Greenlane Holdings (GNLN) Risk Analysis

We increasingly rely on information technology systems for our internal communications, controls, reporting and relations with customers, vendors and suppliers, and information technology is becoming a significantly important tool for our sales staff. Our marketing and distribution strategy is dependent upon our ability to closely monitor consumer and market trends on a highly specified level, for which we are reliant on our sophisticated data tracking systems, which are susceptible to disruption or failure. In addition, our reliance on information technology exposes us to cyber-security risks, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete. Security and privacy breaches may expose us to liability and cause us to lose customers, or may disrupt our relationships and ongoing transactions with other entities with whom we contract throughout our supply chain. The failure of our information systems to function as intended, or the penetration by outside parties intent on disrupting business processes, could result in significant costs, loss of revenue, assets or personal or other sensitive data and reputational harm.

Under Sections 3(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the 1940 Act, a company generally will be deemed to be an "investment company" for purposes of the 1940 Act if (i) it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting or trading in securities or (ii) it engages, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities and it owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. We do not believe that we are an "investment company," as such term is defined in either of those sections of the 1940 Act. As the sole manager of the Operating Company, we control and operate the Operating Company. On that basis, we believe that our interest in the Operating Company is not an "investment security" as that term is used in the 1940 Act. However, if we were to cease participation in the management of the Operating Company, our interest in The Operating Company could be deemed an "investment security" for purposes of the 1940 Act. We and the Operating Company intend to continue to conduct our operations so that we will not be deemed an investment company. However, if we were to be deemed an investment company, restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act, including limitations on our capital structure and our ability to transact with affiliates, could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

