• New York to Charge Crypto Firms for Oversight

    New York to Charge Crypto Firms for Oversight

    PROPOSED RULE MAKING

    NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

    Virtual Currency Licensee Assessments

    I.D. No. DFS-03-23-00002-P

    PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:

    Proposed Action: Addition of Part 102 to Title 23 NYCRR.

    Statutory authority: Financial Services Law, sections 102, 201, 202, 206, 301 and 302

    Subject: Virtual Currency Licensee Assessments.

    Purpose: To set forth the basis for allocating costs and expenses attributable to virtual currency businesses for FSL assessments.

    Text of proposed rule: 23 NYCRR PART 102 VIRTUAL CURRENCY LICENSEE ASSESSMENTS

    § 102.1 Background.

    In 2015, the Department of Financial Services (“Department”) adopted 23 NYCRR Part 200, which required persons engaged in virtual currency business activity, as defined in 23 NYCRR 200.2(q), to obtain a license, subject to certain exemptions, before engaging in such activity in New York. This licensing regime was created under the authority granted to the Department by the Financial Services Law (“FSL”).

    Generally, the Department’s costs and expenses are charged to and paid by persons regulated by the Department. At the time that Part 200 was adopted, FSL section 206 provided that the costs and expenses of the Department would be respectively charged to and paid by the persons regulated by the Department pursuant to the Banking Law or the Insurance Law, with no provision made for the assessment of costs for persons regulated pursuant to the FSL. In 2022, the Laws of New York, Chapter 58, Part III, amended FSL Section 206 (a), as of June 30, 2022, to require the Department to assess the costs and expenses of regulating persons licensed pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200 (“Licensees”). FSL section 206 (a) now states: “[p]ersons regulated under [the FSL] that engage in ‘virtual currency business activity,’ as that term is defined by the department, shall be assessed by the superintendent for the operating expenses of the department that are solely attributable to regulating such persons….”

    To effectuate the authority granted by the recent amendment of the FSL, this regulation sets forth the basis for allocating the Department’s costs and expenses among Licensees, and the process for making such assessments. This regulation only applies to Licensees, and the assessment only covers the costs and expenses associated with the Department’s oversight of each person’s virtual currency business activities. Accordingly, to the extent that a person is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activities under the FSL, and concurrently as a money transmitter pursuant to Article XIII-B of the Banking Law, such person will be billed separately for each license. To the extent that a person holds multiple licenses to engage in virtual currency business activities pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200, such person will be billed separately for each license. Persons who engage in virtual currency business activities as a limited purpose trust company or a banking organization will continue to be assessed under 23 NYCRR Part 101. To such an extent that a person holds both a limited purpose trust charter under the Banking Law and a license pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200, such person will be billed separately for each charter and license.

    § 102.2 Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Part:

    (a) Hourly Rate means the average hourly salary and fringe benefit cost of the examiners and staff assigned to the supervision of Licensees plus a multiplier, as determined by the superintendent, representing a portion of the other operating overhead expenses of the Department.

    (b) Custody Basis means the measurement tool used to assess 50% of the Supervisory Hours, as defined below, among Licensees. The Custody Basis is based on the total United States Dollar value of virtual currency held on behalf of customers by each Licensee averaged over the prior four quarter-end balances reported. Depending on the total virtual currency custody average, the Custody Basis for each Licensee will be categorized by size as small, medium, or large, resulting in an allocation, respectively, of 5%, 15%, and 30% of 50% of the Supervisory Hours.

    (c) Custody Basis Assessment for an individual Licensee means the product of the Custody Basis Hours and the Hourly Rate.

    (d) Custody Basis Hours means the Custody Basis share of either 5%, 15%, or 30% of the total Supervisory Hours, divided by the total number of Licensees that have the same Custody Basis share.

    (e) Licensee means any person who is licensed pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200. The term Licensee shall only apply to the virtual currency business activities, as that term is defined in 23 NYCRR 200.2(q), of persons licensed pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200.

    (f) Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, joint stock association, trust, or other entity, however organized. (g) Regulatory Component represents the cost of examining licensees. For an individual Licensee means the Total Operating Cost, as defined below, less the Supervisory Component divided by the total number of Licensees.

    (h) Supervisory Component for an individual Licensee means the sum of its Transaction Volume Basis Assessment, as defined below, and its Custody Basis Assessment.

    (i) Supervisory Hours means the total number of hours worked by staff attributable to the ongoing supervision of Licensees, including the monitoring of Licensees, the processing of license or material business changes, and responding to inquiries.

    (j) Total Operating Cost means:

    (1) the sum of the total operating expenses of the Department that are solely attributable to its oversight of Licensees; and

    (2) the proportion deemed just and reasonable by the superintendent of the other operating overhead expenses of the Department which may be assessed against Licensees under FSL section 206(a).

    (k) Transaction Basis Hours means the Transaction Volume Basis, as defined below, share of either 5%, 15%, or 30% of the total Supervisory Hours, divided by the total number of Licensees that have the same Transaction Volume Basis share.

    (l) Transaction Volume Basis means the measurement tool used to allocate 50% of the Supervisory Hours among Licensees. The Transaction Volume Basis is based on the total number of virtual currency transactions by each Licensee in New York for the prior calendar year. Depending on the total number of virtual currency transactions, the Transaction Volume Basis for each Licensee will be categorized by size as small, medium, or large, resulting in an allocation, respectively, of 5%, 15%, and 30% of 50% of the Supervisory Hours.

    (m) Transaction Volume Basis Assessment for an individual Licensee means the product of the Transaction Basis Hours and the Hourly Rate.

    § 102.3 Billing and Assessment Process.

    The New York State fiscal year begins April 1 and ends March 31 of the following calendar year. Each Licensee subject to assessment pursuant to this Part is billed five times for a fiscal year: four quarterly assessments (each approximately 25 percent of the anticipated annual amount) based on the estimated budget to cover the Total Operating Cost at the time of the billing, and a final assessment (or true-up), based on the actual Total Operating Cost for the fiscal year. Any Licensee that is licensed for any part of a quarter shall be assessed for the full quarter. Such amounts shall be paid within 30 days of the date of such billing.

    § 102.4 Computation of Assessment.

    The total annual assessment for a Licensee shall be the sum of its Supervisory Component and its Regulatory Component.

    § 102.5 Penalties/Enforcement Actions.

    All Licensees shall be subject to all applicable penalties, including late fees and interest, provided for by the FSL, the State Finance Law or other applicable laws. Enforcement actions for nonpayment could include suspension, revocation, expiration or termination of a person’s license or such other actions as the superintendent may deem appropriate.

    § 102.6 Special Assessments.

    When the superintendent shall determine that the expenses associated with a specific examination, investigation or review are best allocated solely to the individual Licensee or Licensees subject to such examination or investigation, rather than to all Licensees generally or any subgroup thereof, such expenses shall be billed separately as provided for in this subdivision. The time of each person associated with such examination or investigation shall be multiplied by the average costs of the examiners and specialists at their respective grade levels assigned to such examination or investigation, plus expenses for travel outside of New York, and the resulting amount shall be assessed separately to each such Licensee subject to such examination or investigation in such amounts as the superintendent shall deem appropriate. Alternatively, if another entity or person is selected to perform an examination, investigation or review of an individual Licensee or Licensees, the expenses associated with such examination, investigation and review shall be the amount of the contract for such services and such portion of the department’s administrative expenses associated with such contract as the superintendent shall deem appropriate. The resulting amount shall be assessed separately to each such Licensee subject to such examination, investigation or investigation in such amounts as the superintendent shall deem appropriate. Such special assessments shall be billed within 180 days after the calendar quarter within which such expenses were incurred. Such amounts shall be paid within 30 days of the date of such billing. In making a determination to make a special assessment and to allocate such assessment between one or more Licensees, the superintendent shall include such factors as she or he shall deem appropriate, including, but not limited to: the significance of the examination to the conduct of business by a given Licensee or group of Licensees; the potential seriousness of any violations of law or regulation identified by, or under review in, such examination or investigation; and the extent to which a Licensee attempted to cover up or failed to disclose the existence of such violations.

    FSL Section 206(a) now requires the Superintendent to assess the costs and expenses of the Department that are attributable to its oversight of persons licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200 (“licensees”) to such persons. The Laws of 2022, Chapter 58, Part III, effective June 30, 2022. FSL Section 301 sets forth the powers of the Superintendent under relevant law.

    FSL Section 302 sets forth the power of the Superintendent to prescribe, withdraw or amend rules and regulations involving financial products and services, effectuating and interpreting the provisions of the

    FSL, Banking Law, and Insurance Law, and governing the procedures to be followed in the practice of the Department.

    2. Legislative Objectives: To require the Superintendent, consistent with the Department’s funding by the persons it regulates, to charge the costs and expenses of regulating licensees to such regulated entities.

