| |
New Issue
|
| |
July 14, 2026
|
|
| | |
This Prospectus Supplement qualifies the distribution of securities of an entity that currently directly derives a substantial portion of its revenues from the cannabis industry in certain U.S. states, which industry is illegal under U.S. federal law.
|
| |
| | |
The cultivation, sale and use of cannabis is illegal under U.S. federal law pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §811) (the “CSA”). The U.S. federal government regulates drugs through the CSA, which places controlled substances, including cannabis, in a schedule. Other than industrial hemp, cannabis has historically been classified as a Schedule I drug. Under U.S. federal law, a Schedule I drug or substance has a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug under medical supervision. However, as described below, on April 23, 2026, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration published a final rule transferring certain marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA; provided, however, marijuana that does not fall within the categories specified in that rule remains a Schedule I controlled substance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. The agency has, however, approved one cannabis-derived drug product, Epidiolex, for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome.
|
| |
| | |
Despite the current state of the federal law and the CSA, over three quarters of U.S. states, Washington D.C., and the territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam have laws and/or regulations that recognize, in one form or another, legitimate medical uses for cannabis and consumer use of cannabis by adults. The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia, have legalized adult-use of cannabis. Adult-use sales have not yet begun in Virginia. Additionally, although the District of Columbia voters passed a ballot initiative in November 2014, no adult-use operations exist yet because of a prohibition on using funds for regulation within a federal appropriations amendment to local District spending powers. However, there is no guarantee that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions.
|
| |
| | |
Accordingly, in the United States, cannabis is largely regulated at the state level. State laws that permit and regulate the production, distribution and use of cannabis for adult-use or medical purposes are in direct conflict with the CSA. Although certain states authorize medical or adult-use cannabis production and distribution by licensed or registered entities, under U.S. federal law, the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal and any such acts are criminal acts. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that the U.S. Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are paramount and in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law shall apply.
|
| |
| | |
On April 17, 2025, Rep. Joyce (R-OH), Max Miller (R-OH), and Dina Titus (D-NV) introduced the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) 2.0 Act. This legislation aims to federally legalize cannabis by allowing states, Washington, D.C., U.S. territories, and tribal nations to determine how to regulate cannabis within their own jurisdictions. Key provisions of the STATES 2.0 Act include removing cannabis from the CSA while still supporting states that choose to maintain prohibition policies; providing federal tax relief to state-sanctioned cannabis businesses by allowing them to deduct ordinary business expenses — effectively removing their classification as “drug traffickers” under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended (the “Code”); and permitting interstate cannabis commerce, including transportation through jurisdictions that have opted to prohibit cannabis. There can be no assurance that the STATES 2.0 Act or any similar legislation will be enacted into law, or as to the timing or form of any such legislation if enacted. The introduction of this legislation should not be relied upon as an indication of the future direction of cannabis regulation in the United States.
|
| |
| | |
On April 17, 2025, Rep. Joyce (R-OH) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) reintroduced bipartisan legislation titled the PREPARE Act. The bill aims to establish a fair, honest, and transparent process to guide the development of effective federal cannabis regulations. Under the legislation, the Attorney General would be directed to establish a “Commission on the Federal Regulation of Cannabis” to advise on regulatory development, modeled after existing federal and state alcohol frameworks. The bill calls on federal regulators to create a regulatory and revenue framework that ensures the safe production and consumption of cannabis while respecting the unique needs, rights, and laws of individual states, and to present this framework to Congress within one year. Additionally, the PREPARE Act seeks to build on bipartisan efforts to address the injustices of the war on cannabis — particularly those affecting minority, low-income, and veteran
|
| |
| | |
communities. It would also expand research access for medical professionals, provide protections for the hemp industry (including cross-pollination prevention), and help ensure cannabis remains an adult-use product except in cases of physician-prescribed treatment for minors. There can be no assurance that the PREPARE Act or any similar legislation will be enacted into law, or as to the timing or form of any such legislation if enacted. The introduction of this legislation should not be relied upon as an indication of the future direction of cannabis regulation in the United States.