United States There is uncertainty regarding whether, in what circumstances, how and when the FDA will seek to enforce the tobacco-related provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FFDCA") relative to vaporizer hardware and accessories that can be used to vaporize cannabis and other material, including electronic cigarettes, rolling papers and glassware, in light of the potential for dual use with tobacco. Through amendments to the FFDCA, the Tobacco Control Act established, by statute, that the FDA has oversight over specific types of tobacco products (cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own ("RYO") tobacco, and smokeless tobacco) and granted the FDA the authority to "deem" other types of tobacco products as subject to the statutory requirements. In addition to establishing authority, defining key terminology, and setting adulteration and misbranding standards, the Tobacco Control Act established FDA's authority over tobacco products in a number of areas such as: submission of health information to the FDA; registration with the FDA; premarket authorization requirements; good manufacturing practice requirements; tobacco product standards; notification, recall, corrections, and removals; records and reports; marketing considerations and restrictions; post-market surveillance and studies; labeling and warnings; and recordkeeping and tracking. Although the vast majority of our vaporizer products are not subject to these regulations because they are not intended for use with tobacco or nicotine, changes in law, regulation, or policy that subject a greater portion of our products to these regulations could occur. In a final rule effective August 8, 2016 ("Deeming Rule"), the FDA deemed all products that meet the Tobacco Control Act's definition of "tobacco product," including components and parts but excluding accessories, to be subject to the tobacco control requirements of the FFDCA and the FDA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, as of the Deeming Rule's effective date, deemed tobacco products that are "new" (i.e., those that were not commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007) are subject to the premarket authorization requirements. Deemed new tobacco products that remain on the market without authorization are marketed unlawfully. Deemed new tobacco products include, among other things: products such as electronic cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic hookahs, vape pens, certain vaporizers and e-liquids and their components or parts (such as tanks, coils and batteries) ("ENDS"). The FDA's interpretation of components and parts of a tobacco product includes any assembly of materials intended or reasonably expected to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product. In a 2017 decision of the D.C. Circuit court, the court upheld the FDA's authority to regulate ENDS even though they do not actually contain tobacco, and even if the products could be used with nicotine-free e-liquids. The Tobacco Control Act and FDA's implementation of regulations require regulatory approvals before certain products may be sold and restrict the way tobacco product manufacturers, retailers, and distributors can advertise and promote tobacco products, including a prohibition against free samples or the use of vending machines, requirements for presentation of warning information, and age verification of purchasers. Newly-deemed tobacco products are also subject to the other requirements of the Tobacco Control Act, such as that they not be adulterated or misbranded. The FDA has been directed under the Tobacco Control Act to establish specific good manufacturing practice ("GMP") regulations for tobacco products, and could do so in the future, which could have a material adverse impact on the ability of some of our suppliers to manufacture, and the cost to manufacture, certain of our products. Even in the absence of specific GMP regulations, a facility's failure to maintain sanitary conditions or to prevent contamination of products could result in the FDA deeming the products produced there adulterated. The FDA has announced its intention to take enforcement measures related to ENDS products offered for sale after September 9, 2020, for which the manufacturers had not submitted a PMTA. Following that date, the FDA did in fact take actions against certain manufacturers of ENDS products for which a PMTA had not been submitted. Accordingly, and in light of the laws noted above, premarket authorizations will be necessary for us to continue our distribution of any vaporizer hardware and accessories that meet the FDA's definition of ENDS. While we do not believe vaporizers intended for use with non-tobacco substances meet the FDA's definition of ENDS, it is possible that the FDA could require premarket authorization for such products. Our suppliers who make vaporizers that are currently, or in the future become, subject to FDA regulation must timely file applications for the appropriate authorizations so that we may continue selling their products in the United States. We have no control over the content of those applications, and we have no assurances that the outcome of the FDA's review will result in authorization of the marketing of these products. If the FDA establishes or applies review standards or processes that our suppliers are unable or unwilling to comply with, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be adversely affected. The anticipated costs to our suppliers of complying with future FDA regulations will be dependent on the rules issued by the FDA, the timing and clarity of any new rules or guidance documents accompanying these rules, the reliability and simplicity (or complexity) of the electronic systems utilized by the FDA for information and reports to be submitted, and the details required by the FDA for such information and reports with respect to each regulated product. Any failure to comply with existing or new FDA regulatory requirements could result in significant financial penalties to us or our suppliers, which could ultimately have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to market and sell our products. Compliance and related costs could be substantial and could significantly increase the costs of operating in the vaporization products and certain other consumption accessories markets. In addition, failure to comply with the Tobacco Control Act and with FDA regulatory requirements could result in litigation, criminal convictions or significant financial penalties and could impair our ability to market and sell some of our vaporizer products. At present, we are not able to predict whether the Tobacco Control Act will impact our business to a greater degree than competitors in the industry, thus affecting our competitive position. As discussed elsewhere in these Risk Factors and under the heading Regulatory Developments, a number of states and cities have implemented bans or restrictions on the sale of vaporizers and accessories, as well as flavored tobacco products, including vaping liquids and menthol cigarettes. There may, in the future, also be increased regulation of additives in smokeless products and internet sales of vaporization products and certain other consumption accessories. The application of either or both of current federal, state, and local, laws, and of any new laws or regulations which may be adopted in the future at the federal, state, or local level, to vaporization products, consumption accessories or such additives could result in additional expenses and require us to change our advertising and labeling, and methods of marketing and distribution of our products, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Canada On May 23, 2018, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act ("TVPA") became effective, and now governs the manufacture, sale, labeling and promotion of vaping products sold in Canada. The TVPA replaced the former Tobacco Act (Canada) and established a legislative framework that applies to vaping products, whether or not they contain nicotine. The TVPA prescribes high-level requirements in relation to vaping products, with regulations governing specific topics such as nicotine concentration and the promotion of vaping products. Other regulations remain forthcoming and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to the compliance landscape for vaping products. As such, there can be no assurance that we will initially be in total compliance, remain competitive, or financially able to meet future requirements administered pursuant to the TVPA. Prior to the TVPA becoming effective, Health Canada had taken the position that electronic smoking products (i.e., electronic products for the vaporization and administration of inhaled doses of nicotine, including electronic cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos and pipes, as well as cartridges of nicotine solutions and related products) fell within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) ("Food and Drugs Act"). Vaping products with therapeutic or health-related claims are subject to the Food and Drugs Act and related regulations. Finally, the TVPA provides the authority to make regulations to collect information from industry about vaping products, their emissions and any research and development (e.g., sales data and information on market research, product composition, ingredients, materials, health effects, hazardous properties and brand elements). Health Canada is currently developing proposed regulations in this area. On December 21, 2019, Health Canada issued a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement titled "Vaping Products Promotion Regulations." The Impact Analysis addressed two proposed new regulations that would place stricter limits on the advertising and promotion of nicotine vaping products and make health warnings on nicotine vaping products mandatory (the "Proposed Regulations"). The Proposed Regulations would: (1) prohibit the promotion of nicotine vaping products and nicotine vaping product-related brand elements by means of advertising that is done in a manner that can be seen or heard by youth, including the display of nicotine vaping products a points of sale where can be seen by youth; and (2) require that all nicotine vaping advertising convey a health warning about the health hazards of nicotine vaping product use. On July 1, 2020, Health Canada's "Vaping Products Labeling and Packaging Regulations" (the "VPLPR") came into effect; requiring (1) all vaping products containing nicotine to display a standardized nicotine concentration statement and health warning about the addictiveness of nicotine; (2) products containing nicotine to be packaged in child-resistant containers and display a toxicity warning and first aid treatment statement; and (3) the display of a list of ingredients contained in the vaping substances, regardless of nicotine content. On July 14, 2020, Health Canada issued a guidance document on vaping products titled, "Industry Guide to vaping products subject to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act" (the "CCPA Guidance"). The CCPA Guidance provided clarity on requirements under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act ("CCPSA") for vaping products that are manufactured, imported, advertised, or sold in Canada. The CCPA Guidance provided clarity on the requirements of the VPLPR and the authority of the CCPSA to address safety issues posed by a vaping product not marketed for therapeutic use or by a cannabis accessory (such as a vaporizer represented to be used in the consumption of cannabis) not marketed for a therapeutic use. In addition to federal regulations, several provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island ("PEI"), Quebec, and Saskatchewan, have passed regulations fully restricting or limiting the advertising and sales of certain types of nicotine vaping products. Many provinces have focused their tobacco and vaping control efforts on retail access and have taken action to go beyond the minimum requirements in the TVPA. For example, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories, have increased the minimum age of sale to 19. Notably, in Prince Edward Island, as of March 1, 2020, the minimum age for purchasing nicotine products increased to age 21. In 2019. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario limited the sales of flavored vaping products with exceptions for some flavors to specialty stores, whereas some provinces have banned flavored vaping products, with the exception of tobacco flavor (Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island). By way of example, on August 11, 2020, PEI adopted a regulation to ban the sale of all flavored vaping products, effective March 1, 2021. Quebec is currently considering a ban on flavored products and effective as of March 25, 2022, the sale of flavored vapor products was banned in the Northwest Territories. Moreover, certain provinces (British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia) have implemented an e-cigarette retail licensing system or have guidelines for retailers in order to prevent sales to minors (Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan). Finally, with respect to the taxation of vaping products, the Canadian government introduced amendments to the Excise Act, 2001 to implement a new excise duty framework on vaping products. These amendments became law on June 23, 2022. The new framework applies to vaping products that are manufactured in Canada or imported, and that are intended for use in a vaping device in Canada. Manufacturers of vaping products are required to get a vaping product license from the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"). Importers are required to apply for registration from the CRA. Manufacturers and importers are also required to register for the vaping stamping regime. All vaping products entering the Canadian duty-paid market are required to be packaged with an excise stamp affixed to the product. The excise stamps shows that duties have been paid. These developments, together with the passed and proposed federal and provincial regulations may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Europe Throughout Europe, several countries' laws implementing the European Union Tobacco Products Directive ("TPD") impose strict regulations on the approval, sale, and advertising of e-cigarettes. While we do not sell or market any material amount of products that we believe fall within the definition of e-cigarettes in Europe, if vaporization products we sell are found to fall within the scope of laws implementing the TPD, we would be unable to continue selling those products in certain countries, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control ("FCTC") is the first international public health treaty that establishes a global agenda to reduce initiation of tobacco use and regulate tobacco in an effort to encourage tobacco cessation. Over 180 governments worldwide have ratified the FCTC, including Canada. The FCTC has led to increased efforts to reduce the supply of and demand for tobacco products and to encourage governments to further regulate the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry and others expect significant regulatory developments to take place over the next few years, driven principally by the FCTC. If the United States ratifies the FCTC and/or national laws are enacted in the United States that reflect the major elements of the FCTC, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, if any of our vaporization products or consumption accessories become subject to one or more of the significant regulatory initiatives proposed under the FCTC or any other international treaty, our business, results of operations and financial condition may also be materially adversely affected. Countries' laws implementing the European Union Tobacco Products Directive ("TPD") impose strict regulations on the approval, sale, and advertising of e-cigarettes. Although we do not sell or market any material quantities of products classified as e-cigarettes in Europe, countries could enact new laws implementing the TPD or other laws or regulations that re-classify and/or restrict the products we may sell or market in Europe. Any future measures that limit our ability to market or sell vaporization products or other consumption accessories in Europe may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. To the extent our existing or future products become subject to international regulatory regimes that we are unable to comply with or fail to comply with, they may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, enforced by FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, requires a party in trade or business to file with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") a Form 8300 report within 15 days of receiving a cash payment of over $10,000. While we receive very few cash payments for the products we sell, 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, results of operations and financial condition.

