The potential rescheduling of cannabis presents an opportunity to reevaluate your company’s tax structure and increase deductions, reduce income, and simplify accounting.
Rescheduling may open up access to previously unavailable tax credits, incentives, and deductions at various government levels.
With anticipated increased investment and cash flow after rescheduling, companies should prepare for potential mergers and acquisitions by seeking support in areas like financial due diligence and post-acquisition planning.
~
The rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III will unlock new opportunities for cannabis businesses. Is your company positioned to capitalize?
Tax Restructuring
If your existing operating structure was optimized for Section 280E mitigation, now is the time to evaluate whether it will still be tax-efficient after rescheduling.
MGO’s dedicated cannabis tax team can analyze your current structure and identify opportunities to increase deductions, reduce income, simplify accounting, and eliminate unnecessary tax exposures. We will help you develop a strategy specific to your business needs that aligns with your operational goals and any regulatory considerations.
Tax Credits, Incentives, and Deductions
Rescheduling should open cannabis operators to a world of previously unavailable tax benefits.
Our tax professionals can comprehensively review your business operations to uncover tax credits, incentives, and deductions that you may qualify for at the federal, state, and local levels.
Financial and Internal Control Audits
While rescheduling will eliminate the Section 280E tax burden and attract new investors to the cannabis industry, it could also lead to a new regulatory framework.
Our audit services can provide assurance to investors that your company is effectively managing risks, complying with any regulatory changes, and maintaining transparency.
Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A)
The projected wave of investment and increased cash flow resulting from rescheduling means more M&A should be on the horizon.
If your company is considering an M&A deal (either as a buyer or seller), MGO can support your efforts with structuring, financial & tax due diligence, Quality of Earnings (QoE) assessments, accounting integration, strategic guidance, and post-acquisition planning.
Welcome to the Cannabis M&A Field Guide from MGO. In this series, our practice leaders and service providers provide guidance for navigating M&A deals in this new phase of the quickly expanding industries of cannabis, hemp, and related products and services. Reporting from the front-lines, our team members are structuring deals, implementing best practices, and magnifying synergies to protect investments and accrete value during post-deal integration. Our guidance on market realities takes into consideration sound accounting principles and financial responsibility to help operators and investors navigate the M&A process, facilitate successful transactions, and maximize value.
In the cannabis and hemp industries, capturing the true value of real estate holdings in an M&A deal can be both elusive and central to the overall success of the transaction. Difficult-to-acquire licenses and permits are essential for operating, which often drives up the “ticket price” of property, ignoring operational and market realities that suppress value in the long run. On the flip side, real estate holdings are sometimes considered “throw-ins” during a large M&A deal. These properties can hold risks and exposures, or, in many cases, are under-utilized and present an opportunity to uncover hidden value.
Both Acquirers and Target companies must take specific steps toward understanding the varied layers of risk and opportunity presented by real estate holdings. In the following, we will address some common scenarios and provide guidance on the best way to ensure fair value throughout an M&A deal.
Real estate as a starting point for enterprise value
Leaders of cannabis and hemp enterprises must understand that real estate should be a focus of the M&A process from the very beginning. All too often, c-suite executives are well-acquainted with detailed financial analyses for other parts of the business, but have a limited or out-of-date idea of their enterprise’s square footage, details of lease agreements, or comparable values in shifting real estate markets. Oftentimes it takes a major business event, like an M&A deal, to spur leadership to reexamine and understand real estate holdings and strategy. Regrettably, and all too often, principals come to that realization post-closing and realize they may have left money on the table.
In an M&A deal, the party that takes a proactive approach to real estate considerations gains an upper-hand in negotiations and calculating value. Real estate holdings can provide immediate opportunities for liquidity, cost-reduction, or revenue generation. At the same time, detailed due diligence can reveal redundant properties, costly debt obligations, unbreakable leases, and other red flags that would undermine value post-closing.
For both sides of the M&A transaction, real estate strategy and valuation should be a core consideration of the overall goals and value drivers of the deal. A direct path to this mindset is to place real estate holdings on the same level of importance as other assets that drive value – human capital, technology, intellectual property, etc. Ensuring that real estate strategy aligns with business goals and objectives will save considerable headaches and potential liabilities in the later stages of negotiating and closing the deal. Qualify and confirm all real estate data
One of the harmful side-effects of a laissez-faire attitude toward real estate in M&A is that the entire deal can be structured around data that is simply inaccurate or incomplete. This inconsistency is not necessarily the result of an overt deception, but too often it is simply an oversight. Valuations can also be based upon pride and ego, without supporting market data.
