Tag Archives: bankruptcy

Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies: Part 3

By Brent Salmons, Yuefan Wang
No Comments

Part 1 of this series discussed the lack of bankruptcy protections for cannabis companies, since bankruptcy in the U.S. is an exclusively federal procedure and cannabis remains illegal under federal law and proposed a number of alternative options for businesses struggling in the current environment. Part 2 of this series focused on state law receiverships for several states.

In this the third and final part of this series, we continue to review state law receiverships for several additional states and discuss the final non-bankruptcy option for cannabis companies, an assignment for the benefit of creditors.

Below is an overview of the laws and rules governing receiverships in several additional states which have legalized cannabis.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, receiverships are governed by statute, with numerous statutes for receivership in various industries and entity types but, in general, the appointment of a receiver is granted by a court after the filing of a complaint by third party, most frequently a secured creditor.

In keeping with its industry specific approach, the state cannabis regulator has enacted rules detailing the steps for a cannabis receivership. Most notable among these rules is a requirement to provide notice to the state regulator at least five days before filing a petition to appoint a receiver and, similar to the approach of Nevada, establishing minimum requirements for a person to serve as a receiver for a cannabis company (which generally require a person to pass a background check and have a crime-free past). In addition, because of the fairly restrictive local licensing in Massachusetts, coordination with the locality in which a cannabis company has operations is also required.

Michigan

Michigan has a broad receivership statute, in addition to both entity and industry specific statutes. The general receivership statute allows for the appointment of receivers as part of a court’s equitable powers so long as the appointment is permitted by law. In 2020, Michigan law was amended to specifically permit receivers to be appointed over cannabis companies. The state cannabis regulator’s rules require notice to such agency within 10 days following the appointment of a receiver, and Michigan law further provides that receivers may only operate a cannabis facility upon approval by the state regulator.

Anyone may seek the appointment of a receiver in Michigan, even if they have a connection to the property or business to be placed in the receivership. However, an action may not be brought solely to appoint a receiver but must instead be sought after an action for another claim has already been made. If a court determines it has cause to appoint a receiver, such receiver must have “sufficient competence, qualifications, and experience to administer the receivership estate”. Receivers in Michigan appointed under the general commercial receivership statute (including receivers over cannabis companies) are subject to the court’s equitable discretion but have broad powers, including the power to operate, restructure, liquidate, and sell the business.

Missouri

Like Michigan, Missouri has a general receivership statute as well as statutes for specific receivership situations, notably with respect to corporations. However, Missouri has not enacted any particular rules with respect to cannabis companies and as a result receiverships in Missouri have been conducted under the general receivership statute.

Receivers in Missouri are appointed by a court order following the application of a person with an interest in the assets over which the receivership is sought and an appointment may be made prior to any judgement having been rendered. In addition, the appointment of a receiver may be sought as an independent claim and not as an ancillary claim to another primary claim. Receivers may be granted powers as a general receiver (similar to “equity receivers” in other states) with powers over all of the assets of a debtor, or over specific property of a debtor.

Missouri’s cannabis regulations contain very few rules that specifically relate to a receivership, other than a requirement to provide notice to the state cannabis regulator within 5 days of a receivership filing. While some parties have cited a lack of cannabis specific rules as creating a lack of clarity regarding receivership in these states, Missouri courts and the state regulator appear to be applying the general receivership rules to the industry with at least one receivership in the state in the final stages of completion.

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors  

To conclude this series, we want to revisit another option we discussed in Part 1 for dealing with a financially troubled firm: an assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC). While voluntary negotiations with creditors is typically taken where the value of the underlying business clearly exceeds the liabilities of the business, and receivership is an avenue for creditors to seek a court to force a restructuring or liquidation of a business, even over the objections of the business itself, an ABC process can be appealing where the creditor and debtor maintain relatively amicable relations, but the value of the business is such that it is clear the equity holders have little to no value remaining in the business. A creditor may view the ABC process, which is generally a lower cost option as compared with a court-supervised receivership, as the superior proposition in these circumstances.

An ABC is a state common law or statutory remedy available to debtors that is roughly analogous to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or liquidating Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unlike a receivership, where a creditor applies to a court for the appointment of a receiver and such an appointment can be granted even over the objection of the debtor, an ABC is a step taken by the debtor itself to liquidate its assets in an orderly fashion with the proceeds paid to its creditors. While courts can be involved to resolve specific matters, and ABC process is principally undertaken without court involvement or direct supervision.

Unlike a receivership, an ABC is a step taken by the debtor itself to liquidate its assets in an orderly fashion with the proceeds paid to its creditorsTo initiate an ABC process, the debtor selects the assignee to take ownership of its assets and such assignee holds such assets in the functional equivalent of a trust for the benefit of the creditors of the debtor. As such, the assignee, while selected by the debtor, owes duties (typically fiduciary duties under state law) to the body of creditors.