Officials of the CBP have broad discretion regarding products imported into the United States. Individual shipments of imported products we distribute, as well as similar products, have been detained or seized by the CBP for a variety of reasons, including because the CBP officials inspecting the goods believed such goods were marketed as drug paraphernalia and therefore violated the Federal Paraphernalia Law. Although we and other suppliers or distributors of such products have at times successfully contested such actions of the CBP, such challenges are costly and time consuming. While we would disagree with any conclusion of the CBP that our product sales violate the Federal Paraphernalia Law, we cannot give any assurance that the CBP will not make additional seizures of our imports, or that if the CBP seizes any of our goods that the CBP would not seek to impose penalties related to such imports. Should we elect to contest any such seizure, the costs of doing so could be substantial and there are no assurances we would prevail in a contested proceeding. Additionally, the cost and/or results of any such contest could adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, if the CBP fails to release seized products, we may no longer be able to ensure a sellable supply of some of our products, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under U.S. Code Title 21 Section 863 (the "Federal Paraphernalia Law"), the term "drug paraphernalia" means "any equipment, product or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance." That law exempts "(1) any person authorized by local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or distribute such items" and "(2) any item that, in the normal lawful course of business, is imported, exported, transported, or sold through the mail or by any other means, and traditionally intended for use with tobacco products, including any pipe, paper, or accessory." Any nonexempt drug paraphernalia offered or sold by any person in violation of the Federal Paraphernalia Law can be subject to seizure and forfeiture upon the conviction of such person for such violation, and a convicted person can be subject to fines under the Federal Paraphernalia Law and even imprisonment. We believe our sales do not violate the Federal Paraphernalia Law in any material respect. First, we understand that a substantial majority of the products we offer and sell were and are not primarily intended or designed for any purpose not permitted by the Federal Paraphernalia Law. Indeed, many of the manufacturers whose products we sell disclaim that the products are for use with cannabis. Second, we restrict the sale of certain products - those that may have been primarily intended or designed for use with cannabis - to comply with the Federal Paraphernalia Law's exemption for sales authorized by state law. In particular, we (a) do not sell those products at all into the states that have maintained complete or near complete cannabis prohibition and (b) limit the sale of those products to licensed cannabis businesses, such as dispensaries, cultivators, and manufacturers, in the states that authorize sales of cannabis paraphernalia only through state-licensed cannabis businesses. Third, we have been in business for many years without facing even threatened legal action under the Federal Paraphernalia Law. While we believe that our business and sales are legally compliant with the Federal Paraphernalia Law in all material respects, any legal action commenced against us under such law could result in substantial costs and could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, changes in cannabis laws or interpretations of such laws are difficult to predict, and could materially and adversely affect our business.