|
| |
| | |
Introduced April 29, 2025, Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act of 2025 by Reps. Dina Titus (D-NV) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) removes federal barriers that prevent the Office of National Drug Control Policy from funding or sponsoring research on cannabis and other Schedule I substances such as MDMA and psilocybin. There can be no assurance that this legislation will be enacted into law, or as to the timing or form of any such legislation if enacted. The introduction of this legislation should not be relied upon as an indication of the future direction of cannabis regulation in the United States.
|
| |
| | |
In late June 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives approved amendments to a spending bill that would authorize U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors to issue medical marijuana recommendations to military veterans and support psychedelics research and access. One of the accepted proposals from Reps. Mast (R-FL) and Joyce (R-OH) — who are both co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus — would increase veterans’ access to state medical marijuana programs and eliminate a current VA directive barring the department’s doctors from issuing cannabis recommendations.
|
| |
| | |
Also in late June 2025, a Republican-led House Appropriations subcommittee included language in the 2026 spending bill that would effectively prohibit most THC-containing hemp products, impose testing and labeling requirements, and grant states oversight on retail sales — though this would restrict rather than expand access. On November 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed into law legislation, as part of broader bill to reopen the government following a government shutdown, which clarifies and narrows the definition of hemp under federal law. The law, which will be effective 365 days following its enactment, limits total THC to 0.4 mg per container of hemp product.
|
| |
| | |
On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14370 “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research”. The order directed federal agencies to accelerate the process of rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance under the CSA. This action represented a significant shift in federal policy associated with cannabis-related activities. Key aspects include the recognizing and improving knowledge of medical uses of marijuana and cannabidiol for patients and doctors, removing barriers to research, improving access to cannabidiol products, and delivering on promises to help improve healthcare for all Americans.
|
| |
| | |
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration published a final rule in the Federal Register transferring certain marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA, effective April 28, 2026. The rescheduling applies only to marijuana that is (i) produced in accordance with state law under a state-authorized medical marijuana program, (ii) contained in a drug product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or (iii) produced for research purposes by or for persons registered with the DEA. Marijuana that does not fall within these categories remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Rescheduling to Schedule III does not legalize marijuana under federal law; rather, the production, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana covered by the rule remain subject to the CSA’s regulatory framework applicable to Schedule III controlled substances. Among other things, businesses operating under state cannabis programs may be required to obtain DEA registration and comply with applicable Schedule III requirements. The implications of rescheduling for matters such as the deductibility of ordinary business expenses under Section 280E of the Code remain uncertain, and material regulatory uncertainty exists regarding the implementation and practical effects of rescheduling on state-licensed cannabis operations.
|
| |
| | |
For additional information, see “Legal and Regulatory Framework” in the AIF (as defined herein), which is incorporated by reference herein.
|
| |
| | |
The Company’s objective is to capitalize on the opportunities presented as a result of the changing regulatory environment governing the cannabis industry in the United States. Accordingly, there are a number of significant risks associated with the business of the Company. Until a U.S. federal legal and regulatory framework for the regulation of cannabis is established that does not conflict with state and local cannabis laws and regulations, and compliance with such federal, state, and local regulatory requirements is reasonably clear and achievable (and as to the timing, scope, or enactment of any such framework there can be no assurance), there is a significant risk that federal authorities may enforce current U.S. federal law, and the
|
| |
| | |
business of the Company may be deemed to be producing, cultivating, extracting, distributing/transporting, or dispensing cannabis or aiding or abetting or otherwise engaging in a conspiracy to commit such acts in violation of federal law in the United States. If the U.S. federal government begins to enforce U.S. federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected.