Once the assignment has occurred, the assignee will engage in a relatively significant diligence effort in order to gain a clear understanding of the assets and liabilities of the debtor, to complete the assignment and to provide notice to third parties and creditors of the fact that the assignment has occurred. The assignee then generally oversees the operation of the business (if it is continuing) while moving to create a sale process for its assets, whether through some sort of public auction or a privately negotiated sale (which, as in bankruptcy proceedings, may include stalking horse bids).

One notable difference between the bankruptcy and receivership process and an ABC is that, in general, assets sold in an ABC are not sold free and clear of all underlying liens, meaning that senior secured creditors must consent to any sale, or their liens will travel with the assets.

While ABCs offer many advantages over receiverships, including a typically lower cost, flexibility in the selection of the assignee, and a generally easier and faster path to liquidation of assets, there are limitations, including the risk that a third party may seek to appoint a receiver after an ABC has been commenced or that the compensation package granted the assignee is disproportionately high, each of which could ultimately result in higher costs for all involved. Furthermore, sales of assets in an ABC are not automatically sold free and clear of all liens.

In the end, regardless of where a cannabis company may be operating, the lack of access to federal bankruptcy courts does not deprive the company or its creditors of viable avenues to restructure or liquidate a business. However, because these options are less familiar to those who typically operate in the bankruptcy-centric restructuring arena in other industries, companies and creditors in the cannabis space are well advised to consult with counsel familiar with the cannabis industry and the restructuring alternatives that remain available to them.

Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies: Part 2

By Brent Salmons, Yuefan Wang
No Comments

Part 1 of this series discussed the lack of bankruptcy protections for cannabis companies, since bankruptcy in the U.S. is an exclusively federal procedure and cannabis remains illegal under federal law and proposed a number of alternative options for businesses struggling in the current environment. Part 2 of this series focuses on one of these alternatives: state law receiverships.

Background

A cannabis operation facing financial difficulties may try to avail itself, on the one hand, of the contractual remedies described in Part 1 of this series, but these remedies may be flimsy given their narrow scope and reliance on voluntary negotiation between parties whose relationship is already likely tense; on the other hand, the statutory remedies described in Part 1 of this series may be too rigid and absolute, necessitating the disposition of a business as a collection of assets, instead of its continued operation as a going concern. An alternative is receivership, a flexible but powerful quasi-judicial approach paralleling federal bankruptcy able to be administered by state courts. Compared to federal bankruptcy, state receivership is both over and under-inclusive: while receivership can be used in many more situations than insolvency, such as a financially healthy business that is nonetheless subject to regulatory action, receivership provides less comprehensive protection for an insolvent business.

Receiverships have their roots in English and Welsh courts of equity, which were seen as offering fairer remedies than their contemporary common law courts, bound as they were by ponderous precedent. In contrast, courts of equity had more discretion to apply remedies which could be more tailored and “equitable” to an individual petitioner, even if such remedies were not codified. While this separation of equitable and common law courts does not generally exist in the modern U.S. legal system (except for a few hold-out states, most notably, Delaware), the legacy remains in the type of civil remedy available: while most remedies are awarded as monetary redress for a past wrong suffered by a plaintiff (e.g. liquidated damages for the discloser of confidential information or the “benefit of the bargain” for the seller of a company), equitable remedies often require prospective action (or forbearance of an action) by the defendant (e.g. an injunction on disclosure by a recipient of confidential information or specific performance by a purchaser of a company). To draw the analogy out, bankruptcy is a “legal” process to address insolvency since it is governed by a comprehensive regime of federal statutes and rules in the Bankruptcy Code (which is, ironically, applied by specialized federal courts), while receivership is the “equitable” side of the same coin: a judicially-created remedy to manage or liquidate a business, among other actions, where it would not be equitable (or, most importantly for cannabis businesses, not possible) for a bankruptcy action.

Some states with legalized cannabis have cannabis-specific receivership statutes, usually providing that the receiver either be temporarily or fully licensed similar to any other operator of a cannabis business.As an equitable remedy used by various states and federal entities, generalizations about the receivership process are difficult to make. However, broadly speaking, a typical receivership process begins with a complaint filed against the entity for which receivership is sought in state court. This filing can be made by a variety of parties outside of the standard debtor-creditor relationship (reflecting the equitable nature of receiverships), including by regulators and disputing owners of a business. After this filing, a motion to appoint the receiver (which is usually but not always a third party) is filed with the court; consent of the opposing party is generally not required in appointing a receiver but can often make the process easier. The complainant must then establish standing and the occurrence of certain events, including insolvency, but also mismanagement of a corporation or a foreclosure. The requirements of such events are fact-specific and may often be governed by statute or the contractual relationship between parties. The order appointing the receiver usually sets out the specific powers the receiver has in any given case to oversee the disposition or operation of the assets subject to the receivership (called the “receivership estate”) for the benefit of its’s creditors.