Continued development of the cannabis industry is dependent upon continued legislative authorization of cannabis at the state level, as well as the U.S. government's continued non-enforcement of federal cannabis laws against state-law-compliant cannabis businesses. Any number of factors could slow or halt progress in this area. Further, progress, while generally expected, is not assured. Well-funded interests, including businesses in the tobacco, alcohol beverage and the pharmaceutical industries, may have a strong economic opposition to the continued legalization of cannabis. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, is well funded with a strong and experienced lobby that eclipses the funding of the cannabis movement. Any inroads legalization opponents could make in halting the impending cannabis industry could have a detrimental impact on our business. While there may be ample public support for legislative action, numerous factors impact the legislative process. Any one of those factors could slow or halt the continued legalization and use of cannabis, which would negatively impact our business.

In December 2018, the U.S. government changed the legal status of hemp and its derivatives, including hemp-derived CBD and other cannabinoids. The 2018 Farm Bill, which was signed into law by former President Trump on December 20, 2018 (Pub.L. 115-334), established a new framework for the regulation of hemp production (defined in the Farm Bill as Cannabis sativa L. with a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis) and extracts of hemp, including CBD. The law also removed hemp and extracts of hemp from the federal controlled substances schedules. The section of the Farm Bill establishing a framework for hemp production, however, makes clear explicitly that it does not affect or modify the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA"), section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (addressing the regulation of biological products), the authority of the Commissioner of the FDA under those laws, or the Commissioner's authority to regulate hemp production and sale under those laws. Since passage of the Farm Bill, the FDA has expressed multiple times its position that any cannabis product, whether derived from hemp or otherwise, marketed with a disease claim (e.g., a claim of therapeutic benefit or disease prevention) must be approved by the FDA for its intended use through one of the drug approval pathways prior to it being introduced into interstate commerce. The FDA has also repeatedly stated its position that introducing food or dietary supplements with added CBD (or THC), regardless of source, into interstate commerce is illegal under the FDCA. Although enforcement under the FDCA may be civil or criminal in nature, the FDA has thus far limited its recent enforcement against companies selling CBD products to warning letters alleging various violations of the FDCA, including that the products bear claims that render the products unapproved and misbranded new drugs, that CBD is excluded from the FDCA's definition of "dietary supplement," and that the FDCA prohibits the addition of CBD to food. The FDA also tested some of the products, and found that many did not contain the levels of CBD they claimed to contain, which could be the basis for a separate violation of the FDCA. In addition, some states have taken actions to restrict or prohibit the sale of CBD products under state law. On January 26, 2023, the FDA issued a statement that after careful review, the FDA concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals' desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks. The agency is prepared to work with Congress on this matter. We currently distribute very limited products containing hemp-derived CBD and other cannabinoids. Although the Farm Bill removed hemp and its derivatives from the definition of "marijuana" under the CSA, uncertainties remain regarding the cultivation, sourcing, production and distribution of hemp and products containing hemp derivatives. Certain states prohibit the sale of all or certain types of products containing hemp. The laws and regulations of states that permit the sale of products containing hemp derivatives, such as CBD, impose various requirements, including requirements to obtain certain permits or licenses, related to the marketing, packaging, safety, and sale of products containing hemp derivatives. These laws and regulations are rapidly developing. We may have to quickly adapt our operations to comply with forthcoming and rapidly-shifting federal and state regulations. These regulations could require significant changes to our business, plans or operations concerning hemp-derived products, and could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, while we believe our current operations with respect to hemp derived products such as CBD comply with existing federal and state laws relating to hemp and hemp-derived products in all material respects, legal proceedings alleging violations of such laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because some of our B2C customers use some of the items that we sell to consume cannabis and some of our B2B customers operate in the legal national and state cannabis industry, our business depends partly on federal, state, provincial and local laws, regulations, guidelines and enforcement pertaining to cannabis. In both the United States and Canada, those factors are in flux. United States Currently, in the United States, 47 states and the District of Columbia permit some form of cannabis cultivation, sales, and use for certain medical purposes ("medical states"). Twenty-four of those states and the District of Columbia have also legalized cannabis for adults for non-medical purposes (sometime referred to as recreational use). Several medical states may extend legalization to adult use. States' cannabis programs have proliferated and grown even though the cultivation, sale and possession of cannabis is considered illegal under U.S. federal law. Under the CSA, cannabis is a Schedule I drug, meaning that the Drug Enforcement Administration recognizes no accepted medical use for cannabis, and the substance is considered illegal under federal law. In an effort to provide guidance to U.S. Attorneys' offices regarding the enforcement priorities associated with cannabis in the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") has issued a series of memoranda detailing its suggested enforcement approach. During the administration of former President Obama, each memorandum acknowledged the DOJ's authority to enforce the CSA in the face of state laws, but noted that the DOJ was more committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats associated with cannabis in the most effective, consistent, and rational way. On August 29, 2013, the DOJ issued what came to be called the "Cole Memorandum," which gave U.S. Attorneys the discretion not to prosecute federal cannabis cases that were otherwise compliant with applicable state law that had legalized medical or adult-use cannabis and that have implemented strong regulatory systems to control the cultivation, production, and distribution of cannabis. The eight federal priorities were preventing: - The distribution of cannabis to minors;   - Revenue from the sale of cannabis from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels;   - The diversion of cannabis from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;   - State-authorized cannabis activities from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;   - Violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of cannabis;   - Drugged driving and exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with cannabis use;   - Growing cannabis on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by cannabis production on public lands; and   - Cannabis possession or use on federal property. Accordingly, the Cole Memorandum provided lawful cannabis-related enterprises a tacit federal go-ahead in states with legal cannabis programs, provided that the state had adopted and was enforcing strict regulations and oversight of the medical or adult-use cannabis program in accordance with the specific directives of the Cole Memorandum. On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum that rescinded previous DOJ guidance on the state legal cannabis industry, including the Cole Memorandum. Attorney General Sessions wrote that the previous guidance on cannabis law enforcement was unnecessary, given the well-established principles governing federal prosecution that are already in place. As a result, federal prosecutors could and still can use their prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to prosecute even state-legal cannabis activities. Since the Cole Memorandum was rescinded, however, U.S. Attorneys have generally refrained from prosecuting state law compliant marijuana businesses. Current Attorney General Merrick Garland during his confirmation hearings expressed that "It does not seem to me useful the use of limited resources that we have to be pursuing prosecutions in states that have legalized and are regulating the