    3. Needs and Benefits: FSL Section 206(a) was amended to provide that persons regulated under the FSL that “engage in ‘virtual currency business activity,’ as that term is defined [in 23 NYCRR 200.2(q)], shall be assessed by the superintendent for the operating expenses of the Department that are solely attributable to regulating such persons in such proportions as the superintendent shall deem just and reasonable.” The Department is fully funded by assessments on the persons it regulates. Previously, FSL Section 206 only authorized and required the Department to assess those persons licensed under the Banking or Insurance Laws for the costs of the Department’s operations. In recognition of the virtual currency licensing system created under the authority granted to the Department by the FSL, the amendment to Section 206 incorporates the new licensing regime into the Department’s existing assessment authority.

    To effectuate the mandate of the revised FSL Section 206, the regulation sets forth the proposed basis for allocating the Department’s costs and expenses among licensees in proportion to the costs of regulating each individual licensee. In developing the proposal, the Department reviewed the existing methodology used to assess other industries regulated by the Department and considered how to best apply existing frameworks to licensees.

    The resulting proposal applies the general framework used to assess the costs of the Department under the Banking Law and tailors it to reflect the unique nature of virtual currency business activity and the diversity of business models licensed under 23 NYCRR Part 200. The proposed methodology seeks to allocate the Department’s costs and expenses among licensees based on the amount of work required to regulate licensees of varying sizes and complexity, with larger, more complex licensees being assessed a greater share of the Department’s costs and expenses in recognition of the additional resources required to effectively regulate and supervise them.

    The proposed regulation uses two components to allocate the Department’s costs and expenses: a regulatory and supervisory component. The Regulatory Component, as defined in proposed section 102.2, captures the general costs of regulating persons engaged in virtual currency business activity, including the costs to perform ongoing monitoring of existing licensees, to process license and material change requests, and to respond to general inquiries. The supervisory component, as defined in section 102.2, will vary according to the size and complexity of each licensee. Accordingly, 50% of the supervisory component will be allocated based on the total number of virtual currency transactions by a licensee in the State of New York (defined in section 102.2 as “Transaction Volume Basis”) and the other 50% will be allocated based on a licensee’s total virtual currency held on behalf of customers(“Custody Basis”). Licensees with more significant numbers of transactions and larger assets under management will be assessed a greater percentage of the supervisory component.

    Initially, the allocation of the Transaction Volume Basis will be computed as follows based on the volume of operations of each licensee:

    (1) For each licensee that engages in 1 to 50,000 transactions per year, the Transaction Volume Basis allocation is 5%;

    (2) For each licensee that engages in 50,001 to 4,000,000 transactions per year, the Transaction Volume Basis allocation is 15%; and

    (3) For each licensee that engages in 4,000,001 transactions or more per year, the Transaction Volume Basis allocation is 30%.

    Similarly, the Custody Basis will be computed as follows:

    (1) For licensees that have average virtual currency customer assets valued up to up to $100,000,000, the Custody Basis assessment is 5%;

    (2) For licensees that have average virtual currency customer assets valued from $100,000,001 to $1,000,000,000, the Custody Basis assessment is 15%; and

    (3) For licensees that have average virtual currency customer assets of $1,000,000,001 or more, the Custody Basis assessment is 30%.

    The allocation will then be divided equally among every licensee that falls into the size categories listed above.

    The Department expects that the ranges that dictate entity size will be adjusted periodically as the industry continues to develop. Any changes in these assessment brackets will be communicated to licensees by electronic mail. The Department also anticipates posting notices concerning changes and its current assessment methodology on its website.

    The regulatory component captures the fixed costs of periodic examinations and other shared services (such as cybersecurity and anti-money laundering) performed by the Department that are related to cryptocurrency companies. As these costs are expected to fluctuate less, the regulatory portion of the assessment will be a pro-rated, fixed cost for each licensee.

    It is important to note that this regulation only applies to persons licensed pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200, and the assessment only covers the costs and expenses associated with the Department’s oversight of each licensee’s virtual currency business activities. Accordingly, to the extent that a licensee is also licensed as money transmitter pursuant to Article XIII-B of the Banking Law, such licensee will be billed separately, pursuant to the existing methodology for assessing money transmitters, for its money transmission activity. To the extent that a licensee holds multiple licenses to engage in virtual currency business activities pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200, such person will be billed separately for each license. Persons who engage in virtual currency business activities as a limited purpose trust company or a banking organization will continue to be assessed under the Banking Law. To such an extent that a person holds both a limited purpose trust charter under the Banking Law and a license pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200, such person will be billed separately for each charter and license.

    4. Costs: In accordance with the mandate imposed by FSL Section 206, the proposed regulation increases costs for licensees, adding an assessment for the cost of regulation that does not currently exist. It is difficult to estimate exactly what the costs will be for a particular licensee due to the variable nature of the business and the fact that the contemplated assessment will vary depending on the size and complexity of each licensee. The Department has engaged with licensees to provide an overview of the proposed assessment methodology and how it would impact them.

    5. Local Government Mandates: The proposed amendment does not impose any new programs, services, duties or responsibilities upon any county, city, town, village, school district, fire district or other special district.

    6. Paperwork: There are no new record keeping or filing requirements that will be imposed on the industry as a result of the proposed regulation. The Department will calculate the assessments based on reporting that the industry is already required to provide to the Department. Of course, licensees will record payments made on their own accounting records in the normal course of business.

    7. Duplication: The regulation does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with any other regulations.

    8. Alternatives: A regulation is necessary to specify how the allocation of costs and expenses required by the recent amendment to FSL Section 206 will be made. In developing the proposed regulation, the Department weighed several alternative metrics to allocate the assessment. The assessment should account for the fact that more complex institutions generally require more time and effort to properly regulate. The Department posted a draft text of this regulation on its website for 10 days to solicit comment from small businesses that might be affected. The Department did not receive any written comments.

    9. Federal Standards: Federal law does not govern the assessment of state-licensed persons engaged in virtual currency business activities.

    10. Compliance Schedule: The proposed amendment will take effect upon publication of the Notice of Adoption in the State Register. Assessments pursuant to the adopted regulation will be billed for the second quarter of the next fiscal year that starts on April 1, 2023. Any unforeseen delays in the adoption of this regulation may delay billing to a later quarter. The Department is striving to provide licensees with informal billing estimates before the adoption of this regulation.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. Effect of Rule: The proposal does not have any impact on local governments. An amendment to Section 206 of the Financial Services Law requires the Superintendent of Financial Services (“Superintendent”) to assess the costs and expenses of the Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) that are attributable to its oversight of persons licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200 (“licensees”). The Laws of 2022, Chapter 58, Part III, effective June 30, 2022. The proposed regulation establishes the methodology by which the Department will assess licensees. Thirty-one (31) companies presently regulated by the Department will become subject to assessments under Part 102. The Department believes thirteen (13) of these firms presently qualify as small businesses that employ less than 100 employees.

    2. Compliance Requirements: The regulation does not change existing compliance requirements. Rather, the regulation establishes the methodology, in compliance with the requirement of FSL Section 206, by which the Department will assess its costs and expenses to Licensees in reasonable proportion to the costs and expenses of regulating them.

    3. Professional Services: It is not anticipated that small businesses will require any professional services to comply with this amendment.

    4. Compliance Costs: Companies subject to the new assessment will start making quarterly payments in 2023 after the State’s new fiscal year commences. The Department cannot estimate the annual cost of the assessments for specific firms or all firms collectively at this time. The proposed methodology in Part 102 requires computation of the Department’s labor costs and the aggregate transactional activity of the assessed firm when computing an assessment. Otherwise, licensees will not bear any additional compliance costs in terms of record keeping or reporting.

    5. Economic and Technological Feasibility: No additional technological burden on regulated entities which are small businesses is expected. In accordance with the mandate imposed by FSL Section 206, the proposed regulation increases costs for licensees, adding an assessment for the cost of regulation that does not currently exist. It is difficult to estimate exactly what the costs will be for a particular licensee due to the variable nature of the business and the fact that the contemplated assessment will vary depending on the size and complexity of each licensee.

    6. Minimizing Adverse Impact: The assessment methodology in Part 102 is designed to decease the burden on smaller and less complex Licensees. Larger and more complex businesses will pay comparatively higher assessments.

    7. Small Business and Local Government Participation: This regulation does not impact local governments. The Department complied with SAPA Section 202-b (6) by posting the proposed rule on its website for informal outreach and notified all regulated companies subject to the proposed assessment that a draft rule had been posted.

    The Department also will comply with SAPA section 202-b(6) by publishing its proposal in the State Register and posting the proposal on its website again.

    Rural Area Flexibility Analysis

    The Department of Financial Services (“Department”) finds that the rule will not have any adverse impact on rural areas or impose new substantial reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on public or private entities in rural areas in New York State. None of the existing regulated companies that will become subject to 23 NYCRR 102 are rural. The rule provides for assessments of firms chartered or licensed by the Department. The rule applies to all chartered or licensed companies active in the virtual currency business, whether they operate in rural or non-rural areas and should not impact them differently based on location. The rule does not impose any new reporting requirements on any regulated entity.