|
| |
| | |
In light of the political and regulatory uncertainty surrounding the treatment of U.S. cannabis-related activities, on February 8, 2018, the Canadian Securities Administrators published CSA Staff Notice 51-352 — (Revised) Issuers with U.S. Marijuana-Related Activities (“Staff Notice 51-352”) setting out the Canadian Securities Administrator’s disclosure expectations for specific risks facing issuers with cannabis-related activities in the United States. Staff Notice 51-352 includes additional disclosure expectations that apply to all issuers with United States cannabis-related activities, including those with direct and indirect involvement in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis, as well as issuers that provide goods and services to third parties involved in the U.S. cannabis industry.
|
| |
| | |
For these reasons, the Company’s investments in the United States cannabis market may subject the Company to heightened scrutiny by regulators, stock exchanges, clearing agencies and other U.S. and Canadian authorities. There are a number of risks associated with the business of the Company. See the section entitled “Risk Factors” herein and within the AIF.
|
| |
| | | | | | S-1 | | | |
| | | | | | S-2 | | | |
| | | | | | S-4 | | | |
| | | | | | S-4 | | | |
| | | | | | S-4 | | | |
| | | | | | S-6 | | | |
| | | | | | S-8 | | | |
| | | | | | S-9 | | | |
| | | | | | S-10 | | | |
| | | | | | S-10 | | | |
| | | | | | S-12 | | | |
| | | | | | S-16 | | | |
| | | | | | S-16 | | | |
| | | | | | S-20 | | | |
| | | | | | S-21 | | | |
| | | | | | S-22 | | | |
| | | | | | S-27 | | | |
| | | | | | S-27 | | | |
| | | | | | S-27 | | | |
| | | | | | S-27 | | | |
| | | | | | S-27 | | | |
| | | | | | S-28 | | | |
| | | | | | S-29 | | | |
| | | | | | S-30 | | |
| | | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | 2 | | | |
| | | | | | 4 | | | |
| | | | | | 5 | | | |
| | | | | | 7 | | | |
| | | | | | 7 | | | |
| | | | | | 8 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 17 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | |
| | | |
Year Ended December 31
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | | |
2025
|
| |
2024
|
| |
2023
|
| |||||||||
|
Highest rate during the period
|
| | | C$ | 1.403 | | | | | C$ | 1.4416 | | | | | C$ | 1.3875 | | |
|
Lowest rate during the period
|
| | | C$ | 1.3558 | | | | | C$ | 1.3316 | | | | | C$ | 1.3128 | | |
|
Average rate for the period
|
| | | C$ | 1.3978 | | | | | C$ | 1.3698 | | | | | C$ | 1.3497 | | |
|
Rate at the end of the period
|
| | | C$ | 1.3706 | | | | | C$ | 1.4389 | | | | | C$ | 1.2678 | | |
|
Date Issued
|
| |
Number of Glass
House Securities |
| |
Issue or Exercise Price per
Security (US$)(1) |
| |||
|
August 5, 2025 – June 5, 2026
|
| | | | 636,930(2) | | | |
N/A
|
|
|
August 26, 2025 – June 30, 2026
|
| | | | 348,607(3) | | | |
7.54 – 12.37
|
|
|
December 31, 2025 – June 30, 2026
|
| | | | 120,791(4) | | | |
8.75 – 12.37
|
|
|
August 11, 2025
|
| | | | 248,829(5) | | | |
6.20
|
|
|
August 27, 2025 – July 10, 2026
|
| | | | 4,866,106(6) | | | |
5.00 – 11.50
|
|
|
August 20, 2025 – June 26, 2026
|
| | | | 326,249(7) | | | |
3.08 – 3.39
|
|
|
July 17, 2025 – June 30, 2026
|
| | | | 2,469,313(8) | | | |
N/A
|
|
|
December 22, 2025 – July 13, 2026
|
| | | | 3,276,704(9) | | | |
8.80 – 13.22
|
|
|
May 29, 2026
|
| | | | 362,401(10) | | | |
N/A
|
|
| | | |
Cboe Canada Inc.