use of marijuana, either medically or otherwise." Since December 2014, companies that are strictly complying with state medical cannabis laws have been protected against enforcement for that activity by an amendment (originally called the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, now called the Joyce Amendment) to the Omnibus Spending Bill, which prevents federal prosecutors from using federal funds to impede the implementation of medical cannabis laws enacted at the state level. Federal courts have interpreted the provision to bar the DOJ from prosecuting any person or entity in strict compliance with state medical cannabis laws. While the protection of the Joyce Amendment prevents prosecutions of state law compliant medical cannabis activities, it does not make cannabis legal. The protection of the Joyce Amendment depends on its continued inclusion in the federal omnibus spending bill, or in some other legislation, and entities' strict compliance with the state medical cannabis laws. While industry observers expect Congress to extend the protection in future Omnibus Spending Bills, there can be no assurance that it will do so. Although several cannabis law reform bills are pending in the U.S. Congress, passage of any of them and ultimately the Biden Administration's support and approval remain uncertain. Unless and until the U.S. Government changes the law with respect to cannabis, and particularly if Congress does not extend the protection of state medical cannabis programs, there is a risk that federal authorities could enforce current federal cannabis law. An increase in federal enforcement against companies licensed under state cannabis laws would negatively impact the state cannabis industries and, in turn, our revenues, profits, financial condition, and business model. Canada On April 13, 2017, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-45, which proposed the enactment of the Cannabis Act to legalize and regulate access to cannabis. The Cannabis Act proposed a strict legal framework for controlling the production, distribution, sale and possession of medical and recreational adult-use cannabis in Canada. On June 21, 2018, the Government of Canada announced that Bill C-45, received Royal Assent. On July 11, 2018, the Government of Canada published the Cannabis Regulations under the Cannabis Act. The Cannabis Regulations provide more detail on the medical and recreational regulatory regimes for cannabis, including regarding licensing, physical security requirements, product practices, outdoor growing, security, packaging and labelling (including for cannabis accessories), cannabis-containing drugs, document retention requirements, reporting and disclosure requirements, the new access to cannabis for medical purposes regime and industrial hemp. The majority of the Cannabis Act and the Cannabis Regulations came into force on October 17, 2018; additional Cannabis Regulations took effect on October 17, 2019. As of December 2022, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has launched the legislative review of the Cannabis Act. The review is being conducted by a five-member independent, expert panel, who will report their final conclusions and advice to the Ministers by Spring 2024. In addition, Health Canada announced that amendments to the Cannabis Act and its regulations concerning cannabis research and testing. Notably, these amendments increase the public possession limit for cannabis beverages to a level that is similar to other forms of cannabis, such as solid edible cannabis products (i.e. gummies or chocolate) and the amendments change how Health Canada regulates non-therapeutic cannabis research with human participants. As for proposed amendments, Health Canada is proposing amendments to the Cannabis Regulations to protect public health and safety, in particular by protecting young persons and others from inducements to use inhaled cannabis extracts. The proposed amendments would restrict the production, sale, promotion, packaging, or labelling of inhaled cannabis extracts with certain flavors, other than the flavor of cannabis. While the Cannabis Act provides for the regulation by the federal government of, among other things, the commercial cultivation and processing of cannabis for recreational purposes, it provides the provinces and territories of Canada with the authority to regulate with respect to the other aspects of recreational cannabis, such as distribution, sale, minimum age requirements, places where cannabis can be consumed, and a range of other matters. The governments of every Canadian province and territory have implemented regulatory regimes for the distribution and sale of cannabis for recreational purposes. In most provinces and territories, the minimum age is 19 years old, except for Québec, where the minimum age is 18. Certain provinces, such as Ontario, have legislation in place that restricts the packaging of vapor products and the manner in which vapor products are displayed or promoted in stores. The Cannabis Act is a relatively new regime that has no close precedent in Canadian law. The effect of relevant governmental authorities' administration, application and enforcement of their respective regulatory regimes and delays in obtaining, or failure to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals which may be required may significantly delay or impact the development of markets, products and sales initiatives and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As discussed under the heading "Regulatory Developments" above, there has been increasing activity on the state, provincial and local levels with respect to scrutiny of vaporizer products. State and local governmental bodies across the United States have indicated that vaporization products and certain other consumption accessories may become subject to new laws and regulations at the state and local levels. For example, in January 2015, the California Department of Health declared electronic cigarettes and certain other vaporizer products a health threat that should be strictly regulated like tobacco products. Further, many states and cities have enacted regulations that require retailers to obtain a tobacco retail license in order to sell electronic cigarettes and vaporizer products. Many states, provinces and some cities have passed laws restricting the sale of electronic cigarettes and certain other vaporizer products. In March 2023, new federal legislation granted the FDA regulatory authority over synthetic nicotine, making all synthetic nicotine products without a marketing order from the FDA illegal as of July 13th, 2022. If one or more states or provinces from which we generate or anticipate generating significant sales of vaporizer products bring actions that prevent us from selling certain or all of our vaporizer products, we would be required to cease sales and distribution of certain products to those states, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, if one or more states or provinces from which we generate or anticipate generating significant sales of vaporizer products bring actions that require us to obtain certain licenses, approvals or permits, and if we are not able to obtain the necessary licenses, approvals or permits for financial reasons or otherwise and/or any such license, approval or permit is determined to be overly burdensome to us, then we may be required to cease sales and distribution of our products to those states, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Certain states, provinces and cities have already restricted the use of electronic cigarettes and vaporizer products in smoke free venues. Additional city, state, provincial or federal regulators, municipalities, local governments and private industry may enact rules and regulations restricting the use of electronic cigarettes and vaporizer products in those same places where cigarettes cannot be smoked. Because of these restrictions, our customers may reduce or otherwise cease using our vaporization products or certain other consumption accessories, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The Canadian federal government, as well as certain provincial governments have passed or propose to pass legislation which will restrict the extent to which e-cigarettes, e-liquid and other vaping products may be displayed or sold. Additionally, Canadian laws require health warnings to be placed on certain vaporizer products, which could reduce the appeal of these products. These regulations and future regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Based on regulations surrounding health-related concerns related to the use of some of our vaporizer products, possible new or increased taxes by government entities intended to reduce use of our products or to raise revenue, additional governmental regulations concerning the marketing, labeling, packaging or sale of some of our products, negative publicity resulting from actual or threatened legal actions against us or other companies in our industry, all may reduce demand for, or increase the cost of, certain of our products, which could adversely affect our profitability and ultimate success.