    Job Impact Statement

    In compliance with the mandate established by Section 206 of the Financial Services Law, the Superintendent of Financial Services (“Superintendent”) is required to assess the costs and expenses of the Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) that are attributable to its oversight of persons licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity pursuant to 23 NYCRR Part 200 (“licensees”) to such persons. The proposed regulation establishes the methodology by which the Department will assess licensees.

    While the proposal will increase costs on licensees, subjecting them to assessments as all other persons regulated by the Department are, it is not expected to adversely impact jobs or employment opportunities in New York State. The proposal was developed while considering the current financial condition of licensees and projected changes in the industry

  • Illinois to Open Adult-Use Retail Application Window January 30th

    Illinois to Open Adult-Use Retail Application Window January 30th

    Pritzker Administration Announces Timeline for Next Cannabis Dispensary License Lottery

    CHICAGO – Following extensive conversations with lawmakers and other stakeholders, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) has announced the timeline for the next round of cannabis dispensary licenses. Applications for the lottery will be accepted starting in January. Those interested in applying should review the rules, a mock application, a proposed timeline, and other relevant documents available now on the Department’s Adult Use Cannabis program webpage. This follows the release of 192 conditional dispensary licenses earlier this year, all to social equity applicants.

    “Illinois is committed to having the most accessible and equitable cannabis industry in the nation, and we look forward to issuing additional social equity licenses and cementing our status as a national leader,” said Gov. JB Pritzker. “My administration will continue working to ensure the industry reflects the diversity of our great state, and I wish to thank all stakeholders for their hard work on this process to ensure that happens.”

    IDFPR will begin accepting applications for 55 additional conditional cannabis dispensary licenses on Monday, January 30, 2023. The 55 licenses will be distributed across the 17 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Regions. All applications will be submitted online through the Department’s website.

    Applicants must register as a business and provide certain basic information, such as the name of their organization, list of principal officers, contact information, and a $250 fee. During the license lottery process, principal officers cannot be included on more than one lottery entry and applicants cannot have more than one lottery entry across all 17 regions.

    While the rules for the lottery process do provide flexibility on timing, IDFPR currently anticipates accepting applications for two weeks, through Tuesday, February 14, 2023. IDFPR will then publish a list of lottery participants by Tuesday, February 21, 2023. After a period for applicants to contest the list of lottery participants, IDFPR may publish an updated list based on any necessary corrections and contestations. As soon as possible after the final participant list is published, IDFPR will conduct a lottery with the Illinois Lottery and publish the certified results after the lottery has concluded.  

    Each applicant drawn for an opportunity for a conditional license will have 45 calendar days to prove certain social equity eligibility criteria, including proving it is 51% or more owned or controlled by one or more individuals who each meet the combination of a certain set of criteria. That criteria may be found here, along with a helpful guide of acceptable documents.

    IDFPR will have 60 calendar days after the lottery to ensure the 55 applicants selected in the lottery meet the criteria detailed above. Applicants selected in the lottery will be provided an opportunity to provide supplemental information to satisfy these criteria. If an applicant selected in the lottery does not provide the supplemental information, the conditional license will be offered to the next applicant drawn in that BLS Region. The applicant must then meet the social equity eligibility criteria.

    “This improved process provides increased accessibility and opportunity to individuals who, either directly or in the communities they call home, were harmed by the failed war on drugs,” said Mario Treto, Jr., Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. “We look forward to applying the lessons learned from our first round of conditional dispensary licenses to better the means of welcoming more entrepreneurs to the most equitable cannabis program in the country.”

    All updates and additional information will be found on IDFPR’s Adult Use Cannabis Program webpage.

  • The Great Awakening: FTX Stole Customer Money

    The Great Awakening: FTX Stole Customer Money

    Testimony of Mr. John J. Ray III CEO, FTX Debtors

    December 13, 2022

    House Financial Services Committee

    Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, distinguished members of the Committee: thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I truly appreciate – and am very grateful for – your interest in this matter, and I hope my testimony can be helpful to you as the Committee continues its inquiry into the collapse of FTX and the efforts that are underway to help those who have been harmed.

    I accepted the position of Chief Executive Officer of the FTX Group1 in the early morning hours of November 11. Immediately, it became clear to me that Chapter 11 was the best course available to preserve any remaining value in the FTX Group, which was in deep financial distress. My first act as CEO was to authorize the Chapter 11 filings of over 100 FTX entities.

    I, along with a comprehensive team, including experts and consultants with a wide array of relevant skills, are now working on behalf of the FTX Group to achieve one fundamental goal: maximizing value for FTX’s customers and creditors so that we can mitigate, to the greatest extent possible, the harm suffered by so many.

    To give you a sense of my background and how I ended up in this role: I have over 40 years of legal and restructuring experience. I have been the Chief Restructuring Officer or Chief Executive Officer in several large and vexing corporate failures involving allegations of criminal activity and malfeasance, including the Enron bankruptcy. I also have experience in bankruptcies involving novel financial and cross-border asset recovery and maximization.

    Nearly all of these situations share common characteristics, ranging from gross mismanagement, excessive leverage, failures of internal controls, failures of external checks as a result of audit firm failures, or insufficient board governance. But never in my career have I seen such an utter failure of corporate controls at every level of an organization, from the lack of financial statements to a complete failure of any internal controls or governance whatsoever.

    Although our investigation is ongoing and detailed findings will have to await its conclusion, the FTX Group’s collapse appears to stem from the absolute concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of grossly inexperienced and unsophisticated individuals who failed to implement virtually any of the systems or controls that are necessary for a company that is entrusted with other people’s money or assets.
    Some of the unacceptable management practices at the FTX Group identified so far include:

     The use of computer infrastructure that gave individuals in senior management access to systems that stored customer assets, without security controls to prevent them from redirecting those assets;
     The storing of certain private keys to access hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto assets without effective security controls or encryption;
     The ability of Alameda, the crypto hedge fund within the FTX Group, to borrow funds held at FTX.com to be utilized for its own trading or investments without any effective limits;
     The commingling of assets;
     The lack of complete documentation for transactions involving nearly 500 investments made with FTX Group funds and assets;

     The absence of audited or reliable financial statements;
     The lack of personnel in financial and risk management functions, which are typically present in any company close to the size of FTX Group; and
     The absence of independent governance throughout the FTX Group.

    With that understanding, as soon as I gained control on November 11, I began implementing a restructuring plan that will serve as the roadmap for navigating the FTX debtor entities through Chapter 11 and to a final resolution with its customers and creditors.

    That plan has five core objectives:

    The first objective, Implementation of Controls, is already well underway. That work involves building accounting, audit, cash management, cybersecurity, human resources, risk management and other systems that did not exist, or did not exist to an appropriate degree, prior to my appointment. We are not relying on prior management, but instead have hired a new Chief Financial Officer, a new Head of Human Resources and Administration and a new Head of Information Technology, all of whom have deep experience in their areas of core competency and have also managed other, large-scale corporate failures. In addition, I have engaged a team of independent third-party professionals in the necessary areas of restructuring, forensic accounting, tax disciplines, and cybersecurity, including Alvarez & Marsal, Alix Partners, Ernst & Young, respectively, along with a cybersecurity firm.

    The second objective, Asset Protection & Recovery, is also a top priority. We are working around the clock to locate and secure the property of the estate, a substantial portion of which may be missing, misappropriated, or not readily traceable due to the lack of proper record keeping. We are working with Nardello & Company, Chainalysis, BitGo, Alvarez & Marsal and our cybersecurity firm on these recovery efforts. Thus far, we have secured more than $1 billion of digital assets to protect against the risk of theft or unauthorized transfers.

    The third objective is Transparency and Investigation. Our investigative and cyber security teams, led by the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, are already well into the process of gathering the evidence that will provide us with an understanding of what led to this collapse. They are working in close coordination with U.S. and foreign regulatory and law enforcement authorities. Their team includes attorneys who have served as Directors of Enforcement at the SEC and CFTC, and as Chiefs of the Securities Fraud, Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture, and Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Units at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. We welcome the transparency of the Chapter 11 process and the oversight of the federal Bankruptcy Court.

    In addition, the entire process is being overseen by our newly appointed independent Board of Directors, in consultation with its independent counsel at Quinn Emmanuel, a firm that also has deep investigatory experience. The independent Board of Directors is chaired by former U.S. Attorney and Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the Honorable Joseph Farnan.

    Our fourth objective is Efficiency and Coordination, which requires cooperation and coordination with insolvency proceedings of subsidiary companies in other jurisdictions.

    The fifth and final objective is the Maximization of Value for all stakeholders through the eventual reorganization or sale of the complex array of businesses, investments, digital assets, and physical property of the FTX Group.

