CEA Industries (CEAD) Risk Factors

We are subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States and Canada that involve money laundering, financial recordkeeping and proceeds of crime, including the U.S. Currency and Foreign 125 Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (commonly known as the Bank Secrecy Act), as amended by Title III of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (Canada), as amended and the rules and regulations thereunder, and any related or similar rules, regulations or guidelines, issued, administered or enforced by governmental authorities in the United States, Canada and internationally. Further, under U.S. federal law, banks or other financial institutions that provide a cannabis business with a checking account, debit or credit card, small business loan, or any other service could be found guilty of money laundering if certain other elements are met. Despite these laws, the FinCEN Memorandum states that in some circumstances, it is permissible for banks to provide services to cannabis-related businesses without risking FinCEN enforcement. It refers to and incorporates supplementary Cole Memo guidance issued to federal prosecutors relating to the prosecution of money laundering offenses predicated on cannabis-related violations of the CSA on the same day. Notwithstanding former Attorney General Sessions' revocation of the Cole Memo, the status of the FinCEN Memorandum has not been affected, nor has the Department of the Treasury given any indication that it intends to rescind the FinCEN Memorandum itself. Though it was originally intended for the Cole Memo and the FinCEN Memorandum to work in tandem, the FinCEN Memorandum appears to remain in effect as a standalone document which explicitly lists the eight enforcement priorities originally cited in the rescinded Cole Memo. Although the FinCEN Memorandum remains intact, indicating that the Department of the Treasury and FinCEN intend to continue abiding by its guidance, it is unclear whether the current administration will continue to follow the guidelines of the FinCEN Memorandum.

Marijuana legalization is mixed across the country. And it is constantly evolving. In four states it continues to be fully illegal. In the other states it is either legalized, available for medical uses and decriminalized, available for medical uses, decriminalized, or permitted for low-tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC")/high-CBD extracts. Under U.S. federal law, however, those activities are illegal. Cannabis, other than hemp (defined by the U.S. government as Cannabis sativa L. with a THC concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis), is a Schedule I controlled substance under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq.) (the "CSA"). Even in states or territories that have legalized cannabis to some extent, the cultivation, possession, and sale of cannabis all violate the CSA and are punishable by imprisonment, substantial fines and forfeiture. Moreover, individuals and entities may violate federal law if they aid and abet another in violating the CSA, or conspire with another to violate the law, and violating the CSA is a predicate for certain other crimes, including money laundering laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate and criminalize the sale, possession and use of cannabis, even for individual medical purposes, regardless of whether it is legal under state law. For over six years, however, the U.S. government has not enforced those laws against companies complying with state cannabis law and their vendors. The likelihood of any future adverse enforcement against companies complying with state cannabis laws remains uncertain. The U.S. Attorney's Office will follow established principles that govern all federal prosecutions when deciding which cannabis activities to prosecute. As a result, federal prosecutors could and still can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide to prosecute even state-legal cannabis activities. However, generally, U.S. Attorneys have not targeted state law compliant entities. The policy of not prosecuting companies complying with state cannabis laws is likely to continue under the Biden Administration. Additionally, since 2014, versions of the U.S. omnibus spending bill have included a provision prohibiting the DOJ, which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration, from using appropriated funds to prevent states from implementing their medical-use cannabis laws. In USA vs. McIntosh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the provision prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to prosecute individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical-use cannabis laws and who strictly comply with such laws. The court noted that, if the spending bill provision were not continued, prosecutors could enforce against conduct occurring during the statute of limitations even while the provision was previously in force. Other courts that have considered the issue have ruled similarly, although courts disagree about which party bears the burden of proof of showing compliance or noncompliance with state law. We cannot predict the timing of any change in federal law or possible changes in federal enforcement. In the unlikely event that the federal government were to reverse its long-standing hands-off approach to the state legal cannabis markets and start more broadly enforcing federal law regarding cannabis, we would likely be unable to execute our business plan, and our business and financial results would be adversely affected. Certain of our customers may be outside any protections extended to medical-use cannabis under the spending bill provision and more recent medical-use and research laws. This could subject them to greater and/or different federal legal and other risks as compared to businesses where cannabis is sold exclusively for medical use, which could in turn materially adversely affect our business. Furthermore, any change in the federal government's enforcement posture with respect to state-licensed cannabis sales, including the enforcement postures of individual federal prosecutors in judicial districts where we operate, could result in our inability to execute our business plan, and we would likely suffer significant losses with respect to our customer base, which would adversely affect our operations, cash flow and financial condition.