Under the TRA we entered into with the Operating Company and its members, we are required to make cash payments to the members of the Operating Partnership equal to 85% of the tax benefits, if any, that we actually realize, or in certain circumstances are deemed to realize, as a result of (i) the increases in the tax basis of assets of the Operating Company resulting from any redemptions or exchanges of Common Units from the members and (ii) certain other tax benefits related to our making payments under the TRA. Although we held all of the outstanding Common Units as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, payments under the TRA are not conditioned on any member's continued ownership of Common Units or our Class A common stock. The actual amount and timing of any payments under the TRA will vary depending upon a number of factors, including the amount of gain recognized by prior holders of Common Units, the amount and timing of the taxable income we generate in the future, and the federal tax rates then applicable.

An increasing number of states have considered or adopted laws that attempt to impose tax collection obligations on out-of-state companies. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. et al, or Wayfair, that online sellers can be required to collect sales and use tax despite not having a physical presence in the buyer's state. In response to Wayfair, or otherwise, states or local governments may adopt, or begin to enforce, laws requiring us to calculate, collect, and remit taxes on sales in their jurisdictions. A successful assertion by one or more states requiring us to collect taxes where we presently do not do so, or to collect more taxes in a jurisdiction in which we currently do collect some taxes, could result in substantial tax liabilities, including taxes on past sales, as well as penalties and interest. The imposition by state governments or local governments of sales tax collection obligations on out-of-state sellers could also create additional administrative burdens for us, put us at a competitive disadvantage if they do not impose similar obligations on our competitors and decrease our future sales, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are dependent on public support, continued market acceptance and the proliferation of consumers in the legal cannabis markets. While we believe that the market and opportunity in the space continue to grow, we cannot predict the future growth rate or size of the market. Any downturns in, or negative outlooks on, the cannabis industry may materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition.

If our customers begin or continue to experience financial challenges, they may not have sufficient funds to pay all amounts owed to us. Additionally, laws in some jurisdictions in which we operate make collection of receivables difficult, time consuming or expensive. We generally do not require collateral in support of our trade receivables. While we maintain reserves for expected credit losses, we cannot assure these reserves will be sufficient to meet write-offs of uncollectible receivables or that our losses from such receivables will be consistent with our historical performance. Significant write-offs may affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. As we begin selling our products indirectly through large retailers, customer credit risks will expand.

Our current model for consumer goods includes selling our products through third-party retailers. These third-party retailers operate physical brick-and-mortar locations to sell our product to consumers. The current shift in purchasing demographics due to many factors and the changing preferences of consumers who are moving from in-store purchases to online purchases creates the additional risks of our current revenue streams being impacted negatively and an overall decrease of market share.