    A fundamental, overarching challenge with each of these objectives is that we are, in many respects, starting from near-zero in terms of the corporate infrastructure and record-keeping that one would expect to find in a multi-billion dollar international business. Still, in just over four weeks since assuming control of FTX, we have instituted meaningful steps to gain command and control and are well on our way to achieve the goals outlined above. Every week we gain a better understanding of what occurred and the path forward, which will be shared with interested and affected parties through the Chapter 11 processes.

    The scope of the investigation underway is enormous. It involves detailed tracing of money flows and asset transfers from the time of FTX’s founding, and highly complex technological efforts to identify and trace crypto assets. We are in the process of collecting and reviewing dozens of terabytes of documents and data, including records of billions of individual transactions, and we are leveraging sophisticated technology and expertise to identify and trace additional transactions and assets.

    We are also summarizing this information in a manner that will make the information useful, not only to the bankruptcy estate, but also to governmental and regulatory stakeholders in the U.S., including the House Financial Services Committee, and around the world. We know that our investigative record will be the foundation for work done by many others, and we are committed to building a reliable foundation.

    Questions have been raised as to why all of the FTX Group companies were included in the Chapter 11 filing, particularly FTX US. The answer is because FTX US was not operated independently of FTX.com. Chapter 11 protection was necessary both to avoid a “run on the bank” at FTX US and to allow our team the time to identify and protect its assets. Since the time of the filing, I have become even more confident this was the correct decision, as the books and records issues at FTX US and the many relationships between FTX US and the other FTX Group companies become clearer.

    Questions also have been raised about what I think of the many opinions expressed by former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and his recent offers to assist in the recovery effort. I will not comment on his statements other than to say that this is a professional investigation that is proceeding in a professional manner. We have a fact-finding process in place, and we will seek information from Mr. Bankman-Fried and others through that process, as appropriate.

    In the absence of cooperation from responsible parties or any appropriate system to track and protect crypto assets, we are continuing our painstaking forensic efforts to account for all of the assets, both as to the FTX US and FTX.com exchanges, as well as Alameda. These efforts pose complex technical challenges that are made even more vexing by the massive amount of data that must be reviewed. At the same time, the review must be conducted in a highly secure fashion to avoid the risk of compromise or loss of assets.

    While many things are unknown at this stage, and many questions remain, we know the following:

    First, customer assets from FTX.com were commingled with assets from the Alameda trading platform.

    Second, Alameda used client funds to engage in margin trading which exposed customer funds to massive losses.

    Third, the FTX Group went on a spending binge in late 2021 through 2022, during which approximately $5 billion was spent buying a myriad of businesses and investments, many of which may be worth only a fraction of what was paid for them.

    Fourth, loans and other payments were made to insiders in excess of $1 billion.

    Fifth, Alameda’s business model as a market maker required deploying funds to various third party exchanges which were inherently unsafe, and further exacerbated by the limited protections offered in certain foreign jurisdictions.

    We are also making progress in repairing the regulatory relationships of the FTX Group around the world. I would like to especially say to regulators – in the U.S. and abroad – that I completely understand the depth of outrage and frustration with what happened. I have instructed my team to cooperate as comprehensively and completely as possible, and much of our time so far has been spent on the truly herculean task of gathering and organizing information responsive to the many requests we have received.

    I know that the resolution of the Chapter 11 process, as well as the investigation into the causes of the FTX Group’s collapse, are of keen interest to this Committee and to your constituents. Additionally, there are many others who need and deserve answers, including customers, creditors, investors, counter-parties, employees, and regulators. We are positioning ourselves to provide each of these constituents with the answers they deserve.

    Although a bankruptcy proceeding of this unprecedented nature will take some time to run its course, I want you to know that I am committed to working as quickly as possible to investigate what happened in the lead-up to November 11 in order to formulate conclusions that can hopefully help to inform this Committee’s work.

    I should note that my ability to comment on certain matters today will be materially limited by the state of the FTX Group’s books and records, ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, and the numerous, ongoing investigations by U.S. law enforcement and regulators.

    But I look forward to answering your questions to the best of my ability.

  • California Judge Orders Kushy Punch Inc. Defendants to Pay $128 million

    California Judge Orders Kushy Punch Inc. Defendants to Pay $128 million

    Largest cannabis fine to date in the United States.

    20CHCV00560 December 5, 2022 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. vs VERTICAL BLISS, INC., et al. 8:30 AM 

    Judge: Honorable Stephen P. Pfahler

    CSR: None

    Judicial Assistant: Adrina Chebishyan

    ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: Christy Andrade

    Deputy Sheriff: None

    APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): ETHAN A. TURNER (Telephonic) by Michael Yun For

    Defendant(s): No Appearances

    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment; Status Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions against the Defendants for failure to appear on 10/12/2022 The matters are called for hearing. The Court reads and considers the moving papers in support of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court’s Tentative Ruling is published. Moving Party submits to the Court’s Tentative Ruling in open court, and the Court adopts its tentative ruling as its final ruling as follows:

    PLAINTIFF DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING:

    Granted.

    Request for Judicial Notice: Granted under Evidence Code sections (b), (c), and (d).

    “A plaintiff … has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff … has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant … to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield, Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) The defendant “shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

    Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the seven Defendants, subjecting them to civil penalties in the amount of $128,061,000. The penalties were calculated based on Business and Professions Code section 26038 subdivision (a) which states that a person engaged in unlicensed cannabis activity is “subject to civil penalties of up to three times the amount of the license fee for each violation.” Here, Plaintiff provides evidence showing (1) that the seven Defendants violated section 26038; (2) that they did so for 527 separate days of violation; and (3) that they were subject to total licensing fees of $81,000 for each day of commercial cannabis activity operation.

    Defendants Vertical Bliss, Inc., Kushy Punch Inc., Conglomerate Marketing, LLC, and More Agency, Inc. (“Business Entity Defendants”) have each admitted to engaging in (1) unlicensed commercial manufacturing cannabis activity and (2) unlicensed commercial distributor cannabis activity. (SSUMF Nos. 10-11, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22, 26-27, 29-30, 34-35, and 37-38; RJN, Exhibits D, E, F, and G; Yun Decl., Exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8 (RFA Nos. 4, 12, 19, and 27 in each Exhibit).) The three individual Defendants, Kachian, Barsamyan, and Toroyan (“Individual Defendants”) have each admitted to engaging in (1) unlicensed commercial manufacturing cannabis activity and (2) unlicensed commercial distributor cannabis activity in the City of Canoga Park in the State of California, by admitting that they are “OWNER[s]” of Vertical Bliss, Inc., Kushy Punch, Inc., Conglomerate Marketing, LLC, and More Agency, Inc. (SSUMF Nos. 4-7 and 40-48; RJN, Exhibits A, C, and H; Yun Dec, Exhibit 1 [as to Kachian] (RFA Nos. 8, 11, 14, and 17), Exhibit 10 [as to Barsamyan] (RFA Nos. 1, 5, 8, 11, and 14), and Exhibit 12 [as to Toroyan] (RFA Nos. 2, 5, 8, and 11).) In addition, the declaration of Eileen Del Rosario provides further uncontroverted evidence that the individual Defendants engaged in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. Specifically, during CDPH’s investigation there were ongoing communications with Defendants Kachian and Toroyan in their capacity as active representatives of the Business Entity Defendants. (Del Rosario Decl., ¶ 4-8, 22, 25-29, and 33.) Thus, there are no triable issues to any material facts that Defendants violated section 26038, subdivision (a), and are subject to civil penalties of up to three times the amount of the license fee for each day of the violation(s).

    The Business Entity Defendants have each admitted to (1) engaging in unlicensed commercial manufacturing cannabis activity in the State of California on 527 separate days and (2) engaging in unlicensed commercial distributor cannabis activity in the State of California on 527 separate days. (SSUMF Nos. 10-11, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22, 26-27, 29-30, 34-35, and 37-38.) Likewise, the Individual Defendants, as owners and persons with direct control over the Business Entity Defendants, are also deemed to have engaged in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity on 527 separate days in the State of California. (SSUMF Nos. 4-7, 10-11, 13-14, 18-19, 21-22, 26-27, 29-30, 34-35, 37-38, and 40-48.) Thus, there is no triable issue as to this fact when determining the civil penalty that should be assessed in this case.

    The Business Entity Defendants have each admitted they received gross revenue exceeding $10,000,000 and $1,000,000, annually, from unlicensed commercial cannabis manufacturing and distributor activities, respectively, during the relevant period. (SSUMF Nos. 12, 15, 20, 23, 28, 31, 36, and 39.) As to the individual Defendants, they each engaged in illegal commercial cannabis activity by virtue of their admitted ownership of, ownership interest in, and/or control and managing power over, the Business Entity Defendants. Also, the Del Rosario Declaration gives facts which further confirm Defendants’ undisputed admissions as to the gross revenue generated by their illegal activities. (See Del Rosario Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11, 39, 44.) Thus, there are no triable issues as to the licensing fees to which the Defendants were subject and which form the basis of the civil penalty that should be assessed in this case.