Receivership laws generally fall into two categories: some states provide for a broad general statute, sometimes accompanied by statutes specific to industries which are heavily regulated, entity types, or process, while in other states the power is an extension of the court’s powers, set forth in the state’s rules of civil procedure. States also differ as to whether a receivership is considered an independent remedy, a standalone legal action which can be pursued in and of itself (e.g. a petition by a creditor to appoint a receiver to resolve settle an unpaid debt), or an ancillary remedy, a legal action that supports a primary claim (e.g. a request to appoint a receiver in connection with a dispute over the ownership of a business). Some states provide for general receiverships, which allows receivers to take control of an entire business, while other states also allow limited receiverships, which allows the receiver take control of a portion of a business, while the owner operates the remainder. Some states with legalized cannabis have cannabis-specific receivership statutes, usually providing that the receiver either be temporarily or fully licensed similar to any other operator of a cannabis business.1

Below is an overview of the laws and rules governing receiverships in certain states which have legalized cannabis.

Arizona
In Arizona, receivership is governed by statute, with a general statute and specific statutes for certain industries and type of receivership. Arizona law recognizes that principles of equity apply to all matters relating to receivers, providing the court overseeing the receivership with additional power to decide the remedies available to the receiver. In addition, Arizona has enacted a specific statutory framework for the appointment of receivers for commercial real property and personal property related to or used in operating the real property. Arizona also uses a separate receivership statute to provide for corporate dissolution receiverships, in which a court in a judicial corporate dissolution proceeding may appoint one or more receivers to wind-up, liquidate, or manage the business and affairs of the corporation.

There are no specific statutes governing receiverships of cannabis businesses, so the general receivership statute applies to cannabis businesses, subject to Arizona’s rules governing the operation of a cannabis business. For example, Arizona cannabis regulations that require anyone volunteering or working at a medical or recreational cannabis dispensary to be registered with the cannabis regulator similarly apply to a receiver appointed over a licensed cannabis business.

California

California does not have significant entity-specific or industry-specific statutes for receiverships; rather a California court’s power to appoint a receiver is granted under the state’s rules of civil procedure. Receiverships in California are solely an ancillary remedy; a receivership is commenced once a complaint is filed and any party to the action may seek to appoint a receiver. Circumstances that allow for the appointment of a receiver are fact-specific and at the discretion of a judge, although contractual provisions for the appointment of a receiver are given weight under the rules. Sales of assets in the receivership estate must be submitted to, and approved by, the appointing court.

While the rules of civil procedure provide for the general powers of a receiver, the specific powers a receiver possesses in any given case is granted by the judicial order appointing the receiver; this appointment order is therefore, along with the court itself, the primary authority for the parties in any given receivership. California explicitly disqualifies certain persons, such as parties to the lawsuit, an attorney of a party, a person interested in an action, or any person related to any judge of the court within the third degree, as receivers.

While California’s receivership rules do not explicitly contemplate cannabis businesses, receiverships for cannabis companies have taken place, but in our experience are less common in California than assignments for the benefit of creditors (which we will address in a later article). Like other licensed businesses in California, cannabis companies must provide notice to the state regulatory agency which granted the license. It is up to the agency’s discretion whether the business may be operated under the existing license or whether the receiver must secure a new or temporary license.

Colorado

Like California, no generally applicable receivership statute exists in Colorado; instead, receiverships are governed by the state’s rules of civil procedure. Under these rules, a receiver can be appointed under a court’s general equitable powers. Appointment of a receiver is an independent remedy in Colorado, but is contingent on a lawsuit having commenced and the court having deemed the receivership as necessary and proper. In addition to the court’s general equitable powers to appoint a receiver, and unlike California, Colorado has receivership statutes that are entity and industry specific. The entity-specific statutes permit the appointment of a receiver for the judicial dissolution of for-profit corporations, non-profit corporations, limited liability companies, and cooperatives, and the industry-specific statutes permit the appointment of a receiver for the windup of failed insurance companies and the closure of long-term care facilities.

Similar to California, the court order appointing a receiver governs the entire receivership process and any disposition of the assets of the receivership estate must be submitted to and approved by the court.

As befitting the first state to legalize adult-use cannabis, Colorado’s cannabis regulations specifically address receiverships: the rules create a notice and application requirement for all court appointees, including receiverships, and require receivers to register with the regulator as a “temporary appointee” of the court.

