The granting of an E-Liquid Manufacturing Permit is at the sole discretion of the ATC. Mulhaupt’s does not and cannot guarantee that an applicant utilizing Mulhaupt’s as its “Security Firm” will be granted an E-Liquid Manufacturing Permit. Consequently, all decisions relating to the expenditure of capital or the construction or modification of a manufacturing facility is at the sole judgement and discretion of the E-Liquid Manufacturing Permit applicant.
Inquiries may be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
Following the passage of the E-liquid legislation in the 2015 Indiana Legislative Session, Mulhaupt’s reviewed the legislation and preliminarily determined that it met the qualifications of a “Security Firm.” Mulhaupt’s hired counsel to assist it in understanding the legislation and to assist with the ATC. In January, based upon answers provided in a deposition as a part of a federal lawsuit calling into question the legitimacy of the E-liquid statute, Mulhaupt’s became aware that a provision of the statute can be considered ambiguous and under one reading Mulhaupt’s would not be qualified. The ATC Rule, which originally was thought to be in line with Mulhaupt’s belief that it was qualified, was not referenced in the question in the deposition but left Mulhaupt’s in the position of not knowing whether the rule clarified the ambiguity. Mulhaupt’s has continued to engage counsel to assist it in determining its ability to qualify. Mulhaupt’s is also aware that a legislative correction intended to clarify the ambiguity is being considered and may cure the concern. In the alternative, Mulhaupt’s believes that a full presentation to the ATC has a good chance at convincing the ATC that the ambiguity in the statute is lawfully cured by the ATC’s regulation.