    Defendants have not filed an opposition.

    The unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted in the amount of $128,061,000 as Plaintiff requests.

    Plaintiff is to give notice.

    Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions against the Defendants for failure to appear on 10/12/2022 is held and the court rules as follows:

    In light of the Defendants second consecutive failure to appear, the Court is hereby striking all Defendants Answers and entering Default forthwith, except Defendant KEVIN HALLORAN.

    The Notice of Appearance of ARUTYUN BARSAMYAN, Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Notice of Appearance of CONGLOMERATE MARKETING , LLC, Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Notice of Appearance of KUSHY PUNCH, INC., Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Notice of Appearance of MIKE A. TOROYAN,, Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Notice of Appearance of MORE AGENCY, INC.,, Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Notice of Appearance of RUBEN KACHIAN, Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Notice of Appearance of VERTICAL BLISS, INC., Defendant on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al. on 09/23/2020, filed herein on 02/08/2021 is ordered stricken and the default is entered this date.

    The Court notes that Defendant Kevin Holloran fails to appear today for today’s duly noticed Status Conference.

    On the Court’s own motion, the Status Conference scheduled for 12/05/2022 is continued to 01/05/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department F49 at Chatsworth Courthouse.

    Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions against the Defendant Holloran, only for failure to appear on 12/05/2022 is scheduled for 01/05/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department F49 at Chatsworth Courthouse.

    Defendant is ordered to file a declaration in response to the OSC 10 calendar days before the next OSC on 01/05/2023 as to why the Court should not impose sanctions for the failure to appear.

    Plaintiff is to give notice and is to file proof of that notice with the Court within 10 days from today’s date.

  • Missouri Adult-Use Regulations

    Missouri Adult-Use Regulations

    Adult-Use Proposed Rules – Comment Period Ends November 25th

    The Department is proposing changes to the rules listed below. Any proposed changes appear as bolded text within the document. Interested individuals are encouraged to monitor this webpage as draft rule changes will be posted for public review to this page as soon as they are available.  The public may submit written comments regarding the proposed changes using the Suggestions Form.

    Proposed rule amendments filed with the Secretary of State appear on the Rule Amendments page.

    Public feedback will be accepted until 11-25-2022.

  • 40% of Oregon Cities Ban Psilocybin Businesses

    40% of Oregon Cities Ban Psilocybin Businesses
    BAKER COUNTY: BANS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES AND FACILITIES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED BAKER COUNTY.
    YES 66.48% 5,478
    NO 33.52% 2,762
    TOTAL VOTES 8,240
    CITY OF BAKER CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN BAKER CITY.
    YES 64.75% 2,943
    NO 35.25% 1,602
    TOTAL VOTES 4,545
    CITY OF HALFWAY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES AND FACILITIES WITHIN HALFWAY CITY LIMITS
    YES 65.34%. 115
    NO 34.66% 61
    TOTAL VOTES 176
    CITY OF HUNTINGTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN HUNTINGTON.

