentially there are also third party consultant costs for air clearances and daily air monitoring when conducing high risk work.

An initial asbestos inspection costs $400 to $800. A follow-up inspection when the project ends adds $200 to $400. For lab work, a sample analysis averages $25 to $75. The West Virginia mesothelioma attorneys at Goldberg, Persky & White are always here to help you!

Asbestos removal costs vary depending on the extent of the work to be done. Many contractors have a minimum fee of $1,500 to $3,000, no matter how small the job is.

Complete removal in a 1,500-square-foot home with asbestos everywhere—walls, floors, ceilings, attic, roof, pipes—could be as high as $20,000 to $30,000.

Asbestos Removal Basics

Asbestos removal basics is a two-step process. First, have the material tested to make sure it contains asbestos. Then, have it professionally removed. Here’s what you need to know:

Contact your regional asbestos program as well as your state asbestos administrative department or your Occupational Safety and Health Administration regional office to find out about local requirements and regulations.

Seek out accredited asbestos inspectors and contractors who are licensed and trained in safe asbestos testing and removal.

To avoid conflict of interest, have suspect materials tested by one company and abatement or removal done by another company.

Be prepared—in some cases, you and your family may have to temporarily relocate while the work is being completed.

How To Safely Remove Asbestos

Typical asbestos removal cost:

Have an independent inspector do an initial asbestos inspection (called a Hazmat Survey). Limited surveys covering specific work can start around $400 – $800, most homes would fall between $1200 – $2000 range, Commercial buildings $2000 and up. Factors are: size, number and scope of previous renovations, consistency of materials and finished surfaces throughout.

Flooring– Asbestos containing flooring can cost from $900 –??? Depending on risk assessment, size, type of vinyl flooring (tile or sheet flooring)

Duct tape and fiberboard in vents– This work can start anywhere from $150 (small amount of tape) to $3000 to have an average basement completed (depending on amount, access).

Asbestos Pipe Insulation – The cost of removing asbestos pipe insulation can start low for a small amount (approx. $300) but can climb quickly because the glove bags used for this are relatively expensive. Asbestos removal cost depends on if just the pipe elbows need to be removed and if we can drain the pipes and remove the entire system in pieces.

To remove all of the asbestos from some buildings it is necessary to strip everything down to the bare studs. A complete removal in a 2,200 square foot home could start at $9,000 to remove the drywall (this price can go up if there is asbestos containing attic insulation, flooring, roofing, textured ceilings). Some of the best West Virginia mesothelioma lawyers are at GPW

Cost comparison of Moderate Risk and High risk work. High risk jobs require daily air monitoring ($400) and a final air clearance and report ($700) to be performed by a third party consultant (ideally the one that conducted the original survey). High risk work also requires more safety controls: containment, personal protective equipment and other controls (for example: 3 stage decontamination, negative air machines, and a portable shower)

Hiring a Corrective-Action Contractor

It’s okay to hire roofing, flooring, and siding contractors who may be exempt from state asbestos removal licensing requirements, as long as they’re trained in asbestos removal. The EPA offers suggestions on what to do if you hire a corrective-action contractor. Speaking with a West Virginia mesothelioma lawyer can really help your situation.

Before work begins, you’ll want a written contract that clearly states all federal, state, and local regulations that the contractor must follow, such as cleanup of your premises and disposal of the materials.

When the job ends, get written proof from the contractor that all procedures were followed correctly. Have a follow-up check from a licensed asbestos inspector.

The post Asbestos Removal Cost appeared first on Goldberg, Persky & White P.C..

from
https://gpwlaw-wv.com/asbestos-removal-cost/

source http://gpwlawwv.weebly.com/blog/asbestos-removal-cost

Oregon’s Recreational Marijuana Tax: A Field Guide

Selling Pot Like a Pro: Top 10 Contract Terms

Hiring for an Oregon Cannabis Business: What Not to Ask

There many questions you should ask before hiring someone as a budtender, grower, or trimmer for your cannabis business—but Oregon recently passed several laws banning certain questions. Today’s post will discuss Oregon’s, and specifically, Portland’s, “ban the box” ordinances.