|
| ||||||||||||
|
Calendar Period
|
| |
High
(US$) |
| |
Low
(US$) |
| |
Volume
|
| ||||||
|
July 1 – July 13, 2026
|
| | | | 12.57 | | | | | | 11.02 | | | |
160,505
|
|
|
June 2026
|
| | | | 14.00 | | | | | | 10.79 | | | |
1.95 million
|
|
|
May 2026
|
| | | | 11.72 | | | | | | 9.04 | | | |
1.12 million
|
|
|
April 2026
|
| | | | 10.55 | | | | | | 7.91 | | | |
1.66 million
|
|
|
March 2026
|
| | | | 8.53 | | | | | | 7.20 | | | |
357,026
|
|
|
February 2026
|
| | | | 9.29 | | | | | | 7.33 | | | |
1.22 million
|
|
|
January 2026
|
| | | | 9.69 | | | | | | 8.25 | | | |
2.12 million
|
|
|
December 2025
|
| | | | 10.01 | | | | | | 5.73 | | | |
1.92 million
|
|
|
November 2025
|
| | | | 7.85 | | | | | | 5.03 | | | |
724,628
|
|
|
October 2025
|
| | | | 9.60 | | | | | | 6.76 | | | |
1.04 million
|
|
|
September 2025
|
| | | | 8.41 | | | | | | 6.36 | | | |
694,159
|
|
|
August 2025
|
| | | | 8.79 | | | | | | 5.00 | | | |
984,408
|
|
|
July 2025
|
| | | | 8.80 | | | | | | 4.54 | | | |
1.33 million
|
|
| | | |
New York Stock Exchange
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
Calendar Period
|
| |
High
(US$) |
| |
Low
(US$) |
| |
Volume
|
| |||||||||
|
July 1 – July 13, 2026
|
| | | | 12.95 | | | | | | 11.07 | | | | | | 683,526 | | |
|
June 30 2026
|
| | | | 13.25 | | | | | | 11.69 | | | | | | 191,505 | | |
| |
/s/ Kyle Kazan
Kyle Kazan
Chief Executive Officer |
| |
/s/ Mark Vendetti
Mark Vendetti
Chief Financial Officer |
|
| |
/s/ “Graham Farrar”
Graham Farrar
Director |
| |
/s/ Jocelyn Rosenwald
Jocelyn Rosenwald
Director |
|
| |
New Issue and/or Secondary Offering
|
| |
June 10, 2026
|
|
| | |
This Prospectus qualifies the distribution of securities of an entity that currently directly derives a substantial portion of its revenues from the cannabis industry in certain U.S. states, which industry is illegal under U.S. federal law.
|
| |
| | |
The cultivation, sale and use of cannabis is illegal under U.S. federal law pursuant to the Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.C. §811) (the “CSA”). The U.S. federal government regulates drugs through the CSA, which places controlled substances, including cannabis, in a schedule. Other than industrial hemp, cannabis has historically been classified as a Schedule I drug. Under U.S. federal law, a Schedule I drug or substance has a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug under medical supervision. As described below, on April 23, 2026, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration published a final rule transferring certain marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA; however, marijuana that does not fall within the categories specified in that rule remains a Schedule I controlled substance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. The agency has, however, approved one cannabis- derived drug product, Epidiolex, for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome.
|
| |
| | |
Despite the current state of the federal law and the CSA, over three quarters of U.S. states, Washington D.C., and the territories of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam have laws and/or regulations that recognize, in one form or another, legitimate medical uses for cannabis and consumer use of cannabis. The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia, have legalized adult-use of cannabis. Adult-use sales have not yet begun in Virginia. Additionally, although the District of Columbia voters passed a ballot initiative in November 2014, no adult-use operations exist yet because of a prohibition on using funds for regulation within a federal appropriations amendment to local District spending powers. However, there is no guarantee that state laws legalizing and regulating the sale and use of cannabis will not be repealed or overturned, or that local governmental authorities will not limit the applicability of state laws within their respective jurisdictions.
