The first lawsuits have been brought against Connecticut’s cannabis licensing process.
Two Hartford County-based businesses are challenging their denials for cultivator licenses. The companies filed separate lawsuits in Superior Court seeking to appeal the decision by the Social Equity Council that they did not meet ownership requirements set forth for so-called social equity applicants.
The state Department of Consumer Protection, which is overseeing the regulation of the adult-use market in Connecticut, and the state Department of Community and Economic Development are also named as defendants in the suit.
Attorneys Michael Donnelly and Rachel Snow Kindseth with Murtha Cullina LLP are representing The Hartford Cannabis Company, 37 Alden Street, Unit E, Hartford, and The Good THC Co., 24 Patricia Drive, East Hartford, in the separate complaints.
A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, which is representing the state, had no comment on the complaints. A request for comment made to a spokesperson for the Social Equity Council was not immediately returned.
Connecticut legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older last year and is now in the midst of setting up the new marketplace with retail stores expected to open as soon as the end of this year. Half of the cannabis licenses are reserved for social equity applicants, who must meet income, residency, and ownership rules, with the goal of creating opportunity for communities that were targeted by the war on drugs to get involved in the legal market.
Of the 41 applications for social equity cultivator licenses, 16 were given initial approval by the Social Equity Council following vetting by the accounting firm CohnReznick.
In the complaints, The Hartford Cannabis Company and The Good THC Co. argue that the Social Equity Council’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the council made “erroneous assumptions and conclusions about voting powers and control.”
They also claim that the council failed to inform applicants of the ownership and control requirements before the application period for licenses opened, and that DCP began accepting applications before the council finalized the ownership and control criteria. Both companies are seeking an appeal of the decision.
julia.bergman@hearstmediact.com
Be the first to comment