“Ban the box”—named for the box on employment applications asking about criminal history—ordinances became popular in the United States between 2007-2009. In general, ban the box ordinances prohibit employers from asking applicants about their criminal histories before an initial interview. Oregon enacted ban the box legislation in 2016. This means employers cannot ask on a job application whether an applicant has a past conviction, but they are allowed to ask about past convictions during the interview process and to consider that information when making a hiring decision. Certain employers, such as those required by federal, state or local law to consider an applicant’s criminal history, are exempt. If you are not required to conduct a background check, assume you fall under Oregon’s ban the box ordinance.

The city of Portland takes the state ban the box legislation several steps further. The Portland ordinance, effective as of July 1, 2016, applies to any employer with six or more employees and to positions that require work within Portland for more than half of the employee’s time. Portland employers cannot ask an applicant on an application about conviction history and cannot ask about convictions during interviews. A Portland employer may only gain information about an applicant’s criminal history after making a Conditional Offer of Employment (COE). The Portland employer must offer the position to the applicant conditioned solely on the results of an inquiry into the person’s arrest or conviction history. If the inquiry reveals a criminal history, the Portland employer can only rescind the job offer after an “individualized assessment” is done to determine if the prior conviction is “job related to the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” This requires consideration of the nature and gravity of the criminal offense, the time elapsed since the offense took place, and the nature of the employment held or sought. Examples include rescinding a job offer made to an applicant for an auto-dealership who has a prior conviction for auto theft or an applicant who will be in charge of handling money and has a prior conviction for money laundering.

What happens if you decide to rescind the offer after learning about a past conviction? The Portland employer must notify the applicant in writing of its decision and identify the relevant criminal conviction on which the decision is based. The applicant then has the opportunity to file a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).  If BOLI determines the employer violated the Portland ordinance, it can assess up to a $1,000 fine. The Portland ordinance also allows the city to bring an action against employers that have demonstrated a pattern and practice of violating the ordinance. In such cases, BOLI may assess a penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation.

The ban the box legislation is especially important in the cannabis field. Cannabis was legalized relatively recently and many applicants for positions with cannabis businesses have convictions for past possession, sales, or distribution of marijuana. If you ask about past convictions on the job application or in any way prior to the initial interview you are in violation of the Oregon ordinance. Be careful when requesting background information from applicants—even asking about unexplained employment gaps may be considered requests for conviction history. If you requested conviction information before the initial interview you are in violation of the Oregon ordinance even if the applicant was not offered an initial interview for another reason. If you are a Portland employer, you may only ask about conviction history after a COE is made. Remember—you can only rescind the job offer after an individualized assessment has been completed.

 

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/hiring-for-an-oregon-cannabis-business-what-not-to-ask/

They Said It On Marijuana, Quotable Saturday, Part CLXXXI

Representative Blumenauer provides a great overview here on the current political climate regarding opioids and cannabis. The Trump Administration claims to be working on solutions for the opioid crisis, but seems to be too blinded by the stigma of cannabis to consider it a viable solution. Research increasingly shows that cannabis is indeed a solid solution to opioid addiction and citizens of over half the country have voted to legalize medical marijuana in their states, but the federal government remains immovable on cannabis.

It’s time for this to change. We have to keep driving until the politicians get on board.

source http://www.cannalawblog.com/they-said-it-on-marijuana-quotable-saturday-part-clxxxi/

Will California Be Ready For Adult Use Cannabis?

Our California cannabis lawyers are constantly asked how big sales and tax revenues will be in California once adult use cannabis becomes legal there. With recent reports of increased sales in Colorado and Nevada, everyone is expecting California – with its population of nearly 40 million people – to dwarf the sales of other adult use cannabis states. Many see California sales exceeding Colorado and Washington sales (together!) by at least ten times. To say our law firm is bullish on California would be an understatement; we literally cannot find good lawyers fast enough for our two California offices (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

When Californians voted for the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (a/k/a AUMA or Prop 64), you could smell the enthusiasm. Our California offices were deluged with a flood of investors looking to invest in California cannabis businesses. Then Governor Brown and the California legislature removed Prop 64’s in-state residency requirement with the enactment of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (a/k/a MAUCRSA or SB 94) this past June. With residency requirements removed, my firm saw a significant increase in interest from clients outside California seeking to obtain cannabis business licenses in the Golden State.