Illinois

Illinois does not have a comprehensive receivership statute; instead, the state has industry-specific statutes, including for regulated industries such as nursing home facilities and telecommunication carriers. Illinois also provides for “equity receiverships”, which are used as an ancillary remedy in business disputes in order to stabilize a business that is adversely affected by fraud, neglect, waste, dissipation, or other misconduct during the pendency of the underlying proceeding. If the underlying matter is within the general or statutory jurisdiction of the court, then such court has jurisdiction over the receivership.

There are no specific statutes governing receiverships of cannabis businesses, but the governing statute does contemplate operation of a cannabis business by a receiver, so regulations promulgated thereunder should apply to receivers as well, including with respect to licensing.

Maryland

Adult-use cannabis sales only began in Maryland July 1, 2023. Maryland has a general receivership statute.

Receivers in Maryland are generally appointed by the person seeking appointment, including the court, and must meet certain qualifications, such as not having any material financial interest in the outcome of the receivership, and not having any debtor-creditor relationship with or equity interest in any party to the receivership. While the general receivership statute provides for broad powers of the receiver, including general management of receivership property, hiring professionals, and issuing subpoenas, the court may modify or expand the powers of the receiver via the appointment order.

While there is no cannabis-specific receivership statute, Maryland’s medical cannabis rules contemplate and authorize the transfer of licenses to a receivership; similar rules have been proposed for adult-use cannabis licenses as well.

Nevada

Nevada has a broad receivership statute, in addition to both entity and industry specific statutes. Case law is not well-developed and mostly predates the current statutory scheme, but there is support for a receiver being appointed outside of a statutory context, specifically when the situation is governed by contractual agreement.

The general receivership statute provides that a receiver may be appointed in a variety of situations, such as fraudulent property purchases, foreclosure of mortgages, or the dissolution or insolvency of a corporation.

Nevada has a statutory regime for receiverships for cannabis companies. Unlike the general statute, there are significant requirements for who can be a receiver for a cannabis business. A receiver must first secure a cannabis establishment agent registration card for a cannabis receiver issued by Nevada’s cannabis regulator. In addition, the receiver must submit an application to the regulator accompanied by, among other requirements, a statement saying the receiver has not previously had an agent registration card revoked. The receiver must also provide proof that she has (1) experience or knowledge of the cannabis industry, (2) experience as a receiver appointed by a court, (3) knowledge and skills necessary to make reasonable financial decisions, and (4) adequate financial capacity to fulfill the duties of a receiver. If the regulator is satisfied with the receiver’s application, it will issue the receiver an agent registration card which must be renewed two years after issuance. It is worth noting that Nevada’s statute governing the non-transferability of certain agent registration cards for cannabis allows the regulator to adopt regulations that give priority in the processing of transfers of licenses for transferors subject to receivership. To date, however, no such regulations allowing priority for receivership processing have been adopted.

Washington

Washington has a general receivership statute, but not any entity or industry-specific receivership statutes. Washington’s receivership structure with overhauled in 2004 with the passage of a new law, so it is not completely settled whether receivership is now an independent or ancillary remedy; however, the language of the statute language suggests that it is an independent remedy.

To be appointed a receiver in Washington, the individual must meet certain requirements, including not being a party to, or be closely controlled by a party to, the underlying action and not having materially adverse interest to the person against whom receivership is sought. The general statute specifically outlines the powers of the receiver. Certain actions by the receiver require court approval before being finalized, including the assumption or rejection of executory contracts, and sales of property outside the ordinary course of business.

Washington law specifically provides for receiverships for cannabis companies. To be a receiver, the person must satisfy the requirements of Washington’s receivership law, and either be preapproved by the cannabis regulator or else be approved post-application. In order to qualify for the regulator’s preapproved receiver list, or be approved post-application, the putative receiver must (1) submit an application, (2) have been a Washington resident for at least six months prior to submission, (3) submit to and pass a criminal background check, (4) provide financial disclosures as requested by the regulator, and (5) disclose any interests in the cannabis licensees. Once a person is appointed as receiver for a cannabis licensee, she shall not have a financial interest in, or simultaneously serve as receiver for, another licensed cannabis retailer. The receiver may not also serve as a receiver for, or be a party of interest in, more than five cannabis retail licensees or more than three cannabis producer and/or processor licensees at the same time. Finally, any person who files a receivership action involving a cannabis licensee must provide notice to the regulator.

Part 3 of this series on Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies continue our review of receivership in various states and other bankruptcy alternatives, including assignments for the benefit of creditors.

Reference

  1.  As cannabis legalization continues to spread, more robust industry-specific receivership rules may be promising given the heavily regulated and specialized nature of the business, similar to how a number of states have industry-specific rules for other heavily regulated industries.

Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Companies: Part 1

By Brent Salmons, Yuefan Wang
No Comments

The problems facing the cannabis industry arising from its ongoing status as a federally illegal enterprise are numerous and well documented: 280E tax burdens, limited access to banking, exclusion from capital markets, uneven access to federal intellectual property right protections and the inability to access the stream of interstate commerce. The recent woes faced by cannabis companies operating in mature markets reveal another key legal hurdle for cannabis companies, their investors and their creditors: the inability to access federal bankruptcy protection. However, cannabis companies may have access to a number of contractual and state law remedies to deal with insolvency and other financial woes.

Background

Bankruptcy laws in the United States are unique in the world; nowhere else is access to bankruptcy so available or forgiving for ordinary citizens and companies alike, allowing debtors a fresh start by either liquidating their assets or reorganizing their debt. Commentators have observed that such favorable bankruptcy laws encourage entrepreneurship and have been at least partially responsible for American innovation. Indeed, the ability of Congress to enact bankruptcy laws is enshrined in the United States Constitution. Like almost all laws in the U.S. at the time, bankruptcy was originally the domain of the various states; it was not until the late 18th century that Congress saw the importance of a uniform set of protections for debtors and passed the first federal bankruptcy law in 1800; since then, bankruptcy has been exclusively the purview of federal law, with current bankruptcy law governed by the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Yuefan Wang, attorney at Husch Blackwell

This exclusivity, however, poses a problem for state-regulated cannabis businesses: because cannabis is federally illegal, in the eyes of the United States Trustee Program, a division of the United States Department of Justice responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy proceedings, the reorganization of any cannabis business amounts to “supervis[ing] an ongoing criminal enterprise regardless of its status under state law.” Therefore, since there is no such thing as state law bankruptcy, even cannabis companies operating in full compliance with state laws do not have access to any bankruptcy protections.1

All financing transactions, whether debt or equity, occur in the shadow of bankruptcy. The basic distinction between debt and equity is predicated on the favorable treatment of holders of the former compared to holders of the latter (within debt, the favorable treatment of secured debt over unsecured debt), and this is true, especially in bankruptcy. Even beyond distribution priorities, the Bankruptcy Code’s provisions on automatic stays, avoiding powers, and discharge fundamentally shape the relationship between debtors and creditors: a bankruptcy judge has the power to impose the Bankruptcy Code on the relationship between a debtor and its creditors, no matter their previous contractual relationships. Just as the possibility of litigation is a Sword of Damocles hanging over any legal disputes, the prospect of a bankruptcy filing affects any negotiations between a debtor and its creditors ab initio. Therefore, when financial problems arise and a cannabis company must begin the difficult task of approaching its lenders for relief, it does so without an effective incentive for creditors to come to the table available to other companies in otherwise similar situations.

Alternatives to Bankruptcy

Just as disputants often prefer the contractual certainty of a settlement agreement to the capriciousness of a jury, debtors and creditors may choose extra-judicial solutions for insolvency. The downward trend in bankruptcies over the last few decades may partially be the product of such out-of-court arrangements, and debtors and creditors are increasingly comfortable with them as an alternative to voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy filing. While the effectiveness of these solutions is, in industries other than cannabis, ultimately evaluated with bankruptcy in mind, these solutions may also be preferable for a creditor of a cannabis company that is defaulting on its obligations.

Contractual Remedies: Lender Workouts, Exchange Offers and Composition Agreements

Given that the relationship between a debtor and its creditors is essentially contractual, the parties may choose to modify their relationship in any manner to which they can mutually agree. A lender workout is an agreement for a financially distressed company to adjust its debt obligations with a creditor (or often multiple creditors given that a lender’s payment obligations to one creditor necessarily affect its obligations to its other creditors). These contractual adjustments are tailored to the particular situation and can take the form of deferrals of payments of interest or principal, extensions of maturity dates, covenant relief (e.g., adjustment of the lender’s debt-to-asset ratio or other financial covenants which would otherwise trigger an event of default), and/or debt-for-equity swaps. This last option (including its related concepts, such as grants of options or warrants) is especially prevalent in the cannabis industry, given that cannabis companies often do not have traditional bank debt (though, at the same time, such solutions may be increasingly unattractive to creditors given lower valuations and the prevalence of equity as a form of consideration in cannabis mergers and acquisitions transactions).

Brent Salmons, attorney at Husch Blackwell

Similarly, an exchange offer restructures a faltering company’s capital stack. Typically, a company facing a default will offer its equity-holders new debt or equity securities in exchange for its outstanding debt securities, which new securities have more favorable terms, such as covenants, events of defaults and maturity. Exchange offers have the same goal as lender workouts in that they seek to eliminate a class of securities with an impending maturity date, event of default or breach of a covenant.