From time to time, we may experience changes in our customer mix, our product mix or our competition mix. Changes in our customer mix may result from geographic expansion or contractions, mergers and acquisitions among our customer base, legislative, regulatory or enforcement priority changes affecting the products we distribute, selling activities within current geographic markets and targeted selling activities to new customer sectors. For example, our merger with Kushco has shifted our customer mix to include a greater concentration of customers who engage in the cultivation, processing, and/or sale of cannabis. Changes in our product mix may result from marketing activities to existing customers, the needs of existing and prospective customers and from regulatory and legislative changes. Changes in our competition mix may result from new competitors entering into our business segment or existing competitors growing their operations. If customer demand for lower-margin products increases and demand for higher-margin products decreases, our business, results of operations and financial condition may suffer.

Our customers generally place orders on an as-needed basis. Consistent with industry practice, we do not have long-term contracts with most of our customers, other than certain retail chains or distributors in Canada and abroad and certain state-licensed cannabis businesses in the United States. In addition, our agreements generally do not commit our customers to any minimum purchase volume. Accordingly, we are exposed to risks from potential adverse financial conditions in the vaporization products and consumption accessories industry, a potentially shifting legal landscape, the general economy, a competitive landscape, a changing technological landscape or changing customer needs or any other change that may affect the demand for our products. We cannot assure you that our customers will continue to place orders with us in similar volumes, on the same terms, or at all. Our customers may terminate their relationships with us or reduce their purchasing volume at any time. Our ten largest customers, in the aggregate, represented approximately 39.0% and 40.7% of our net sales for the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. The loss of a significant number of customers, or a substantial decrease in a significant customer's orders, may have an adverse effect on our revenue.

We compete in a market that relies on innovation and the ability to react to evolving consumer preferences. The vaporization products and consumption accessories industry is subject to changing consumer trends, demands and preferences. Therefore, products once favored may, over time, become disfavored by consumers or no longer perceived as the best option. Consumers in the vaporizer market have demonstrated a degree of brand loyalty, but suppliers must continue to adapt their products in order to maintain their status among customers as the market evolves. Our continued success depends in part on our ability and our supplier's ability to continue to differentiate the brand names we represent, own or license and maintain similarly high levels of recognition with target consumers. Trends within the vaporization products and consumption accessories industry change often and our failure to anticipate, identify or react to changes in these trends could, among other things, lead to reduced demand for our products. Factors that have previously and may continue to affect consumer perception of our products include health trends and attention to health concerns associated with herbs, oils, cannabis or other materials used with vaporizers, price-sensitivity in the presence of competitors' products or substitute products and trends in favor of new vaporization products or technology consumption accessories products that are currently being researched and produced by participants in our industry. For example, in recent years, we have witnessed a shift in consumer purchases from vaporizers designed for dry herbs to those designed for liquids or wax type concentrates. A failure to react to similar trends in the future could enable our competitors to grow or establish their brands' market share in these categories before we have a chance to respond. Regulations have recently been and are likely to continue to be enacted in the future that would make it more difficult to appeal to consumers or to leverage the brands that we distribute, own or license. Furthermore, even if we are able to continue to distinguish our products, there can be no assurance that the sales, marketing and distribution efforts of our competitors will not be successful in persuading consumers of our products to switch to their products. Some of our competitors have greater access to resources than we do, which better positions them to conduct market research in relation to branding strategies or costly marketing campaigns. Any loss of consumer brand loyalty to our products or in our ability to effectively brand our products in a recognizable way will have a material effect on our ability to continue to sell our products and maintain our market share, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of our vaporizers and other products are new to the marketplace. Since their introduction, certain members of the media, politicians, government regulators and advocacy groups, including independent doctors, have called for and driven the adoption of stringent regulation of the sale of certain products and in some cases, an outright ban of such products pending increased regulatory review and a further demonstration of safety. For example, local and state governments have banned certain types of vaporization products, such as those containing flavored liquid nicotine and flavored hemp-derived CBD. Additional bans of this type would likely have the effect of terminating our sales and marketing efforts of certain products in jurisdictions in which we may currently market or have plans to market such products. Such bans would also likely cause public confusion as to which products are the subject of bans, which confusion could also have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Vaporizers, electronic cigarettes and related products were recently developed and therefore the scientific community has not had a sufficient period of time to study the long-term health effects of their use. Currently, there is no way of knowing whether these products are safe for their intended use. If the scientific community were to determine conclusively that use of any or all of these products poses long-term health risks, market demand for these products and their use could materially decline. Such a determination could also lead to litigation and significant regulation. Loss of demand for our product, product liability claims and increased regulation stemming from unfavorable scientific studies on these products could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not be able to adequately address product defects. Product defects in vaporizers and other accessories may harm the health or safety of our end-consumers. In addition, remedial efforts could be particularly time-consuming and expensive if product defects are only found after we have sold the defective product in volume. Any actual or perceived defects in our products could result in unsold inventory, product recalls, repairs or replacements, damage to our reputation, increased customer service costs and other expenses, as well as divert management attention and expose us to liabilities. Furthermore, a product liability claim brought against us by our customers or end-consumers could be time-consuming and costly to defend and, if successful, could require us to make significant payments.