Unfortunately, local legislators in California’s cities and counties have not kept pace with the enthusiasm on the business side. Prior to SB 94, the legal cannabis landscape consisted of California jurisdictions focused on their medical cannabis ordinances in step with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act of 2015(MCRSA). The MCRSA was California’s first attempt at establishing a statewide regulatory and licensing regime. The MCRSA also allowed medical cannabis businesses to operate as for-profit businesses starting in 2018.

With most local jurisdictions playing catch-up with the MCRSA, it’s unlikely Californians will be able to purchase recreational cannabis on January 01, 2018. That’s because most California cities and counties are waiting on the state’s main cannabis regulatory agencies – the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health – to publish their emergency regulations before they enact their own adult use cannabis ordinances. The emergency regulations should be released in mid to late November and the Bureau of Cannabis Control has stated that cannabis businesses will be able to apply for temporary permits online in December.

Though it might take a little longer than expected before adult use cannabis sales in California become commonplace, we are seeing local regulators moving in the right direction. In our Cannabis Countdown series, we keep our readers apprised of cannabis ordinance developments on the local level and the below is an updated snapshot of what’s going on across the state regarding adult-use commercial cannabis activities:

Los Angeles: On March 07, 2017, Los Angeles residents came out in full force and voted for Proposition M, a much-needed effort at clearing up Los Angeles’s previously confusing, complicated, and unfriendly position towards medical cannabis businesses. On June 8^th of this year, the Los Angeles City Council released draft requirements for commercial cannabis activities – which we covered here. After the release of these draft requirements, there was a 60-day comment period and on September 22^nd, the City Council revised the draft requirements – which we covered extensively here. On September 25^th the City Council Rules Committee requested the Los Angeles City Attorney prepare and present a draft ordinance addressing the changes made in the revised draft regulations. Though Los Angeles will authorize seed to sale license types (indoor cultivation, non-volatile and volatile manufacturing, distribution, and retail) it’s unlikely it will have an adult use cannabis permitting process in place by the start of 2018.

San Francisco: The city of San Francisco (where I am located) proposed draft cannabis legislation on September 26^th of this year. The proposed legislation requires creating an equity program, authorizes the issuance of temporary local licenses for medical cannabis businesses, and will have seed to sale license types (including the microbusiness license). It also allows for medical and adult use cannabis licenses, but adult use licenses won’t be issued until the equity program is in place. The ordinance does not cap the number of permits to be issued citywide, nor does it limit the number of licenses a person can hold – except that testing licensees cannot hold other cannabis licenses. However at a recent stakeholder meeting I attended, it was discussed that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) may revisit the issue of licensing caps (at the individual applicant and citywide level). It’s paramount that cannabis supporters stay politically active and fight complacency — don’t let what happened in San Luis Obispo happen in your city. San Francisco’s Office of Cannabis is to provide the BOS with an equity report, a medicinal access report, and a proposed fee schedule by November 1^st of this year. Much like Los Angeles, San Francisco has proposed a cannabis-friendly ordinance that likely will not be ready for 2018.

Humboldt County: As part of the famed Emerald Triangle, Humboldt County is a cannabis business-friendly jurisdiction. On September 7^th, Humboldt County’s Planning and Building Department released a draft cannabis ordinance that provides for the following:

• Licenses all seed to sale commercial activities (including non-volatile and volatile manufacturing);
• Allows farm-based retail sales, subject to receiving a retailer’s license from the state (we’ll have to see what the Bureau of Cannabis Control has to say about that);
• Authorizes temporary special events for cannabis sales and consumption;
• Allows on-site consumption for retailers and microbusinesses (for persons 21 years of age and older); and
• Allows for cannabis tours and cannabis farm stays.