Let’s visit a very common M&A scenario: The Target company has real estate data on file from when they purchased or leased the property (which may have been years ago), and that data says headquarters is 20,000 sq. ft. of office space. Perhaps they invested heavily into improvements like custom interiors that did nothing to add value to the real estate. The Target includes that number in the valuation process and the Acquirer assumes it is accurate. Following the deal, the Acquirer moves in and, in the worst case, realizes there is actually only 15,000 sq. ft. of useable space. Or it is equally common that the Acquirer learns the space is actually 25,000 sq. ft. Either way, value has been misrepresented or underreported. M&A deals involve a multitude of figures and calculations, and sometimes things are simply missed. But those small things can have a major impact on value and performance in the long run.
The only solution to this problem is to dedicate resources to qualifying and quantifying data related to real estate holdings. When preparing to sell, Target companies should review all assumptions – square footage, usage percentage, useful life, etc. – and conduct field measurements and physical condition assessments (“PCA’s”). This will help your team understand the value of your holdings and set realistic expectations, and perhaps just as importantly, it saves you from the embarrassment of providing inaccurate numbers exposed during Acquirer’s due diligence—and getting re-traded on price and terms. That reputation will ripple through the marketplace.
From the Acquirer’s side, the details of real estate holdings should come under the same level of scrutiny as financials, control environment, etc. Your due diligence team should commission its own field measurements and PCA, and also seek out market comparables to confirm appraisals. It is simply unsafe and unwise to assume the accuracy of any of these details. Performing your own assessments could reveal a solid basis to re-negotiate the M&A, and will help shape post-merger integration planning.
Tax analysis will reveal risks and opportunities
The maze of tax regimes and regulatory requirements cannabis and hemp operators navigate naturally creates opportunities to maximize efficiencies. This is particularly the case when it comes to enterprise restructuring to navigate the tax burden of 280E.
For example, it may be possible to establish a real estate holding company that is a distinct entity from any “plant-touching” operations. By restructuring the real estate holdings and contributing those assets to this new entity it may be possible to take advantage of additional tax benefits not afforded to the group if owned directly by the “plant-touching” entity. This all assumes a fair market rent is charged between the entities.
Recently, operators have looked to sale/leaseback transactions to help with cash flow needs and thus these types of transactions have gained prominence for cannabis and hemp operators. It is important that these transactions be carefully reviewed prior to execution to ensure they can maintain their tax status as a true sale and subsequent lease, instead of being considered a deferred financing transaction. If a Target company has a sale/leaseback deal established but under audit the facts and circumstances do not hold up, this could open up major tax liabilities for the Acquirer.
When entering into an M&A transaction, it is important that the Acquirer look at the historical and future aspects of the Target’s assets, including the real estate, to maximize efficiencies of these potentially separate operations. It is also equally important to review pre-established agreements/transactions to ensure the appropriate tax classification has been made and that the appropriate facts and circumstances that gave rise to the agreements/transactions have been documented and followed to limit any potential negative exposure in the future.
Contract small print could make or break a deal
An area of particular focus during due diligence should be a review, and close read, of the Target company’s existing property leases and other contracts. There are any number of clauses and agreements that seem harmless and inconsequential on the surface, but can have disastrous effects in difficult situations. In many cases the lease/contract of a property is more important than the details of the property itself. For example, if the non-negotiable rent on a retail location is too high (and scheduled to go higher), there may be no way to ever turn a profit.
The financial distress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has brought these issues to the forefront in the real estate industry. Rent payment and occupancy issues are shifting the fundamental economics of many property deals and contracts. If, for example, you are acquiring a commercial location that is under-utilized because of market demand or governmental mandate, you must confirm whether sub-leases or assignments are allowed at below the contract price. If not, you could be stuck with a costly, underperforming asset amid quickly shifting commercial real estate demand.
In many leases and contracts there are Tenant Improvement Allowance conditions that require the landlord to fund certain property improvement projects. If utilizing these terms is part of the Acquirer’s plans, you may need to have frank and open conversations with landlords about whether the funds for these projects are still available, and if those contract obligations will be met. Details like these are often penned during times of financial comfort without consequences to the non-performing party, but a landlord struggling with cash flow may not have the capability to meet contract standards.