Composition agreements are contractual arrangements between a debtor and its creditors whereby the creditors agree to accept less favorable claims in order for the debtor to reorganize its operations so that the debtor’s future inflows can meet its reduced outflows, with the alternative being a complete collapse of the debtor (in which case no one, or perhaps only the most senior secure lenders, is repaid). These agreements often provide for oversight by a committee of the creditors and will often involve contractual promises by creditors to forbear from exercising their previously existing rights until a defined triggering event.

Statutory Remedies: UCC Article 9 Sales and ABCs

If the contractual remedies described above are akin to Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, whereby a company in dire (but ultimately salvageable) straits continues to operate while its debt obligations are reorganized, state law statutory remedies are analogous to Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings; the business is a sinking ship and must liquidate its assets to maximize payments to its creditors (in the bankruptcy context, per the rules of absolute priority). Such liquidation is governed by rules under state law which may be available to cannabis companies.

If a creditor has a security interest in the collateral of a debtor, then the most popular option is usually a sale under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is a standardized set of laws and regulations for conducting business, including lending. The UCC itself is not law; rather it is a codex that has been adopted by most states and incorporated into their statutes as law, usually with some variations. UCC Article 9 deals with secured transactions and, in particular, provides for the sale and disposition of collateral subject to a security interest upon a default by the debtor. Similar to a §363 sale under the Bankruptcy Code, a sale under UCC Article 9 provides for a “friendly foreclosure” whereby a defaulting debtor and its lenders cooperate to facilitate a sale of the secured collateral.

Article 9 imposes certain parameters on such dispositions, including that foreclosure sales be “commercially reasonable”, which the UCC specifies as meaning that the collateral be sold in a reasonable and customary manner on a recognized market, at then-current market prices. If the sale was approved in a judicial proceeding, by a bona fide creditors’ committee, by a representative of creditors or by an assignee for the benefit of creditors, then this creates a presumption of commercial reasonability under the UCC.

A less common option is an assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABCs). Laws governing such assignments vary by state and are generally rare, with California being a notable exception where both ABCs are more common and where cannabis is legal. An ABC is initiated by the debtor, which then enters into an agreement to assign its assets to a third-party assignee, which holds such assets in trust for the benefit of the creditors and is then responsible for their liquidation, similar in principle to a trustee in bankruptcy.

ABCs, however, are generally not suitable for cannabis companies as the third-party assignee would not be able to take possession of a licensed cannabis business, or certain assets such as cannabis plants, distillates and other products, without itself being licensed by the relevant state regulatory agency. A similar problem occurs under Article 9 sales, whereby the purchaser of the collateral must be licensed in order to possess and operate cannabis product and, more importantly, the all-important state-issued licenses which provide a cannabis company with the authority to operate as such; the pool of potential purchasers is therefore limited to those purchasers already licensed or which are willing to undergo the burdensome process of becoming licensed, hence shrinking the market for such assets and reducing their value. These issues may be resolved in some states by the assignor/seller entering into a management services agreement with the assignee/purchaser, pursuant to which the assignee/purchaser effectively manages the operations of the cannabis business. These agreements, however, need to be carefully drafted so that they are not seen as constituting ownership of the business by the assignee/purchaser (until the actual transfer of the licenses occurs), as defined under applicable state law.

  1. While absolutely true for “plant-touching” companies, recent cases in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provide some (fact-dependent) hope for cannabis-adjacent companies such as those housing the employees or intellectual property of a plant-touching operational cannabis company (this structure itself largely a solution to deal with federal illegality).

The Distressed Cannabis Business: An Alternative to Bankruptcy

By Paula Durham, Scott E. Evans
No Comments

Bankruptcy is Not an Option

Bankruptcy courts do not provide protection to cannabis and cannabis-related businesses.Bankruptcy can be a very helpful tool for a distressed business. Bankruptcy allows a business to stop collection actions, discharge certain debts, cancel unfavorable contracts and provides breathing room to restructure the business.

What if your cannabis operation is struggling or failing – file for bankruptcy, right? Not so fast. Despite cannabis being legalized or decriminalized for certain activities at the state level, it remains illegal at the federal level. Therefore, the bankruptcy court will not provide protection to cannabis and cannabis-related businesses (CRB).

Alternatives to Bankruptcy

A State Court receiver may be the best alternative when bankruptcy is not an option.Enter the state court receivership. Receivership is an equitable remedy that is often employed as an alternative to a bankruptcy proceeding. A receivership can address business insolvency or can be a temporary remedy during legal proceedings between disputing business partners, with control of the enterprise hanging in the balance.

In either scenario, the court appointed receiver takes control of the business and must assess the posture of the business and determine the best path forward. The receiver’s options run the gamut from operating the company as is, restructuring operations to maximize profit or closing shop and liquidating the business as a whole or in pieces. The receiver has a fiduciary responsibility to determine the option that best satisfies creditors, similar to duties required of a trustee in a bankruptcy.