Our engineering and design services and solutions are focused on CEA facilities that are able to grow a wide variety of crops beyond that of cannabis, such as leafy greens (kale, Swiss chard, mustard, cress), microgreens (leafy greens harvested at the first true leaf stage), ethnic vegetables and small fruits (such as strawberries, blackberries and raspberries), bell peppers, cucumbers, and tomatoes. Some of these crops and their growing methodologies are subject to regulation by the United States Food and Drug Administration, environmental agencies, public utility agencies and other federal, state or foreign agencies. Changes to any regulations and laws that complicate the design and engineering of a subject CEA facility, such as wastewater treatment and electricity-related mandates, make it possible that potential related zoning and enforcement could decrease the demand for our services, and in turn negatively impact our revenues and business opportunities.

We seek grower customers in the CEA Canadian market, some of which are cannabis growers. Therefore, our existing and future operations may become the subject of heightened scrutiny by those regulators and other authorities in Canada that oversee the cannabis industry. As a result, we may become subject to direct and indirect interaction with public officials in one or both the United States and Canada. No assurance can be provided that any heightened scrutiny will not in turn lead to the imposition of restrictions on our ability to operate in Canada, in addition to those described herein.

Section 280E of the Code forbids businesses from deducting otherwise ordinary business expenses from gross income associated with the "trafficking" of Schedule I or II substances, as defined by the CSA. The Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") has subsequently applied Section 280E to state-legal cannabis businesses since marijuana is still a Schedule I substance. Section 280E states that no deductions should be allowed on any amount "in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business consists of trafficking in controlled substances." Section 280E affects all businesses that engage in the cultivation, sale or processing of marijuana. This includes cultivators, medical dispensaries, marijuana retail stores and infused product manufacturers, as well as marijuana-derived concentrates and oil manufacturers. Because Section 280E limits certain deductions, it can have a dramatic effect on the profitability of these businesses, which in turn may adversely affect their ability to purchase our products and services. Such result may adversely impact our revenue and earnings.

While the federal government has the right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, state and municipal governments may adopt or amend additional laws and regulations that further criminalize or adversely affect cannabis businesses. States that currently have laws that decriminalize or legalize certain aspects of cannabis, such as medical marijuana, could in the future, reverse course and adopt new laws that further criminalize or adversely affect cannabis businesses. Additionally, municipal governments in certain states may have laws that adversely affect cannabis businesses, even though there are no such laws at the state level. For example, municipal governments may have zoning laws that restrict where cannabis operations can be located and the manner and size of which they can expand and operate. These municipal laws, like the federal laws, may adversely affect our customers' ability to do business. Also, given the complexity and rapid change of the federal, state and local laws pertaining to cannabis, our customers may incur substantial legal costs associated with complying with these laws and in acquiring the necessary state and local licenses required by their business endeavors. All of the foregoing may impact our customers' ability to purchase our products and services, which may adversely affect our business, revenue and earnings.

The BSA, enforced by FinCEN, requires us to report currency transactions in excess of $10,000, including identification of the customer by name and social security number, to the Internal Revenue Service. This regulation also requires us to report certain suspicious activity, including any transaction that exceeds $5,000 that we know, suspect or have reason to believe involves funds from illegal activity or is designed to evade federal regulations or reporting requirements and to verify sources of funds. Substantial penalties can be imposed against us if we fail to comply with this regulation. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations, the imposition of a substantial penalty could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Continued development of the recreational and medical cannabis markets is dependent upon continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level for recreational and/or medical purposes. Any number of factors could slow or halt the progress. Furthermore, progress, while encouraging, is not assured, and the process normally encounters setbacks before achieving success. While there may be ample public support for legislative proposals, key support must be created in the relevant legislative committee, or a bill may never advance to a vote. Numerous factors impact the legislative process. Any one of these factors could slow or halt the progress and adoption of cannabis for recreational and/or medical purposes, which would limit the overall available market for our products and services, which could adversely impact our business, revenue and earnings.

Laws and regulations affecting the medical and adult-use marijuana industry are constantly changing, which could detrimentally affect our clients involved in that industry and, in turn, our operations. Local, state and federal cannabis laws and regulations are often broad in scope and subject to constant evolution and inconsistent interpretations, which could require our clients and ourselves to incur substantial costs associated with modification of operations to ensure compliance. In addition, violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our clients' business and result in a material adverse effect on our operations. In addition, it is possible that regulations may be enacted in the future that will limit the amount of cannabis grown or related products that our commercial clients are authorized to produce. We cannot predict the nature of any future laws, regulations, interpretations or applications, nor can it determine what effect additional governmental regulations or administrative policies and procedures, when and if promulgated, could have on our operations.