|
| |
| | |
Accordingly, in the United States, cannabis is largely regulated at the state level. State laws that permit and regulate the production, distribution and use of cannabis for adult-use or medical purposes are in direct conflict with the CSA. Although certain states authorize medical or adult-use cannabis production and distribution by licensed or registered entities, under U.S. federal law, the possession, use, cultivation, and transfer of cannabis and any related drug paraphernalia is illegal and any such acts are criminal acts. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that the U.S. Constitution and federal laws made pursuant to it are paramount and in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law shall apply.
|
| |
| | |
On April 17, 2025, Rep. Joyce (R-OH), Max Miller (R-OH), and Dina Titus (D-NV) introduced the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) 2.0 Act. This legislation aims to federally legalize cannabis by allowing states, Washington, D.C., U.S. territories, and tribal nations to determine how to regulate cannabis within their own jurisdictions. Key provisions of the STATES 2.0 Act include removing cannabis from the CSA while still supporting states that choose to maintain prohibition policies; providing federal tax relief to state-sanctioned cannabis businesses by allowing them to deduct ordinary business expenses — effectively removing their classification as “drug traffickers” under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended (the “Code”); and permitting interstate cannabis commerce, including transportation through jurisdictions that have opted to prohibit cannabis. There can be no assurance that the STATES 2.0 Act or any similar legislation will be enacted into law, or as to the timing or form of any such legislation if enacted. The introduction of this legislation should not be relied upon as an indication of the future direction of cannabis regulation in the United States.
|
| |
| | |
On April 17, 2025, Rep. Joyce (R-OH) and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) reintroduced bipartisan legislation titled the PREPARE Act. The bill aims to establish a fair, honest, and transparent process to guide the development of effective federal cannabis regulations. Under the legislation, the Attorney General would be directed to establish a “Commission on the Federal Regulation of Cannabis” to advise on
|
| |
| | |
regulatory development, modeled after existing federal and state alcohol frameworks. The bill calls on federal regulators to create a regulatory and revenue framework that ensures the safe production and consumption of cannabis while respecting the unique needs, rights, and laws of individual states, and to present this framework to Congress within one year. Additionally, the PREPARE Act seeks to build on bipartisan efforts to address the injustices of the war on cannabis — particularly those affecting minority, low-income, and veteran communities. It would also expand research access for medical professionals, provide protections for the hemp industry (including cross-pollination prevention), and help ensure cannabis remains an adult-use product except in cases of physician-prescribed treatment for minors. There can be no assurance that the PREPARE Act or any similar legislation will be enacted into law, or as to the timing or form of any such legislation if enacted. The introduction of this legislation should not be relied upon as an indication of the future direction of cannabis regulation in the United States.
|
| |
| | |
Introduced April 29, 2025, Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act of 2025 by Reps. Dina Titus (D-NV) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) removes federal barriers that prevent the Office of National Drug Control Policy from funding or sponsoring research on cannabis and other Schedule I substances such as MDMA and psilocybin. There can be no assurance that this legislation will be enacted into law, or as to the timing or form of any such legislation if enacted. The introduction of this legislation should not be relied upon as an indication of the future direction of cannabis regulation in the United States.
|
| |
| | |
In late June 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives approved amendments to a spending bill that would authorize U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors to issue medical marijuana recommendations to military veterans and support psychedelics research and access. One of the accepted proposals from Reps. Mast (R-FL) and Joyce (R-OH) — who are both co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus — would increase veterans’ access to state medical marijuana programs and eliminate a current VA directive barring the department’s doctors from issuing cannabis recommendations.
|
| |
| | |
Also in late June 2025, a Republican-led House Appropriations subcommittee included language in the 2026 spending bill that would effectively prohibit most THC-containing hemp products, impose testing and labeling requirements, and grant states oversight on retail sales — though this would restrict rather than expand access. On November 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed into law legislation, as part of broader bill to reopen the government following a government shutdown, which clarifies and narrows the definition of hemp under federal law. The law, which will be effective 365 days following its enactment, limits total THC to 0.4 mg per container of hemp product.