This proposed ordinance cements Humboldt’s reputation as a place that thinks outside the box when it comes to attracting cannabis businesses. Humboldt’s proposed ordinance was up for review and public comment on October 18 and we expect its enactment by early December. We are not sure whether Humboldt will allow current medical cannabis businesses to convert over to adult use and for-profit enterprises before January 01, 2018.

Though some of California’s biggest population centers will take their time before enacting adult use cannabis ordinances, we envision some of the more sparsely populated (and tax-starved) California jurisdictions will be the first to move into the adult use cannabis marketplace.

We will be sure to keep you posted on new developments in our Cannabis Countdown series.

source http://www.cannalawblog.com/will-california-be-ready-for-adult-use-cannabis/

Asbestos Imports Double in 2016 | EPA Moves Forward with Potential Ban

Asbestos imports double in 2016, as the EPA moves forward with a potential ban. In 2002, the last asbestos mine in the United States closed and ever since all asbestos in the nation today has actually needed to be imported. Contrary to common belief, asbestos is not prohibited in the United States, however is greatly controlled. Deliveries should be thoroughly moved so not interrupt the fibers, and given that raw asbestos needs to be mined, delivered, and saved, there is no fool-proof method to ensure there is no threat of direct exposure.

Asbestos usage in the United States has actually been reducing gradually and progressively with each passing year considering that the late 1980s/early 1990s. The 2015 Minerals Yearbook revealed that 343 lots of unmanufactured asbestos was consumed in the United States; down 16 percent from 2014. Nevertheless, the most current report for 2016 states that asbestos intake has actually almost doubled in the in 2015 to 705 lots. These imports, which originate from Brazil and Russia, are for the chlor-alkali market– the only market in the United States that still utilizes raw asbestos. The West Virginia mesothelioma lawyers at GPW are ready to fight for your rights.

Asbestos Imports Double in 2016

Last summer season, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Security Act for the 21st Century was signed as a modification to the Poisonous Compounds Control Act in hopes that with time asbestos will be entirely prohibited in the United States By the end of 2016, the Epa (EPA) had actually released a list of 10 chemicals to be assessed initially for prospective health and ecological dangers. Speak with a West Virginia mesothelioma lawyer to understand your rights.

The procedure will not be a fast one as the EPA is needed to launch a scoping file for each chemical on the list that will consist of dangers, direct exposure, conditions of usage, and a list of those in the population who can possibly be exposed. Months have actually passed, and as we close in on the last couple of months of 2017, the EPA is progressing with these evaluations, and getting feedback from the general public from those who support the asbestos restriction and those who are opposed to the idea. The West Virginia mesothelioma attorneys are ready for your call.

Asbestos Imports Double in 2016

The chlor-alkali market is accountable for producing chlorine and salt hydroxide, or caustic soda. Asbestos is utilized to make diaphragms which different chlorine, caustic soda, and hydrogen. Those who operate in the chlor-alkali market do not support a straight-out asbestos restriction, mentioning that not just is the market managing the item securely, however that the options for asbestos are not as effective. There are alternative diaphragms that utilize polytetrafluoroethylene fibers, however in 2008, the ACC’s Chlorine Chemistry Department stated that this procedure does not work also, and advises continuing to utilize asbestos. In addition, the market explained that asbestos is just utilized in 23 percent of the chlor-alkali market, it is moistened down prior to usage, which safe handling handouts are upgraded every 5 years. In truth, the market thinks that the threat of direct exposure is so little, that discovering an option would not be cost reliable.

The wide-spread usage of asbestos throughout the 20th century has actually permitted the carcinogen to be present today in lots of homes, and home items. Its usage in floor covering, insulation, cement walls and siding, and as a fire proofing product has the prospective to expose people for many years to come if the asbestos ends up being broken and the fibers friable. Asbestos is the just recognized reason for mesothelioma cancer, a deadly cancer that impacts the lining of organs and soft tissue. The quickly breathed in fibers are sharp, and end up being caught, permanently lodged in locations such as the lung, throat, stomach, and heart. With time, these sharp fibers end up being additional ingrained into these organs and surrounding soft tissue, triggering fibrosis, which can cause growth advancement. In addition, these fibers are carcinogenic and can trigger cancer even in the lack of fibrosis. Lung cancer, throat cancer, colon cancer, and asbestosis are all attributable to asbestos direct exposure.

