Connect with us

One-Hit Wonders

Last Dance with Mary Jane? Faltering Cannabis Businesses May Have a Bankruptcy Option in Addition to State Law Remedies

Published

on


By  on 

For at least the past decade, federal bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited cannabis businesses from seeking protection under federal bankruptcy law, regardless of whether a cannabis business is legally operating under state law. The reason is that cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which, in addition to criminalizing the direct growing or selling of marijuana, also prohibits more indirect or downstream components connected to the enterprise, such as renting, managing, or using property for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.  A bankruptcy trustee tasked with administering the estate of a cannabis debtor in bankruptcy and liquidating assets like equipment, inventory or fertilizer, or collecting rents or profits of a marijuana business would, consequently, be violating the CSA.

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California broke from the routine and highlighted a path through which a distressed cannabis business may be able to pursue bankruptcy under federal law. The court in In re: The Hacienda Company, LLC allowed a former cannabis company to continue its Chapter 11 bankruptcy where the debtor company had, prior to filing its bankruptcy petition, stopped operating as a cannabis business itself and had transferred its intellectual property to a Canadian cannabis business in exchange for stock in that foreign company. The court paid homage to the CSA and to why violations of non-bankruptcy laws such as the CSA might establish cause to dismiss a cannabis debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings, but drew a distinction between pre-bankruptcy petition violations of law and post-bankruptcy petition violations, which it viewed as more problematic. Using that dichotomy as a guide, the court applied what it called a “middle road” approach — in which a bankruptcy court uses its discretion based on facts and circumstances — to determine whether the debtor’s connections to cannabis profits or past or future investments in cannabis warrant dismissal of its petition. The court noted that although indirect connections with illegal activity might violate non-bankruptcy law, the degree of the connection to that activity is important in deciding whether to dismiss the case. The court allowed the debtor’s Chapter 11 to proceed because the company had removed its wholesale cannabis product manufacturing and packaging business by the time it filed and was not looking to reorganize as a cannabis going concern. The Hacienda opinion marks a significant shift away from the U.S. trustee’s traditional “zero-tolerance” approach to cannabis and cannabis-related debtors and toward a more fact-based, case-by-case assessment and determination. After Hacienda, there is at least a glimmer of hope for failing cannabis businesses and creditors of accessing remedies under federal bankruptcy laws, but only time will tell if its reasoning will catch hold in other jurisdictions.

While Hacienda signals promise for the future insolvent cannabis debtor, current cannabis debtors (and investor/lenders) are experiencing lagging economic conditions, supply chain issues, and other external factors that continue to significantly impact profitability in the industry. Cannabis businesses in Oregon, California and Colorado, among other states, have recently seen factors such as inflation and overproduction of cannabis push median prices for useable cannabis down considerably and deflate sales over the past year as consumers spend more on groceries, gas and utilities. In Mississippi, where the Medical Cannabis Program is in its infancy, lagging patient enrollment numbers and license approval backlogs are impacting producers and dispensers, raising concerns over whether owners and investors in this fledgling industry are financially able to continue operations long enough to turn a profit.  Compounding those issues is the looming license renewal deadlines for cannabis business license holders in Mississippi, which will cost cultivators between $15,000 (Tier 1) and $150,000 (Tier VI) and dispensaries $25,000.  The imminent financial pressures that accompany many of the startups in this industry could ultimately lead to ownership disputes, creditor defaults or other situations that may result in the need for restructuring or liquidation sooner rather than later.

Without available bankruptcy options, debtors and creditors engaged in a cannabis business operating legally under state law may need to turn to state law remedies and non-bankruptcy restructuring or liquidation proceedings such as statutory common-law receiverships and assignments for the benefit of creditors. These alternatives are often not as “user friendly” as bankruptcy; they do not provide for an automatic stay or debt discharge as a remedial option, nor do they typically provide a well-developed and defined set of rights, powers and remedies as bankruptcy law. Nonetheless, these alternatives can provide effective forms of relief, particular where there are multiple competing creditors.

In Mississippi, receivership proceedings are governed by statute, and the appointment of a receiver rests exclusively within the discretion of the trial court. Mississippi imposes very few statutory restrictions on the authority of a receiver, which is typically limited only by the order of appointment or agreement of the parties. As a result, a receiver in Mississippi can be vested with broad authority and discretion to tailor workouts, restructures, or liquidations that are consistent with (and are usually drawn from or influenced by) established bankruptcy principles and can possibly do so in a more efficient and economical manner than traditional bankruptcy proceedings.  Distressed businesses operating in the cannabis space should consult with legal counsel about available options for restructuring or liquidation. Bradley attorneys have deep knowledge and experience with issues involving bankruptcy, creditors’ rights, workouts, receiverships and other similar matters and are prepared to help guide clients through difficult decisions.

Source:  https://www.buddingtrendsblog.com/2023/03/last-dance-with-mary-jane-faltering-cannabis-businesses-may-have-a-bankruptcy-option-in-addition-to-state-law-remedies/



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana

Published

on

By


No national standard exists to determine how long someone should wait to drive after consuming marijuana. However, experts at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment recommend waiting at least six hours after smoking less than 35 milligrams of THC and eight hours after eating or drinking something containing less than 18 milligrams.