The importance of having a receiver well-versed in the cannabis industry cannot be overstated.Distressed cannabis companies are often prime candidates for receivership. Cannabis is a burgeoning industry with huge growth and profit potential. However, worlds have collided in the Green Rush, where business-minded individuals, often with little knowledge of cannabis, have partnered with individuals well-versed in cannabis culture, cultivation and consumption, but with little experience operating a business. Add a dash of complex state laws and regulatory drama in the form of the federal/state divide on legality, a dollop of fraud potential due to the largely all-cash nature of the business and you’ve created the perfect recipe for insolvency, litigation or both. In these often-chaotic conditions it is easy for a cannabis company to become unprofitable. A receiver can add significant value by stabilizing the business while the litigation proceeds or while developing a restructuring plan. In either case the goal of a receivership is to maximize the value of a business for the benefit of its stakeholders.

If you are considering restructuring options for your cannabis operation, a receivership can be an excellent choice. However, a cannabis receivership is not for the faint of heart. There are two significant areas that distinguish cannabis receiverships from receiverships involving non-cannabis businesses: First, the complex regulatory environment and second, banking. The importance of having a receiver well-versed in the cannabis industry cannot be overstated. Making a mistake in these areas can cause more harm than good. 

Complex Regulatory Environment

Cannabis operations are subject to a complicated regulatory framework that varies by state as well as by type of legalization (medical versus adult use cannabis). Receivers unfamiliar with the cannabis industry and the associated regulatory framework will be behind the curve on day one.

Upon appointment over a cannabis entity a receiver becomes responsible for the regulatory posture of that entity.Regulatory hurdles begin at the outset of a receivership. Although receivership is an excellent restructuring option for cannabis operators in distress, regulations surrounding the authorization requirements for those operating the business on a day-to-day basis (including receivers) vary by state. Some states, but not all, even have specific regulations for receiverships.

For example, the rules and regulations for cannabis operators in Colorado administered by the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) include provisions for receiverships. Specifically, the MED requires court appointees, including receivers, to register with the State Licensing Authority as Temporary Appointee[s] of the Court within seven days of appointment.

Similarly, Washington State cannabis regulations directly address receiverships. Specifically, Title 314 allows receivers or trustees to operate a licensed cannabis business, but the receiver must be qualified by the Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB). Qualification requirements include  active status on the LCB preapproved receiver list or submission of an application to serve as a receiver for a licensee within two days of appointment. Furthermore, to serve as a receiver of a Washington state cannabis licensee the receiver must meet residency requirements.

Conversely, the Arizona cannabis laws and rules do not specifically address cannabis receiverships. Nevertheless, Arizona does require anyone volunteering or working at a medical or recreational cannabis dispensary to be registered with the Arizona Department of Health Services as either a Dispensary Agent (DA) or a Facility Agent (FA). Therefore, a receiver appointed over a licensed cannabis business in Arizona must obtain the applicable registration upon appointment in order to take control of the licensed entity in a compliant manner.

The fun doesn’t stop after the initial appointment hurdles are cleared. The regulatory environment across the country is a patchwork of complex laws. States that have legalized or decriminalized cannabis on some level have instituted often complex rules surrounding the cultivation, manufacture, wholesale and retail sale of cannabis. Even seemingly simple concepts such as the definition of cannabis are not so simple in some states. For example, Massachusetts includes cannabidiol (CBD) in its definition of cannabis while Arizona does not.

Some states, like California, do not allow the sale of cannabis licenses. Other states, like Colorado, allow for the transfer of commercial cannabis licenses. In a turnaround situation it is particularly important to understand the options available to liquidate a licensee’s assets.

Similarly, many, but not all states have rules requiring cannabis product testing by accredited laboratories prior to retail sale. Most states require THC potency testing, while others (like California and Colorado) also require testing for pesticides and toxins. Conversely, testing for toxins and contaminates is voluntary in Florida. Product testing is expensive and time-consuming, and operators must have a comprehensive system in place to ensure compliant product is available for sale to retail and wholesale customers.

Even taxes are different for cannabis businesses. A receiver must understand and be able to manage a cannabis business in order to comply with and minimize taxes under the infamous 280e regulations of the U.S. tax code.

Upon appointment over a cannabis entity a receiver becomes responsible for the regulatory posture of that entity. Accordingly, the receiver must ensure that any regulatory deficiencies are identified and corrected in order to ensure compliant operation.

We’ve highlighted just a few of the myriad of regulatory concerns facing a receiver upon appointment. It is critical to engage a receiver who has experience working under the complex cannabis regulatory structure for your distressed cannabis operation.