In the event of a disruption to our supply of products, we would have to identify new suppliers that can meet our needs. Only a limited number of suppliers may have the ability to produce certain products we sell at the volumes we need, and it could be costly or time-consuming to locate and approve such alternative sources. Moreover, it may be difficult or costly to find suppliers to produce small volumes of products in the event we are looking only to supplement our current supply as suppliers may impose minimum order requirements. In addition, we may be unable to negotiate pricing or other terms with our existing or new suppliers as favorable as those we currently enjoy. We cannot guarantee that a failure to adequately replace or supplement our existing suppliers would not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of the products we sell are generally subject to rapid changes in marketplace demand and regulatory requirements. For example, recent laws and regulations have prohibited the sale of certain types of ENDS products that we previously sold. Our success is dependent, in part, upon the ability of our suppliers to develop and market products that meet these changes. Our success is also dependent on our ability to develop relationships with and sell products from new suppliers that address these changes in market demand or regulatory requirements. To the extent products that address recent changes are not available to us, or are not available to us in sufficient quantities or on acceptable terms, we could encounter increased competition, which would likely adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

While we have long-term distribution agreements with certain of our suppliers, consistent with industry practice, we do not have guaranteed price or delivery arrangements with most of our suppliers. We generally make our purchases through purchase orders. As a result, we have experienced and may in the future experience inventory shortages or price increases on certain products. Furthermore, our industry occasionally experiences significant product supply shortages, and we sometimes experience customer order backlogs due to the inability of certain suppliers to make available to us certain products as needed. We cannot provide assurances that suppliers will maintain an adequate inventory of products to fulfill our orders on a timely basis, or at all, or that we will be able to obtain particular products on favorable terms, or at all. Additionally, we cannot provide assurances that product lines currently offered by suppliers will continue to be available to us. A decline in the supply or continued availability of the products of our suppliers, or a significant increase in the price of those products, could reduce our sales and negatively affect our operating results. In addition, some of our suppliers have the ability to terminate their relationships with us at any time, or to decide to sell, or increase their sales of, their products through other resellers or channels. Although we believe there are numerous suppliers with the capacity to supply the products we distribute, the loss of one or more of our major suppliers could have an adverse effect on our product offerings and our business. Such a loss would require us to rely more heavily on our other existing suppliers, develop relationships with new suppliers or undertake our own manufacturing, which may cause us to pay higher prices for products due to, among other things, a loss of volume discount benefits currently obtained from our major suppliers. Any termination, interruption or adverse modification of our relationship with a key supplier or a significant number of other suppliers would likely adversely affect our operating income, cash flow and future prospects.

We depend on fast and efficient shipping services to distribute our products. Any prolonged disruption of these services may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Rising costs associated with transportation services used by us to receive or deliver our products, including tariffs, as well as delays as a results of factors outside of our control have had and may continue to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which was signed into law on December 27, 2020, contains provisions that prohibit the mailing of ENDS through the United States Postal Service ("USPS") and place certain regulatory requirements on shipment of ENDS through other carriers. Certain private carriers, including UPS and FedEx, also have policies restricting or prohibiting the shipment of certain vaporization products we sell, requiring us to occasionally rely upon smaller carriers that are more expensive and serve fewer geographic areas. Although we received USPS approval in December 2021 for a business and regulatory exception to the PACT Act (the "PACT Act Exception") permitting us to ship ENDS to other PACT Act compliant businesses, there can be no assurances that we will be able to maintain the PACT Act Exception or that the USPS will not elect to rescind the PACT Act Exception. Additional legal or policy changes concerning the shipment of vaporizers could increase our costs materially and deprive us of our ability to timely deliver certain products to certain types of customers. Additionally, rising costs associated with transportation services used by us to receive or deliver our products (including tariffs) and prohibitions on the use of certain shipping services for specified products, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We and our retail customers have engaged third-party service providers to perform underlying credit and debit card processing, currency exchange, identity verification and fraud analysis services. If these service providers do not perform adequately or if our relationships, or the relationships of our retail customers with these service providers, were to terminate, our ability or the ability of such retail customers to process payments could be adversely affected and our business would be harmed. The laws and regulations related to payments are complex and are potentially impacted by tensions between federal and state treatment of the vaporization, tobacco, nicotine and cannabis industries. These laws and regulations also vary across different jurisdictions in the United States, Canada and globally. As a result, we are required to spend significant time and effort to comply with those laws and regulations. Any failure or claim of our failure to comply, or any failure by our third-party service providers to comply, could cost us substantial resources, could result in liabilities, or could force us to stop offering our customers the ability to pay with credit cards, debit cards and bank transfers. As we expand the availability of these payment methods or offer new payment methods to our customers in the future, we may become subject to additional regulations and compliance requirements. Further, through our agreement with our third-party credit card processors, we are indirectly subject to payment card association operating rules and certification requirements, including restrictions on product mix and the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, 02 PCIDSS. We also are subject to rules governing electronic funds transfers. Any change in these rules and requirements could make it difficult or impossible for us to comply. Due to our acceptance of credit cards in our e-commerce business, we are subject to the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, designed to protect the information of credit card users. We have had a security incident in the past, which we do not believe reached the level of a breach, that would be reportable under state laws or our other obligations; however there can be no assurance that our determination was correct. In the event our determination is challenged and found to have been incorrect, we may be subject to claims by one or more state attorney generals, federal regulators, or private plaintiffs and we may additionally be subject to claims or fines from credit associations.