    YES. 63.21% 122
    NO 36.79%. 71
    TOTAL VOTE 193
    CITY OF SUMPTER: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF SUMPTER.
    YES 71.43% 100
    NO 28.57% 40
    TOTAL VOTES 140
    CITY OF UNITY: BANS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF UNITY.
    YES 95.24% 20
    NO 4.76% 1
    TOTAL VOTES 21
    CITY OF PHILOMATH: MORATORIUM ON PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE FACILITIES IN PHILOMATH
    YES 53.32% 1,204
    NO 46.68% 1,054
    TOTAL VOTES 2,258
    CLACKAMAS COUNTY: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED CLACKAMAS COUNTY
    YES 57.67%. 61,219
    NO 42.33% 44,939
    TOTAL VOTES 106,158
    CITY OF ESTACADA: TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN ESTACADA
    YES 62.50% 715
    NO 37.50% 429
    TOTAL VOTES 1,144
    CITY OF MOLALLA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS IN MOLALLA
    YES 64.03%. 1,175
    NO 35.97%. 660
    TOTAL VOTES 1,835
    CLATSOP COUNTY: TEMPORARY BAN OF CERTAIN PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES IN UNINCORPORATED CLATSOP COUNTY
    YES 55.81% 10,094
    NO 44.19% 7,993
    TOTAL VOTES 18,087
    CITY OF SEASIDE: TEMPORARY BAN ON PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS AND MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS
    YES 57.51% 1,439
    NO 42.49% 1,063
    TOTAL VOTES 2,502
    CITY OF CLATSKANIE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CLATSKANIE FOR 2 YEARS.
    YES 62.64% 379
    NO 37.36% 226
    TOTAL VOTES 605
    CITY OF ST. HELENS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN ST. HELENS FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 55.18% 2,717
    NO 44.82% 2,207
    TOTAL VOTES 4,924
    Wheatland Township Marihuana Proposal (Vote for 1)
    Times Cast 636 / 1,162 54.73%
    YES. 269
    No 350
    TOTAL VOTES 619
    GILLIAM: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF GILLIAM COUNTY
    CENTERS IN KLAMATH COUNTY.
    YES 67.98% 637
    NO 32.02% 300
    TOTAL VOTES 937
    CITY OF ARLINGTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
    YES 69.90% 202
    NO 30.10%. 87
    TOTAL VOTES 289
    CITY OF CONDON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CONDON FOR TWO (2) YEARS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS DECEMBER 31, 2024
    YES 74.18% 273
    NO 25.82%. 95
    TOTAL VOTES 368
    JACKSON COUNTY: PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURERS AND SERVICE CENTER OPERATORS IN JACKSON COUNTY
    YES 47.50% 46,231
    NO. 52.50%. 51,098
    TOTAL VOTES. 97,329
    CITY OF CENTRAL POINT: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
    YES 64.94% 5,398
    NO 35.06% 2,914
    TOTAL VOTES 8,312
    CITY OF EAGLE POINT: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN RELATED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF EAGLE POINT
    YES 69.16% 3,169
    NO 30.84% 1,413
    TOTAL VOTES 4,582
    CITY OF JACKSONVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
    YES 66.87% 1,348
    NO 33.13% 668
    TOTAL VOTES 2,016
    CITY OF PHOENIX: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN PHOENIX
    YES 47.18% 811
    NO 52.82% 908
    TOTAL VOTES 1,719
    CITY OF ROGUE RIVER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROGUE RIVER
    YES 61.33% 663
    NO 38.67% 418
    TOTAL VOTES 1,081
    CITY OF SHADY COVE: SHADY COVE PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY LIMITS
    YES 65.45% 987
    NO 34.55% 521
    TOTAL VOTES 1,508
    SHERMAN COUNTY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED SHERMAN COUNTY
    YES 69.98% 690
    NO 30.02% 296
    TOTAL VOTES 986
    TILLAMOOK COUNTY: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED TILLAMOOK COUNTY
    YES 54.41% 6,077
    NO 45.59% 5,091
    TOTAL VOTES 11,168
    CITY OF NEHALEM: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEHALEM
    YES 51.35% 57
    NO 48.65% 54
    TOTAL VOTES 111
    CITY OF TILLAMOOK: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TILLAMOOK
    YES 54.15% 738
    NO 45.85% 625
    TOTAL VOTES 1,363
    CITY OF WHEELER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF WHEELER
    YES 49.73% 91
    NO 50.27% 92
    TOTAL VOTES 183
    UMATILLA COUNTY: BAN OF CERTAIN PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES IN UNINCORPORATED UMATILLA COUNTY
    YES 69.19% 16,161
    NO 30.81% 7,196
    TOTAL VOTES 23,357
    CITY OF ATHENA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ATHENA
    YES 73.12% 408
    NO 26.88% 150
    TOTAL VOTES 558
    CITY OF ECHO: TO PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ECHO
    YES 68.49% 150
    NO 31.51% 69
    TOTAL VOTES 219
    CITY OF HERMISTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF HERMISTON
    YES 68.64% 2,736
    NO 31.36% 1,250
    TOTAL VOTES 3,986
    CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MILTON-FREEWATER
    YES 68.25% 905
    NO 31.75% 421
    TOTAL VOTES 1,326
    CITY OF PENDLETON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF PENDLETON.
    YES 66.11% 3,757
    NO 33.89% 1,926
    TOTAL VOTES 5,683
    CITY OF PILOT ROCK: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF PILOT ROCK
    YES 76.91% 423
    NO 23.09% 127
    TOTAL VOTES 550
    CITY OF STANFIELD: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF STANFIELD
    YES 70.56% 393
    NO 29.44% 164
    TOTAL VOTES 557
    CITY OF UMATILLA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF UMATILLA
    YES 66.03% 653
    NO 33.97% 336
    TOTAL VOTES 989
    WHEELER COUNTY: PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURE AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED WHEELER COUNTY
    YES 58.31% 449
    NO 41.69% 321
    TOTAL VOTES 770
    CITY OF FOSSIL: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF FOSSIL, OREGON
    YES 61.23% 139
    NO 38.77% 88
    TOTAL VOTES 227
    CITY OF SPRAY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRAY
    YES 62.79% 54
    NO 37.21% 32
    TOTAL VOTES 86
    MARION COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED MARION COUNTY
    YES 58.20% 52,279
    NO 41.80% 37,550
    TOTAL VOTES 89,829
    CITY OF AUMSVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AUMSVILLE
    YES 65.77% 709
    NO 34.23% 369
    TOTAL VOTES 1,078
    CITY OF GATES: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF GATES
    YES 73.74% 73
    NO 26.26% 26
    TOTAL VOTES 99
    CITY OF HUBBARD: PROHIBITS: PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN HUBBARD. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS
    YES 68.10% 476
    NO 31.90% 223
    TOTAL VOTES 699
    CITY OF JEFFERSON: TEMPORARILY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF JEFFERSON
    YES 65.31% 514
    NO 34.69% 273
    TOTAL VOTES 787
    CITY OF KEIZER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF KEIZER
    YES 64.79% 7,530
    NO 35.21% 4,093
    TOTAL VOTES 11,623
    CITY OF MILL CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF MILL CITYALL
    YES 53.33% 40
    NO 46.67% 35
    TOTAL VOTES 75
    CITY OF ST PAUL: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN ST. PAUL, OREGON
    YES 72.12% 150
    NO 27.88% 58
    TOTAL VOTES 208
    CITY OF STAYTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF STAYTON
    YES 68.83% 1,742
    NO 31.17% 789
    TOTAL VOTES 2,531
    CITY OF SUBLIMITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF SUBLIMITY
    YES 80.47% 1,104
    NO 19.53% 268
    TOTAL VOTES 1,372
    CITY OF TURNER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF TURNER
    YES 71.70% 684
    NO 28.30% 270
    TOTAL VOTES 954
    CITY OF WOODBURN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF WOODBURN
    YES 64.88% 2,995
    NO 35.12% 1,621
    TOTAL VOTES 4,616
    KLAMATH COUNTY INCORPORATED CITIES: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN KLAMATH COUNTY.
    YES 68.74% 10,610
    NO 31.26% 4,824
    TOTAL VOTES 15,434
    CITY OF MERRILL: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF MERRILL.
    YES 73.50% 86
    NO 26.50% 31
    TOTAL VOTES 117
    CITY OF SPRAY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRAY
    YES 62.79% 54
    NO 37.21% 32
    TOTAL VOTES 86
    PRAIRIE CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN PRAIRIE CITY
    YES 68.68% 318
    NO 31.32% 145
    TOTAL VOTES 463
    LAKE COUNTY: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN LAKE COUNTY
    YES 71.59% 2,719
    NO 28.41% 1,079
    TOTAL VOTES 3,798
    TOWN OF LAKEVIEW: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN TOWN OF LAKEVIEW.
    YES 66.97% 657
    NO 33.03% 324
    TOTAL VOTES 981
    CITY OF TOLEDO: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN TOLE
    YES 56.33% 627
    NO 43.67% 486
    TOTAL VOTES 1,113
    CITY OF TOLEDO: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN TOLEDO FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 53.74% 725
    NO 46.26% 624
    TOTAL VOTES 1,349
    JOSEPHINE COUNTY: AMENDS CODE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY
    YES 24.62% 7,215
    NO 75.38% 22,096
    TOTAL VOTES 29,311
    JOSEPHINE COUNTY: AMENDS CODE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY
    YES 26.52% 7,839
    NO 73.48% 21,720
    TOTAL VOTES 29,559
    CITY OF CAVE JUNCTION: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CAVE JUNCTION FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 63.06% 355
    NO 36.94% 208
    TOTAL VOTES 563
    HARNEY COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS AND FACILITIES IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF HARNEY COUNTY
    YES 64.80% 2,360
    NO 35.20% 1,282
    TOTAL VOTES 3,642
    CITY OF BURNS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF BURNS
    YES 59.30% 663
    NO 40.70% 455
    TOTAL VOTE 1,118
    CITY OF HINES: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF HINES
    YES 65.12% 504
    NO 34.88% 270
    TOTAL VOTES 774
    GILLIAM: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF GILLIAM COUNTY.
    YES 67.98% 637
    NO 32.02% 300
    TOTAL VOTES 937
    CITY OF ARLINGTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
    YES 69.90% 202
    NO 30.10% 87
    TOTAL VOTES 289
    CITY OF CONDON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CONDON FOR TWO (2) YEARS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS DECEMBER 31, 2024
    YES 74.18% 273
    NO 25.82% 95
    TOTAL VOTES 368
    DOUGLAS COUNTY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN (HALLUCINOGENIC MUSHROOMS)-RELATED BUSINESSES IN UNINCORPORATED DOUGLAS COUNTY.
    YES 24.97% 9,784
    NO 75.03% 29,396
    TOTAL VOTES 39,180