These are just a few examples from a multitude of potential real estate contract issues that can emerge. It is recommended to not only examine these contracts very closely, but have dedicated real estate industry experts perform independent assessments that account for broader social, economic, and market realities. That independent analysis will help your executive team formulate a real estate strategy that better aligns with core business objectives.
Dig deep to uncover real value
There are countless scenarios where issues related to real estate make or break an otherwise solid M&A transaction, whether before or after closing the deal. The only path forward is to treat real estate holdings with the same care and attention paid to the other asset classes driving the deal. The cannabis and hemp industries have recently endured micro-boom-and-bust cycles that have left many assets under-performing. As Target companies offload these assets, and Acquirers seek out good deals, both parties must undertake focused efforts to establish the fair value of complex real estate assets and obligations.
Welcome to the Cannabis M&A Field Guide from MGO. In this series, our practice leaders and service providers provide guidance for navigating M&A deals in this new phase of the quickly expanding industries of cannabis, hemp, and related products and services. Reporting from the front-lines, our team members are structuring deals, implementing best practices, and magnifying synergies to protect investments and accrete value during post-deal integration. Our guidance on market realities takes into consideration sound accounting principles and financial responsibility to help operators and investors navigate the M&A process, facilitate successful transactions, and maximize value.
Deal structure can be viewed as the “Terms and Conditions” of an M&A deal. It lays out the rights and obligations of both parties, and provides a roadmap for completing the deal successfully. While deal structures are necessarily complex, they typically fall within three overall strategies, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages: Merger, Asset Acquisition and Stock Purchase. In the following we will address these options, and common alternatives within each category, and provide guidance on their effectiveness in the cannabis and hemp markets.
Key considerations of an M&A structure
Before we get to the actual M&A structure options, it is worth addressing a couple essential factors that play a role in the value of an M&A deal for both sides. Each transaction structure has a unique relationship to these factors and may be advantageous or disadvantageous to both parties.
Transfer of Liabilities: Any company in the legally complex and highly-regulated cannabis and hemp industries bears a certain number of liabilities. When a company is acquired in a stock deal or is merged with, in most cases, the resulting entity takes on those liabilities. The one exception being asset deals, where a buyer purchases all or select assets instead of the equity of the target. In asset deals, liabilities are not required to be transferred.
Shareholder/Third-Party Consent: A layer of complexity for all transaction structures is presented by the need to get consent from related parties. Some degree of shareholder consent is a requirement for mergers and stock/share purchase agreements, and depending on the Target company, getting consent may be smooth, or so difficult it derails negotiations.
Beyond that initial line of consent, deals are likely to require “third party” consent from the Target company’s existing contract holders – which can include suppliers, landlords, employee unions, etc. This is a particularly important consideration in deals where a “change of control” occurs. When the Target company is dissolved as part of the transaction process, the Acquirer is typically required to re-negotiate or enter into new contracts with third parties. Non-tangible assets, including intellectual property, trademarks and patents, and operating licenses, present a further layer of complexity where the Acquirer is often required to have the ownership of those assets formally transferred to the new entity.
Tax Impact: The structure of a deal will ultimately determine which aspects are taxed and which are tax-free. For example, asset acquisitions and stock/share purchases have tax consequences for both the Acquirer and Target companies. However, some merger types can be structured so that at least a part of the sale proceeds can be tax-deferred.
As this can have a significant impact on the ROI of any deal, a deep dive into tax implications (and liabilities) is a must. In the following, we will address the tax implications of each structure in broad strokes, but for more detail please see our article on M&A Tax Implications (COMING SOON).
Asset acquisitions
In this structure, the Acquirer identifies specific or all assets held by the Target company, which can include equipment, real estate, leases, inventory, equipment and patents, and pays an agreed-upon value, in cash and/or stock, for those assets. The Target company may continue operation after the deal. This is one of the most common transaction structures, as the Acquirer can identify the specific assets that match their business plan and avoid burdensome or undesirable aspects of the Target company. From the Target company’s perspective, they can offload under-performing/non-core assets or streamline operations, and either continue operating, pivot, or unwind their company. For the cannabis industry, asset sales are often preferred as many companies are still working out their operational specifics and the exchange of assets can be mutually beneficial.
Advantages/Disadvantages
Transfer of Liabilities: One of the strongest advantages of an asset deal structure is that the process of negotiating the assets for sale will include discussion of related liabilities. In many cases, the Acquirer can avoid taking on certain liabilities, depending on the types of assets discussed. This gives the Acquirer an added line of defense for protecting itself against inherited liabilities.