Asbestos Imports Double in 2016 | Mesothelioma Lawyer

At Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., we comprehend that for several years business were putting revenues above employees’ health. It was not till a string of suits in the 1970s that business confessed their carelessness and took duty. For over Thirty Years, the lawyers at GPW have actually assisted countless regional employees secure their rights and those of their households. If you are struggling with an asbestos-related health problem, call us today for a complimentary, no commitment assessment. A West Virginia mesothelioma lawyer is your top options for mesothelioma claims in West Virginia.

The post Asbestos Imports Double in 2016 | EPA Moves Forward with Potential Ban appeared first on Goldberg, Persky & White P.C..

from
https://gpwlaw-wv.com/asbestos-imports-double-in-2016/

source http://gpwlawwv.weebly.com/blog/asbestos-imports-double-in-2016-epa-moves-forward-with-potential-ban

California Cannabis Licensing Workshops

California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control (the “BCC”) held public licensing workshops in three cities in California last week. If you didn’t get a chance to make it, don’t worry. We did and we’ve got you covered.

At the Los Angeles event, hundreds of people showed up to the point where most did not even get inside the building.The workshop focused on licensing information and resources available for people planning on applying for California state cannabis licenses. The BCC staff passed out flyers with the information required for temporary license applications. Temporary licenses will be effective starting January 1, 2018, and will allow businesses to engage in commercial cannabis activity for a period of 120 days.

Local jurisdiction authorization is still paramount to receiving a temporary license. If your business has not yet received this, it will delay your ability to receive a state temporary license. A license or permit issued by the local jurisdiction will be sufficient to show the applicant is allowed to conduct commercial cannabis activity at the location.

Other information required are names of the applicant (either individual or entity); license type; license designation; contact information; names of the owners; physical address and authorization to use the location for commercial cannabis activity; and a premises diagram showing the layout of the proposed location.

The last of the public licensing workshops was held in Sacramento this past Tuesday before a packed house at the Convention Center. Representatives from all of the state’s cannabis licensing agencies – California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), California Department of Food and Agriculture (“CDFA”), and the BCC – were in attendance to answer the public’s questions. There were also representatives from the following departments:

• California Department of Tax and Fee Administration;
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife;
• California Department of Insurance;
• California Secretary of State;
• California Employment Development Department;
• California Department of Industrial Relations; and
• Sacramento’s Office of Cannabis Policy and Enforcement.

The scene in the Sacramento’s Convention Center can be described as polite chaos as the public made its way through the tables staffed by these departments. Cannabis businesses, advisors, and investors were all hoping to gather as much information and clarification as possible in what is still an evolving California cannabis regulatory landscape. The lack of clarity is a source of consternation for many cannabis businesses worried about their business model going forward and I highly recommend California cannabis business owners (and all interested stakeholders) review the proposed medical regulations released in April of this year; you can find the BCC’s here, the CDPH’s here and the CDFA’s here. I then recommend you review how each department summarized and responded to public comments when the proposed medical regulations were withdrawn. You can find the BCC’s response here and here (the latter on testing facilities), the CDPH’s here, and the CDFA’s here. Get a pot of coffee brewing and delve into those weeds (too many puns I know but I just couldn’t help myself).

Lori Ajax, the Chief of the BBC, did speak briefly and reiterated that the state will issue emergency regulations in mid to late November and that the state’s licensing agencies will accept temporary license applications online in early December. Ms. Ajax was not able to say what the cost of the temporary permit would be (the fees will be released with the emergency regulations) but did stress that the temporary permit fee will be separate from the annual license application fee.