|
| |
| | |
On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14370 “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research”. The order directed federal agencies to accelerate the process of rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance under the CSA. This action represented a significant shift in federal policy associated with cannabis-related activities. Key aspects include the recognizing and improving knowledge of medical uses of marijuana and cannabidiol for patients and doctors, removing barriers to research, improving access to cannabidiol products, and delivering on promises to help improve healthcare for all Americans.
|
| |
| | |
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration published a final rule in the Federal Register transferring certain marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA, effective May 23, 2026. The rescheduling applies only to marijuana that is (i) produced in accordance with state law under a state- authorized medical marijuana program, (ii) contained in a drug product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or (iii) produced for research purposes by or for persons registered with the DEA. Marijuana that does not fall within these categories remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Rescheduling to Schedule III does not legalize marijuana under federal law; rather, the production, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana covered by the rule remain subject to the CSA’s regulatory framework applicable to Schedule III controlled substances. Among other things, businesses operating under state cannabis programs may be required to obtain DEA registration and comply with applicable Schedule III requirements. The implications of rescheduling for matters such as the deductibility of ordinary business expenses under Section 280E of the Code remain uncertain, and material regulatory uncertainty exists regarding the implementation and practical effects of rescheduling on state-licensed cannabis operations.
|
| |
| | |
For additional information, see “Legal and Regulatory Framework” in the AIF (as defined herein), which is incorporated by reference herein.
|
| |
| | |
The Company’s objective is to capitalize on the opportunities presented as a result of the changing regulatory environment governing the cannabis industry in the United States. Accordingly, there are a number of
|
| |
| | |
significant risks associated with the business of the Company. Until a U.S. federal legal and regulatory framework for the regulation of cannabis is established that does not conflict with state and local cannabis laws and regulations, and compliance with such federal, state, and local regulatory requirements is reasonably clear and achievable (and as to the timing, scope, or enactment of any such framework there can be no assurance), there is a significant risk that federal authorities may enforce current U.S. federal law, and the business of the Company may be deemed to be producing, cultivating, extracting, distributing/transporting, or dispensing cannabis or aiding or abetting or otherwise engaging in a conspiracy to commit such acts in violation of federal law in the United States. If the U.S. federal government begins to enforce U.S. federal laws relating to cannabis in states where the sale and use of cannabis is currently legal, or if existing applicable state laws are repealed or curtailed, the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be materially adversely affected.
|
| |
| | |
In light of the political and regulatory uncertainty surrounding the treatment of U.S. cannabis-related activities, on February 8, 2018, the Canadian Securities Administrators published CSA Staff Notice 51-352 — (Revised) Issuers with U.S. Marijuana-Related Activities (“Staff Notice 51-352”) setting out the Canadian Securities Administrator’s disclosure expectations for specific risks facing issuers with cannabis-related activities in the United States. Staff Notice 51-352 includes additional disclosure expectations that apply to all issuers with United States cannabis-related activities, including those with direct and indirect involvement in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis, as well as issuers that provide goods and services to third parties involved in the U.S. cannabis industry.
|
| |
| | |
For these reasons, the Company’s investments in the United States cannabis market may subject the Company to heightened scrutiny by regulators, stock exchanges, clearing agencies and other U.S. and Canadian authorities. There are a number of risks associated with the business of the Company. See the section entitled “Risk Factors” herein and within the AIF.
|
| |
| | | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | | 2 | | | |
| | | | | | 4 | | | |
| | | | | | 5 | | | |
| | | | | | 7 | | | |
| | | | | | 7 | | | |
| | | | | | 8 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 15 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 16 | | | |
| | | | | | 17 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | | 19 | | |
| | | (0.50 x Aggregate Number of Multiple Voting Shares, Subordinate Voting Shares and Restricted Voting Shares) – (Aggregate Number of Multiple Voting Shares held of record by United States residents) | | |