For reference, a “typical” marijuana cigarette contains at least 60 milligrams of THC, and most edibles contain around 10 milligrams per serving size. A 12-hour wait is safer, as the high (and subsequent drowsiness) from smoking a typical amount lasts far longer.



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

How can it help distressed cannabis companies today?

Published

on

By


Without the option to declare bankruptcy—due to federal illegality—the only recourse for cannabis businesses in distress to become solvent and / or distribute assets to creditors is to enter into an expensive and difficult judicial cannabis receivership. Receiverships are inherently adversarial, and the required input from third-party experts, lawyers and regular engagement with the courts can be incredibly costly.

Meanwhile, businesses operating in mainstream sectors have the ability to declare bankruptcy. This is also a court-ordered procedure that allows companies to satisfy lenders by liquidating assets, restructuring operations and finances, and to enjoy a break of sorts to make deals with creditors and renegotiate contracts and leases. Without a change to federal banking laws, cannabis companies are blocked from the benefits of bankruptcy, and the situation is only getting worse.

Given the current tight capital market environment, the increase in cannabis distressed assets, and the shortage of options to cannabis operators to address said challenges, is there a possible alternative option to alleviate the rather dire situation?

 

Genesis—Transition from Equity Financing to Debt Financing

Equity financing has been the most prominent way to raise capital in cannabis for the last several years. However,recent data collected by Viridian Capital Advisorsreveals that debt currently makes up 93% of capital raised by U.S. cannabis cultivation and retail companies, compared to 55.7% in U.S. industries overall.

This change in the capital-raising environment, which has led to an increased number of creditors in the sector, combined with continued market pressures on cannabis businesses to remain competitive, make it highly likely that the industry will inevitably see more receiverships.

Ultimately, while debt financiers are willing to lend cannabis businesses money, they expect to be paid back on time and often with high interest. If the business begins to struggle and enters a distressed phase that leads to receivership, the business assets will be sold off and the secured lenders will be the first to get paid, while the business itself is likely not to recover much.

Consider an Administrative and Collateral Agent

With receiverships punishingly expensive and the debt financing landscapebordering on predatorial, distressed cannabis businesses are desperate for any assistance or support available.  An Administrative and Collateral Agent (ACA) could be the alternative support required, benefitting borrowers, lenders and regulators alike, and offering a more cost-effective and less punitive option to courts, receivers and lawyers.

Instead of dealing with the courts and an expensive court-appointed receiver, cannabis companies seeking relief could turn to an ACA to facilitate mediation between parties and create alignment within the industry, which does not exist today.

An ACA could create a level of trust, transparency and complementary positioning with industry participants that simply has not yet existed in cannabis. The use of an ACA could challenge the competing perceptions that there is already alignment between regulators, operators and lenders, or that a useful alignment between these parties could ever exist.

An ACA could be a real and valuable tool for state governments and regulators as they begin to understand that it is in their best interests to assist cannabis businesses in their states in the face of continued federal illegality and restrictions. Under a private agreement between parties, the ACA would conduct something more akin to an administrative receivership as opposed to the traditional judicial receivership that is the only current option for insolvent cannabis businesses to seek relief.

Building upon a Cannabis Credit Rating Framework

Ideally, an ACA would work within an industry-specific credit rating system for cannabis businesses in distress in order to work within an established framework for potential investors. If cannabis companies are ranked across an equitable, systematic and formulaiccredit rating system, borrowers, lenders and regulators would benefit from the quantifiable transparency afforded by said rating, and debt financing would have an inherent regulatory-like structure to prevent predatory lending. By avoiding the courts, the distressed cannabis company would save time, money and create a more attractive scenario for potential lenders.

Initial Path to Mitigating Solutions

While the current challenges facing cannabis businesses today are well documented and have risen to both creditors and regulators attention, a viable solution has yet to be identified. Most likely no one solution exists beyond waiting for the economic and capital environments to evolve. Yet, mitigating options do exist.

The introduction of an ACA is one such option. Questions remain as to the mechanics, regulatory, operative and fiscal alike, as well as who to trust to take it on. The introduction of a credit rating framework is the first step to creating a solid foundation from within which an ACA can operate transparently and equitably. Any potential buy-in from regulators, creditors and operators remains an open question.

All of that said, there is today an unprecedented set of market forces that is pushing all cannabis stakeholders to think outside of the box. The still growing opportunities in the cannabis industry, the will of operators to survive and succeed, as well as the increasing exposure from creditors, all point to not only an acceptance for the need of an alternative, but to the drive to do things differently.

Is your cannabis business in distress? Would you benefit from expert guidance and support in deciding on whether to enter into a receivership?Reach out to United CMC today.



Source link

Continue Reading

One-Hit Wonders

United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)

Published

on

By


Carter Ledyard is pleased to announce the launch of our short-video series on the cannabis industry focusing on business and legal issues for those companies and entities interested in doing business in New York.

This series offers a perspective on tax policy and specific statutes affecting cannabis businesses today. Our cannabis shorts are a great way to get to know our professionals, Alex Malyshev and Melinda Fellner, in quick and easy to watch clips, packed with the salient information you need.

In Part VI of our series, Alex and Melinda discuss licensing for cannabis businesses in New York. Watch below!

 



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media