Shareholder/Third-Party Consent: Asset acquisitions are unique among the M&A transaction structures in that they do not necessarily require a stockholder majority agreement to conduct the deal.
However, because the entire Target company entity is not transferred in the deal, consent of third-parties can be a major roadblock. Unfortunately, as stated in our M&A Strategy article, many cannabis markets licenses are inextricably linked to the organization/ownership group that applied for and received the license. This means that acquiring an asset, for example a cultivation facility, does not necessarily mean the license to operate the facility can be included in the deal, and would likely require re-application or negotiation with regulatory authorities.
Tax Impact: A major consideration is the potential tax implications of an asset deal. Both the Acquirer and Target company will face immediate tax consequences following the deal. The Acquirer has a slight advantage in that a “step-up” in basis typically occurs, allowing the acquirer to depreciate the assets following the deal. Whereas the Target company is liable for the corporate tax of the sale and will also pay taxes on dividends from the sale.
Stock/share purchase
In some ways, a stock/share purchase is a more efficient version of a merger. In this structure, the acquiring company simply purchases the ownership shares of the Target business. The companies do not necessarily merge and the Target company retains its name, structure, operations and business contracts. The Target business simply has a new ownership group.
Advantages/Disadvantages
Transfer of Liabilities: Since the entirety of the company comes under new ownership, all related liabilities are also transferred.
Shareholder/Third Party Consent: To complete a stock deal, the Acquirer needs shareholder approval, which is not problematic in many circumstances. But if the deal is for 100% of a company and/or the Target company has a plenitude of minority shareholders, getting shareholder approval can be difficult, and in some cases, make a deal impossible.
Because assets and contracts remain in the name of the Target company, third party consent is typically not required unless the relevant contracts contain specific prohibitions against assignment when there is a change of control.
Tax Impact: The primary concern for this deal is the unequal tax burdens for the Acquirer vs the Shareholders of the Target company. This structure is ideal for Target company shareholders because it avoids the double taxation that typically occurs with asset sales. Whereas Acquirers face several potentially unfavorable tax outcomes. Firstly, the Target company’s assets do not get adjusted to fair market value, and instead, continue with their historical tax basis. This denies the Acquirer any benefits from depreciation or amortization of the assets (although admittedly not as important in the cannabis industry due to 280E). Additionally, the Acquirer inherits any tax liabilities and uncertain tax positions from the Target company, raising the risk profile of the transaction.
Three types of mergers
1: Direct merger
In the most straight-forward option, the Acquiring company simply acquires the entirety of the target company, including all assets and liabilities. Target company shareholders are either bought out of their shares with cash, promissory notes, or given compensatory shares of the Acquiring company. The Target company is then considered dissolved upon completion of the deal.
2: Forward indirect merger
Also known as a forward triangular merger, the Acquiring company merges the Target company into a subsidiary of the Acquirer. The Target company is dissolved upon completion of the deal.
3: Reverse indirect merger
The third merger option is called the reverse triangular merger. In this deal the Acquirer uses a wholly-owned subsidiary to merge with the Target company. In this instance, the Target company is the surviving entity.
This is one of the most common merger types because not only is the Acquirer protected from certain liabilities due to the use of the subsidiary, but the Target company’s assets and contracts are preserved. In the cannabis industry, this is particularly advantageous because Acquirers can avoid a lot of red tape when entering a new market by simply taking up the licenses and business deals of the Target company.
Advantages/Disadvantages
Transfer of Liabilities: In option #1, the acquirer assumes all liabilities from the Target company. Options #2 and #3, provide some protection as the use of the subsidiary helps shield the Acquirer from certain liabilities.
Shareholder/Third Party Consent: Mergers can be performed without 100% shareholder approval. Typically, the Acquirer and Target company leadership will determine a mutually acceptable stockholder approval threshold.
Options #1 and #2, where the Target company is ultimately dissolved, will require re-negotiation of certain contracts and licenses. Whereas in option #3, as long as the Target company remains in operation, the contracts and licenses will likely remain intact, barring any “change of control” conditions.
Tax Impact: Ultimately, the tax implications of the merger options are complex and depend on whether cash or shares are used. Some mergers and reorganizations can be structured so that at least a part of the sale proceeds, in the form of acquirer’s stock, can receive tax-deferred treatment.
In conclusion
Each deal structure comes with its own tax advantages (or disadvantages), business continuity implications, and legal requirements. All of these factors must be considered and balanced during the negotiating process.
