Canadian CANNAINVESTOR Magazine August / September 2017 - Page 197

CCIM: Subsequent to the appointment of the Reviewer by Health Canada, you announced a 10 year lease extension of the relevant properties. What is the significance of this announcement and many may read into the timing of it as being favourable with respect to the ACMPR application process …?

CHV: Actually, its effectively a 20-year lease, for we have an option to extend the initial 10-year term by another 10 years.

And this extended lease period was very important to assure we would be able to count upon our grow operations contributing to CHV profits for a long time.

CCIM: Your news release in June stated you are building capacity to accept 1000 new patients per month. Patient count is seen as a key metric by many. How many patients does CHV have and how many of its patients can ABBIX supply if MFT patients opt for ABBIX medication?

CHV: MFT now has over 6,000 active clients, and we expect to onboard over 1,000 new clients every month through at least the end of next year.

At full capacity, our Abba Medix facility will likely never be able to provide more than 20% of our MFT clients’ cannabis needs.

CCIM: Somewhat of a follow up. How will CHV ensure supply from its various LP partners to its patients in the future (specifically, when recreational is legalized) and what are the plans for Abba Medix on that front – remain medical only or expand into the recreational market?

CHV: As we’ve found in Colorado, we expect the medical cannabis demand and supply to remain strong after recreational is legalized. Medical cannabis, available only be prescription, will likely remain less expensive than recreational, for it should not be taxed.

The LPs are making good money from growing and selling medical cannabis, and we expect they will continue to place great value upon serving this profitable and steadily growing market.

CCIM: As an Accountant, some items jump out at me more than others. Why the change in year end?

CHV: With the recent merger, there was a conflict of year ends amongst the companies, and the accountants made this decision, I understand.