    CITY OF CANYONVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CANYONVILLE
    YES 64.42% 248
    NO 35.58% 137
    TOTAL VOTES 385
    CITY OF ELKTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ELKTON
    YES 73.61% 53
    NO 26.39% 19
    TOTAL VOTES 72
    CITY OF GLENDALE: PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED ENTITIES IN AREA OF JURISDICTION.
    YES 72.73% 104
    NO 27.27% 39
    TOTAL VOTES 143
    CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK.
    YES 23.67% 227
    NO 76.33% 732
    TOTAL VOTES 959
    CITY OF OAKLAND: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN OAKLAND, OREGON.
    YES 63.82% 217
    NO 36.18% 123
    TOTAL VOTES 340
    CITY OF REEDSPORT: PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 66.67% 984
    NO 33.33% 492
    TOTAL VOTES 1,476
    CITY OF RIDDLE: PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN THE AREA OF CITY JURISDICTION.
    YES 17.69% 26
    NO 82.31% 121
    TOTAL VOTES 147
    CITY OF ROSEBURG: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEBURG, OREGON
    YES 30.02% 2,112
    NO 69.98% 4,923
    TOTAL VOTES 7,035
    CITY OF SUTHERLIN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN SUTHERLIN. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 70.17% 2,225
    NO 29.83% 946
    TOTAL VOTES 3,171
    CITY OF WINSTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF WINSTON, OREGON
    YES 63.45% 1,172
    NO 36.55% 675
    TOTAL VOTES 1,847
    POLK COUNTY: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED POLK COUNTY
    YES 15,515 53.81%
    NO 13,317 46.19%
    TOTAL VOTES 28,832
    CITY OF DALLAS: ADOPTS ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN DALLAS.
    YES 3,728 58.31%
    NO 2,665 41.69%
    TOTAL VOTES 6,393
    CITY OF INDEPENDENCE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF INDEPENDENCE.
    YES 1,302 54.55%
    NO 1,085 45.45%
    TOTAL VOTES 2,387
    CITY OF WILLAMINA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN WILLAMINA. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 117 56.80%
    NO 89 43.20%
    TOTAL VOTES 206
    MORROW COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF MORROW COUNTY.
    YES 2,504 65.02%
    NO 1,347 34.98%
    TOTAL VOTES 3,851
    CITY OF BOARDMAN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF BOARDMAN.
    YES 356 60.34%
    NO 234 39.66%
    TOTAL VOTES 590
    CITY OF HEPPNER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF HEPPNER.
    YES 415 64.74%
    NO 226 35.26%
    TOTAL VOTES 641
    CITY OF IONE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN (HALLUCINOGENIC MUSHROOMS) BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF IONE
    YES 135 75.42%
    NO 44 24.58%
    TOTAL VOTES 179
    CITY OF IRRIGON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRRIGON.
    YES 365 67.22%
    NO 178 32.78%
    TOTAL VOTES 543
    TOWN OF LEXINGTON: PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE TOWN OF LEXINGTON, OREGON
    YES 101 73.72%
    NO 36 26.28%
    TOTAL VOTES 137
    MALHEUR COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED MALHEUR COUNTY
    YES 6,321 71.65%
    NO 2,501 28.35%
    TOTAL VOTES 8,822
    CITY OF ADRIAN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ADRIAN.
    YES 34 69.39%
    NO 15 30.61%
    TOTAL VOTES 49
    CITY OF JORDAN VALLEY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF JORDAN VALLEY.
    YES 68 87.18%
    NO 10 12.82%
    TOTAL VOTES 78
    CITY OF NYSSA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NYSSA.
    YES 448 75.68%
    NO 144 24.32%
    TOTAL VOTES 592
    CITY OF ONTARIO: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF ONTARIO.
    YES 1,866 65.24%
    NO 994 34.76%
    TOTAL VOTES 2,860
    CITY OF VALE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF VALE.
    YES 436 72.79%
    NO 163 27.21%
    TOTAL VOTES 599
    UNION COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNION COUNTY
    YES 7,101 60.44%
    NO 4,648 39.56%
    TOTAL VOTES 11,749
    CITY OF COVE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF COVE.
    YES 258 72.07%
    NO 100 27.93%
    TOTAL VOTES 358
    CITY OF ELGIN: AMENDS CITY CHARTER REMOVING OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
    YES 293 44.06%
    NO 372 55.94%
    TOTAL VOTES 665
    CITY OF ELGIN: AMENDS CITY CHARTER COMBINING OFFICES OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER TO ADMINISTRATOR.
    YES 364 56.09%
    NO 285 43.91%
    TOTAL VOTES 649
    CITY OF ELGIN: AMENDS CHARTER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE TO SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT FOR ELECTORS.
    YES 184 27.71%
    NO 480 72.29%
    TOTAL VOTES 664
    CITY OF IMBLER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN – RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF IMBLER
    YES 133 73.48%
    NO 48 26.52%
    TOTAL VOTES 181
    CITY OF LA GRANDE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF LA GRANDE.
    YES 2,690 54.51%
    NO 2,245 45.49%
    TOTAL VOTES 4,935
    CITY OF ISLAND CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF ISLAND CITY.
    YES 408 67.00%
    NO 201 33.00%
    TOTAL VOTES 609
    CITY OF NORTH POWDER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH POWDER.
    YES 130 61.90%
    NO 80 38.10%
    TOTAL VOTES 210
    CITY OF UNION: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF UNION.
    YES 730 69.46%
    NO 321 30.54%
    TOTAL VOTES 1,051
    WALLOWA COUNTY: PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN WALLOWA COUNTY
    YES 2,743 61.96%
    NO 1,684 38.04%
    TOTAL VOTES 4,427
    JEFFERSON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN JEFFERSON COUNTY.
    YES 59.45% 5,541
    NO 40.55% 3,779
    TOTAL VOTES 9,320
    CITY OF CULVER: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF CULVER.
    YES 64.55% 366
    NO 35.45% 201
    TOTAL VOTES 567
    CITY OF MADRAS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF MADRAS.
    YES 60.05% 1,198
    NO 39.95% 797
    TOTAL VOTES 1,995
    CITY OF METOLIUS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF METOLIUS
    YES 53.85% 182
    NO 46.15% 156
    TOTAL VOTES 338
    DESCHUTES: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS IN UNINCORPORATED DESCHUTES COUNTY.
    YES 43.69% 42,417
    NO 56.31% 54,660
    TOTAL VOTES 97,077
    CITY OF LA PINE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CITY OF LA PINE.
    YES 58.26% 543
    NO 41.74% 389
    TOTAL VOTESb 932
    CITY OF REDMOND: DECLARING A PROHIBITION ON THE MANUFACTURE OF PSILOCYBIN PRODUCTS.
    YES 56.75% 8,033
    NO 43.25% 6,123
    TOTAL VOTES 14,156
    CITY OF REDMOND: DECLARING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS.
    YES 53.66% 7,494
    NO 46.34% 6,471
    TOTAL VOTES 13,965
    CURRY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS AND PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN CURRY COUNTY.
    YES 54.31% 6,030
    NO 45.69% 5,072
    TOTAL VOTES 11,102
    CITY OF BROOKINGS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS FOR 2 YEARS.
    YES 62.26% 1,678
    NO 37.74% 1,017
    TOTAL VOTES 2,695
    CROOK COUNTY: 7-84 PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CROOK COUNTY.
    YES 66.00% 7,176
    NO 34.00% 3,697
    TOTAL VOTES 10,873
    CITY OF PRINEVILLE: 7-83 PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF PRINEVILLE.
    YES 63.87% 2,348
    NO 36.13% 1,328
    TOTAL VOTES 3,676
    CURRY: CONCERNING PSILOCYBIN SERVICE CENTERS AND PRODUCT MANUFACTURING IN CURRY COUNTY.
    YES 54.31% 6,030
    NO 45.69% 5,072
    TOTAL VOTES 11,102
    CITY OF BROOKINGS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE CENTERS FOR 2 YEARS.
    YES 62.26% 1,678
    NO 37.74% 1,017
    TOTAL VOTES 2,695
    CITY OF AMITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN AMITY FOR 2-YEARS.
    YES 64.81% 221
    NO 35.19% 120
    TOTAL VOTES 341
    CITY OF CARLTON: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN CARLTON. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 63.32% 378
    NO 36.68% 219
    TOTAL VOTES 597
    CITY OF DUNDEE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN DUNDEE FOR TWO YEARS.
    YES 65.88% 529
    NO 34.12% 274
    TOTAL VOTES 803
    CITY OF MCMINNVILLE: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN MCMINNVILLE. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 59.30% 5,316
    NO 40.70% 3,649
    TOTAL VOTES 8,965
    CITY OF NEWBERG: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWBERG.
    YES 58.36% 3,657
    NO 41.64% 2,609
    TOTAL VOTES 6,266
    CITY OF SHERIDAN: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN SHERIDAN. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 68.29% 741
    NO 31.71% 344
    TOTAL VOTES 1,085
    CITY OF WILLAMINA: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESSES WITHIN WILLAMINA. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 58.22% 177
    NO 41.78% 127
    TOTAL VOTES 304
    COOS COUNTY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS WITHIN UNINCORPORATED COOS COUNTY.
    YES 58.43% 14,142
    NO 41.57% 10,062
    TOTAL VOTES 24,204
    COOS COUNTY: A FIVE-YEAR LEVY TO INCREASE JAIL FUNDING AND CAPACITY.
    YES 45.02% 11,037
    NO 54.98% 13,477
    TOTAL VOTES 24,514
    BANDON CITY: PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER TWO YEARS.
    YES 60.92% 904
    NO 39.08% 580
    TOTAL VOTES 1,484
    BANDON CITY: CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY TO SET SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
    YES 58.84% 3,054
    NO 41.16% 2,136
    TOTAL VOTES 5,190
    COOS BAY CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF COOS BAY
    YES 58.84% 3,054
    NO 41.16% 2,136
    TOTAL VOTES 5,190
    COQUILLE CITY: PROHIBIT PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF COQUILLE.
    YES 60.56% 843
    NO 39.44% 549
    TOTAL VOTES 1,392
    LAKESIDE CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKESIDE.
    YES 70.22% 632
    NO 29.78% 268
    TOTAL VOTES 900
    MYRTLE POINT CITY: PROHIBITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN MYRTLE POI
    YES 68.19% 521
    NO 31.81% 243
    TOTAL VOTES 764
    NORTH BEND CITY: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NORTH BEND.
    YES 63.25% 2,189
    NO 36.75% 1,272
    TOTAL VOTES 3,461
    CITY OF BANKS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN-RELATED BUSINESSES IN BANKS. PROHIBITION SUNSETS AFTER 2 YEARS
    YES 64.13% 320
    NO 35.87% 179
    TOTAL VOTES 499
    CITY OF CORNELIUS: PROHIBITS PSILOCYBIN BUSINESS WITHIN CORNELIUS.
    YES 57.10% 1,375
    NO 42.90% 1,033
    TOTAL VOTES 2,408
    *Results may be unofficial.