When the emergency regulations are released in November, our California cannabis attorneys expect a flurry of activity as cannabis businesses seek to gain temporary licensure and an early foothold in what will be the new California cannabis landscape. However, current cannabis businesses and new entrants should take this time to review their business model and entity structure. We’ll be sure to stay on top of this for you and we’ll continue with our popular California cannabis webinar series when the emergency regulations are released.

Stay tuned!

source http://www.cannalawblog.com/california-cannabis-licensing-workshops/

City of Santa Cruz Moves Toward Regulating Adult Use Commercial Cannabis Businesses

Avoiding Cannabis Business Partnership Disputes, Part 1

The cannabis litigation lawyers at my firm have litigated many partnership lawsuits involving cannabis businesses where better planning could have avoided the dispute. Business owners will always disagree with one another, but good partnership agreements, LLC operating agreements, and shareholder agreements figure out ways to get past disputes without going to trial. Litigation is expensive and stressful and doesn’t leave either side feeling great. In a business ownership dispute we are working on now, in addition to legal fees, both sides are hiring their own forensic accountants to come up with a company valuation more favorable to their side, and this is before a complaint has even been filed. Costs add up fast. Partnership disputes have a lot in common with divorces disputes, where logic and reason often give way to emotion, and the parties seek to punish each other more than they try to come to a reasonable settlement. The best time to plan for disputes is before your company has any revenue, any investment, any debt, or any obligations. In this post and subsequent posts in this series, I’ll discuss negotiable provisions in partnership agreements that business owners should make sure to address as early in their business’s life cycle as they can.

Today’s post will talk about individuals getting ownership for services and what happens when a company needs to raise more capital.

Ownership Interest in Exchange for Service

This is a common arrangement, but companies often get themselves into hot water by not thinking through the implications. If an individual is going to receive a significant percentage of equity in a company without putting in a proportional value of cash or property, company owners need to think long and hard about the implications. The question that all too often goes unasked is what happens if the partner receiving the equity in exchange for services stops working for the company or fails to perform those services well? If the partnership group doesn’t put thought into how it structures the grant of ownership in exchange for services, it can find itself having signed away a large chunk of equity in their cannabis business without any recourse if the service-for-equity owner stops working.

There are a couple of solutions to this. One common fix is for the equity interest to vest over time. Every month or quarter or year in which a partner contributes services corresponds to a partial grant of the equity interest. With a vesting schedule of three to five years, the company knows it will either be getting good value for the services or it will be able to terminate the services and cut off any further vesting. But another problem shows up even if the services are terminated — you have a voting owner of the company who likely holds some ill will against the other partners. This is where another clause in the operating agreement can help – company buyout right triggered by termination of the partner’s services. The company will still have to pay out for the equity vested to date by the services provider, but it has a clean way of removing that person from the company, likely avoiding additional clashes.

Additional Financial Contributions

It’s hard to estimate how much capital a company is going to need. Many of our cannabis producer clients found out mid-stream that they were having a tough time selling their dried marijuana flower, so they pivoted and moved into the oil extraction business. But the capital equipment needed for that and the construction costs to set up the lab can be expensive, and when those expenses are not planned for additional capital is needed.

One of the main differences between LLCs and corporations is that default corporate law makes it easier to bring in new capital in exchange for equity than default LLC law does. In corporate law, the board of directors generally has the authority to issue new shares in exchange for capital. And if the current shareholders don’t have a negotiated right of first refusal, the directors are free to look to whomever they want, whether that person is a current shareholder or not. Compare to LLCs, where the default law tends to say that unless the operating agreement says otherwise, the members of the company must unanimously approve of any new members. LLC agreements, then, should have clear clauses on what happens when the company needs more money. If only one member is willing to put that money in, do they get additional interest that dilutes the other members? If the company doesn’t want a dilutive issuance but wants a member to loan money to the company, does that member get priority payback on the loan debt? And if no one in the company is willing to pay money, can they still vote against allowing a new member into the company in exchange for capital? Because if they can refuse to put in more money themselves and can keep the company from raising money from an outsider, they have the power to tank the company. Any negotiated partnership agreement needs to address this issue.

source http://www.cannalawblog.com/avoiding-cannabis-business-partnership-disputes-part-1/