We believe that established businesses in other industries may have a strong economic interest in opposing the development of the cannabis industry. Cannabis may be seen by companies in other industries as an attractive alternative to their products, including recreational marijuana as an alternative to alcohol, and medical marijuana as an alternative to various commercial pharmaceuticals. Many industries that could view the emerging cannabis industry as an economic threat are well established, with vast economic and United States federal and state lobbying resources. It is possible that companies within these industries could use their resources to attempt to slow or reverse legislation legalizing cannabis. Any inroads these companies make in halting or impeding legislative initiatives that would be beneficial to the cannabis industry could have a detrimental impact on our clients and, in turn on our operations.

The cannabis industry is still developing in the United States. While the majority of U.S. states now have legal cannabis, it remains illegal under U.S. federal law, making it difficult to accurately predict and forecast the demand for our engineering and product solutions. If the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") did take action against the cannabis industry, we believe those of our clients operating in the legal cannabis industry would be lost to us. In our operations, we rely heavily upon the various U.S. federal governmental memos issued in the past, including the memorandum issued by the DOJ on October 19, 2009, known as the "Ogden Memorandum", the memorandum issued by the DOJ on August 29, 2013, known as the "Cole Memorandum" and other guidance, in the attempt to keep our operations acceptable to those state and federal entities that regulate, enforce, or choose to defer enforcement of certain current regulations regarding cannabis. By doing this, we seek to avoid the many possible consequences of providing grow equipment to the cannabis industry as our customers continue to comply with their state and local jurisdictional laws, rules and regulations and the interpretations of relevant authorities. The legal cannabis industry is not yet well or fully developed, and many aspects of this industry's development and evolution cannot be accurately predicted. Therefore, the loss of any of our current clients or our inability to capture new client contracts will have a material adverse effect on our business. While we have attempted to identify our business risks in the legal cannabis industry, you should carefully consider that there are other risks that cannot be foreseen or are not described in this report, which could materially and adversely affect our business and financial performance.

We provide the overwhelming majority of our facility engineering design and equipment integration and solutions to facilities in the legal cannabis industry. While we are hopeful that the proportion of non-cannabis revenues might increase over time, decreases in demand from the legal cannabis industry will have a material adverse effect on our revenues and the success of our business operations.

A very large percentage of our customers are operating in an industry that is still illegal under U.S. federal law. With the lingering uncertainty of federal enforcement, many potential investors, especially institutional investors, either refuse to invest in the industry or are very reluctant to make such investments. Our inability to raise adequate capital for future expansion could substantially hinder our growth potential as well as our revenue and earnings.

As a result of the federal illegality of marijuana, many banks do not provide banking services to the cultivation and distribution segments of the cannabis industry, the argument being that they would be accepting for deposit funds derived from the operation of a federally illegal business. On February 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") released guidance to banks "clarifying Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses." In addition, there have been legislative attempts to allow banks to transact business with state-authorized cannabis businesses. While these are positive developments, there can be no assurance that legislation will be successful, or that, even with the FinCEN guidance, banks will decide to do business with cannabis companies, or that, in the absence of actual legislation, state and federal banking regulators will not strictly enforce current prohibitions on banks handling funds generated from an activity that is illegal under federal law. Moreover, the FinCEN guidance may be rescinded or amended at any time in order to reconcile the now conflicting guidance of the Sessions Memo. At present, few banks have taken advantage of the FinCEN guidance, resulting in many cannabis businesses still operating on an all-cash basis. This makes it difficult for cannabis businesses to manage their businesses and pay their employees and taxes; in addition, having so much cash on hand creates significant public safety issues. Many ancillary businesses that service cannabis businesses have to deal with the unpredictability of their clients or customers not having a bank account. The inability of our customers to open bank accounts and otherwise access the services of banks, including obtaining credit, may make it more difficult and costly for them to operate and more difficult for such customers to purchase our products and services, which could materially harm our business, revenue and earnings.

We depend on the industry knowledge, technical and financial skill, and network of business contacts of certain key employees. Our future success will depend on the continued service of these key employees or our ability to engage others who are similarly situated in the industry. While we may have employment agreements with certain of these key employees, they are free to terminate their employment with us at any time, although they may be subject to certain restrictive covenants on their post-termination activities. We do not carry key-man life insurance on the lives of our key employees. The departure of any one of our key employees could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our business objective and maintain the specialized services that we offer our customers.