  • Unofficial Rhode Island Cannabis Ballot Measure Results

    Barrington, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 4169 52.9%
    Approve 3710 47.1%
    Bristol, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4017 51.2%
    Reject 3824 48.8%
    Burrillville, RI
    4. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3119 58.9%
    Reject 2177 41.1%
    Charlestown, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT; MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2144 54.2%
    Reject 1809 45.8%
    Coventry, RI
    15. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 8302 59.9%
    Reject 5551 40.1%
    Cumberland, RI
    5. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 6937 54.2%
    Reject 5860 45.8%
    East Greenwich, RI
    4. LICENSES FOR LOCAL RECREATIONAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 3284 51.1%
    Approve 3148 48.9%
    East Providence, RI
    5. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 9233 62.1%
    Reject 5624 37.9%
    Glocester, RI
    4. LICENSES FOR RECREATION CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2461 55.5%
    Reject 1977 44.5%
    Hopkinton, RI
    4. RETAIL SALE OF ADULT RECREATIONAL USE CANNABIS
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2170 60.8%
    Reject 1397 39.2%
    Jamestown, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT: MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 1608 52.6%
    Approve 1451 47.4%
    Johnston, RI
    4. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 5443 56.0%
    Reject 4278 44.0%
    Lincoln, RI
    4. CANNABIS LICENSES IN LINCOLN
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4418 50.8%
    Reject 4286 49.2%
    Little Compton, RI
    4. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – LOCAL LICENSING
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 1141 57.1%
    Approve 858 42.9%
    Middletown, RI
    6. CANNABIS LICENSES IN MIDDLETOWN
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3281 56.9%
    Reject 2482 43.1%
    Narragansett, RI
    4. RETAIL SALE OF ADULT RECREATIONAL CANNABIS
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3630 52.6%
    Reject 3275 47.4%
    New Shoreham, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 372 54.9%
    Reject 305 45.1%
    Newport, RI
    4. STATE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4253 60.8%
    Reject 2743 39.2%
    North Kingstown, RI
    4. NEW CANNABIS RELATED LICENSES IN NORTH KINGSTOWN
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Yes 7061 54.7%
    No 5858 45.3%
    North Providence, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT:STATE ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 5642 56.1%
    Reject 4417 43.9%
    Richmond, RI
    4. LICENSES FOR CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2080 58.2%
    Reject 1496 41.8%
    Scituate, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT:STATE ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 2377 50.5%
    Approve 2331 49.5%
    Smithfield, RI
    4. NEW CANNABIS RELATED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Reject 4172 50.7%
    Approve 4063 49.3%
    South Kingstown, RI
    4. RI CANNABIS ACT: STATE – ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 7498 60.1%
    Reject 4982 39.9%
    Tiverton, RI
    8. TITLE 21 CHAPTER 28.11 The Rhode Island Cannabis Act
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 3230 54.8%
    Reject 2666 45.2%
    Warren, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2263 57.6%
    Reject 1666 42.4%
    West Greenwich, RI
    4. ISSUANCE OF CANNABIS LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 1543 52.1%
    Reject 1419 47.9%
    West Warwick, RI
    4. STATE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 5646 60.6%
    Reject 3676 39.4%
    Westerly, RI
    5. RHODE ISLAND CANNABIS ACT – MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4983 55.0%
    Reject 4083 45.0%
    Woonsocket, RI
    5. RELATING TO CANNABIS ESTABLISHMENTS AND PUBLIC USE
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 4574 62.0%
    Reject 2809 38.0%
    North Smithfield, RI
    4. THE RI CANNABIS ACT: STATE ISSUED LICENSES
    Candidate Total votes Pct
    Approve 2687 56.1%
    Reject 2101 43.9%
  • Early Michigan Cannabis Ballot Measure Results

    Hagar Township Ordinance for Marihuana Facilities Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 2 of 2 100.00%
    Ballots: 1,551
    Yes 670 47.93%
    No 728 52.07%
    Total: 1,398 100%
    Niles Charter Township Marihuana Establishments Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 5 of 5 100.00%
    Ballots: 5,365
    Yes 2,322 48.03%
    No 2,512 51.97%
    Total: 4,834 100%
    Zilwaukee Township Initiated Ordinance Number 2022-0001 Repeal of Marihuana Prohibition
    Precincts fully reported: 1 of 1 100.00%
    Ballots: 35
    Yes 12 36.36%
    No 21 63.64%
    Total: 33 100%
    City Of Laingsburg Marihuana Ballot Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 1 of 1 100.00%
    Ballots: 636
    Yes 381 62.05%
    No 233 37.95%
    Total: 614 100%
    City of Memphis Proposal Prohibit Adult Use Marihuana Establishments
    Precincts fully reported: 1 of 1 100.00%
    Ballots: 163
    Yes 59 38.31%
    No 95 61.69%
    Total: 154 100%
    South Haven Charter Township Marijuana Dispensaries Proposal
    Precincts fully reported: 2 of 2 100.00%
    Ballots: 1,689
    Yes 892 54.26%
    No 752 45.74%
    Total: 1,644 100%
    ­
    ­
    *Results may be unofficial – Includes 16 of 83 Counties that posted results.
    Contact us for further information.
  • Utah Accepts Crypto as Currency

    The State of Utah proposed a new rule that allows state agencies to accept digital currency for payment owed. Public comment is being accepted through November 14, 2022. The tentative effective date is November 21, 2022.

    #digitalcurrency#crypto#rules#utah

    NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE TYPE OF RULE: New Rule or Section Number: R25-25 Filing ID: 54909 Agency Information

    3. Purpose of the new rule or reason for the change (Why is the agency submitting this filing?):

    This rule has been created in accordance with Subsection 63A-3-112(6) to establish requirements that agencies must meet to accept virtual currency for payments and establishes standards for service providers wishing to contract with the state to covert virtual currency collections into fiat currency to satisfy amounts owed to the state.

    4. Summary of the new rule or change (What does this filing do?

    If this is a repeal and reenact, explain the substantive differences between the repealed rule and the reenacted rule): This is a new rule that has been created in accordance with Subsection 63A-3-112(6) to establish requirements that agencies must meet to accept virtual currency for payments and establishes standards for service providers wishing to contract with the state to covert virtual currency collections into fiat currency to satisfy amounts owed to the state. It establishes requirements for service providers, such as insurance coverage; timing of pricing, conversion, and deposit of funds; regulatory compliance requirements; and service provider fees. It also establishes requirements that state agencies must meet to offer digital asset payments, such as: record retention, fees, refunds and internal controls.

  • Municipal Cannabis Ballot Measures – November 8, 2022

    Municipal Cannabis Ballot Measures – November 8, 2022
    DATESTATECOUNTYMUNICIPALITY
    Nov 8, 2022CAKingsAvenal
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesBaldwin Park
    Nov 8, 2022CASan MateoBurlingame
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesClaremont
    Nov 8, 2022CARiversideCorona
    Nov 8, 2022CALassenCounty of Lassen
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesCounty of Los Angeles
    Nov 8, 2022CASacramentoCounty of Sacramento
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesCudahy
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesEl Segundo
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesEl Segundo
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesEl Segundo
    Nov 8, 2022CASonomaHealdsburg
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesHermosa Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesHermosa Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CAOrangeHuntington Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CAOrangeLaguna Woods
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesLynwood
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesManhattan Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesManhattan Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CAKernMcFarland
    Nov 8, 2022CASan BernardinoMontclair
    Nov 8, 2022CAMontereyMonterey
    Nov 8, 2022CAMontereyPacific Grove
    Nov 8, 2022CAMontereyPacific Grove
    Nov 8, 2022CATehamaRed Bluff
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesRedondo Beach
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesSanta Monica
    Nov 8, 2022CAMarinSausalito
    Nov 8, 2022CALos AngelesSouth El Monte
    Nov 8, 2022CAEl DoradoSouth Lake Tahoe
    Nov 8, 2022CALassenSusanville
    Nov 8, 2022CATulareTulare
    Nov 8, 2022CAYoloWoodland
    Nov 8, 2022COEl PasoCity of Colorado Springs
    Nov 8, 2022COEl PasoCity of Colorado Springs
    Nov 8, 2022COEl PasoCity of Colorado Springs
    Nov 8, 2022COTellerCity of Cripple Creek
    Nov 8, 2022COTellerCity of Cripple Creek
    Nov 8, 2022CODenverDenver
    Nov 8, 2022COGrandTown of Grand Lake
    Nov 8, 2022CTNew LondonTown of Ledyard
    Nov 8, 2022CTNew LondonTown of Ledyard
    Nov 8, 2022CTNew HavenTown of Waterbury
    Nov 8, 2022ILSt. ClairBelleville
    Oct 4, 2022MAMiddlesexBillerica
    Nov 8, 2022MAHampshireChesterfield
    Nov 8, 2022MDAnne ArundelState of Maryland
    Nov 8, 2022MEHancockBar Harbor
    Nov 8, 2022MEHancockBar Harbor
    Sep 6, 2022MEHancockBar Harbor
    Nov 8, 2022MEYorkEliot
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandAuburn Hills
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandBrandon
    Nov 8, 2022MILivingstonBrighton
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandCharter Township of Royal Oak
    Nov 8, 2022MIWayneCity of Flat Rock
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandCity of Keego Harbor
    Nov 8, 2022MIMacombCity of Memphis
    Nov 8, 2022MIMacombCity of Memphis
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandCity of the Village of Clarkston
    Nov 8, 2022MIGeneseeClio
    Nov 8, 2022MIGrand TraverseGreen Lake
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandLathrup Village
    Nov 8, 2022MIOaklandLeonard
    Nov 8, 2022MIEmmetPetoskey
    Nov 8, 2022MIWayneTaylor
    Nov 8, 2022MOMillerState of Missouri
    Nov 8, 2022NDSheridanState of North Dakota
    Nov 8, 2022NYDelawareTown of Franklin
    Nov 8, 2022OHPortageCity of Kent
    Nov 8, 2022ORMarionCity of Aumsville
    Nov 8, 2022ORMalheurCounty of Malheur
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceCity of East Providence
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceCity of East Providence
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceCity of Woonsocket
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportNewport
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonSouth Kingstown
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Burrillville
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Charlestown
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Charlestown
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Exeter
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Glocester
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Jamestown
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Jamestown
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Johnston
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Middletown
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Narragansett
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of North Providence
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of North Smithfield
    Nov 8, 2022RIProvidenceTown of Smithfield
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Tiverton
    Nov 8, 2022RINewportTown of Tiverton
    Nov 8, 2022RIBristolTown of Warren
    Nov 8, 2022RIWashingtonTown of Westerly
    Nov 8, 2022RIKentWest Warwick
    Contact us for Ballot Measure Details!