Banking

One of the most important things a receiver does upon appointment is to identify and secure the assets of the entity in receivership, including cash. This normally involves opening a bank account in the name of the receivership entity that is controlled solely by the receiver and moving cash assets into the controlled account.

This typically ordinary task is not so easy with a cannabis operation. Because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, processing funds derived from the sale of cannabis (even sales that are legal at the state level) can be considered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as aiding and abetting criminal activity or money laundering.A receiver must negotiate the complex banking regulations regarding cannabis businesses and effectively manage the large amounts of cash, which may not be bankable.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) issued guidance in 2014 that cleared the way for financial institutions to service canna-businesses (2014 Guidance). The 2014 Guidance requires financial institutions who choose to provide services to CRBs to design and implement a thorough customer due diligence review that includes, in part, analyzing the licensing of the entity, developing an understanding of the business operations of the entity, and ongoing monitoring of the entity. In addition, financial institutions are required to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) for every transaction they process for a CRB, should they choose to accept the business.

While this is a positive step forward, it is a heavy compliance burden that comes at a cost. Naturally, compliance costs incurred by banks to service cannabis operators are passed on to the customer; fees of $2,500 per month per account are not uncommon. The high compliance costs, coupled with the significant regulatory risk, keeps most banks out of the cannabis market; thus, making it hard, but not impossible, for a receiver appointed over a cannabis operation or CRB to obtain banking.

While banking options do exist, the reality is that most canna-businesses operate on a cash basis. Distressed cannabis operations may not have the cashflow to afford banking services, at least at the outset of a receivership. Further compounding the banking problem, some banks that are open to cannabis are not open to receiverships, further limiting banking options.

A receiver therefore must be prepared to quickly secure all cash assets of the receivership entity and ensure appropriate internal controls are in place to control cash on an ongoing basis.

Cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized in a majority of U.S. states but remains illegal at the federal level. Therefore, federal bankruptcy protection is not generally an option available for a distressed canna business. However, not all is lost because state receiverships offer an excellent restructuring option for distressed cannabis operations.

Cannabis Receiverships: A Viable Alternative to Bankruptcy

By Oren Bitan
No Comments

Doing business in California’s legal cannabis industry remains a risky endeavor. The majority of the industry is still unlicensed, tax rates at the state and local levels are high (notwithstanding a recent reprieve from California’s cultivation tax) and there are not enough licenses to meet geographic demand throughout the state. Outside financing remains difficult to secure for equipment, tenant improvements, account receivables and working capital because, under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis remains a Schedule I narcotic. Therefore, entrepreneurs, investors and lenders who have stakes in state-sanctioned cannabis enterprises expect to see returns that justify the higher level of risk, which places additional financial pressure on cannabis businesses. In addition to the industry specific challenges, the United States economy is on the verge of a recession that may further hamper the industry notwithstanding the industry’s resiliency during the pandemic when it was deemed to be an “essential” industry that benefited from consumer spending of stimulus monies.

These outside pressures increasingly lead to ownership disputes and creditor defaults that result in litigation and the need for restructuring. In some instances, business partners cannot agree about control and finances of the licensed businesses and in other instances unpaid creditors file suit to enforce their interest in a company’s assets. And sometimes a local municipality discovers wrongdoing by an operator and initiates a health and safety lawsuit to cease the illegal condition.

Bankruptcy reorganization is an option typically utilized by struggling businesses to shed or restructure debt. Cannabis businesses, however, cannot take advantage of bankruptcy remedies because bankruptcy is a product of federal law and federal law still prohibits the sale of cannabis.

As a result, stakeholders in legal California cannabis enterprises must consider alternatives to bankruptcy to collect what they can on their loans and investments in the event the enterprise becomes insolvent or requires restructuring. A well-established alternative to bankruptcy is a state court remedy – the appointment of a receiver over the assets of a business or over the entire business operations. Through the receivership process, stakeholders may obtain many of the same protections available to them through bankruptcy

A. Federal Illegality Bars Access to Bankruptcy Protection

Over the past ten years, bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited licensed cannabis businesses from seeking bankruptcy protection because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Bankruptcy trustees are typically charged with managing and operating property in the same manner that the owner would be bound to do if in possession thereof. Because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, trustees are not able to manage and operate licensed cannabis businesses.

B. Receivership as an Alternative to Bankruptcy

Under California law, a receiver is a neutral agent of the court appointed to preserve, control, manage and ultimately dispose of property that is subject to the litigation before the court.1 The receiver, therefore, holds property for the court, not the parties to the litigation.

Appointment of a receiver is a statutory provisional remedy. Other than corporate dissolutions under Code of Civil Procedure section 565, the law does not have a specific cause of action to appoint a receiver. Thus, the proponent of a receiver must have a valid cause of action in an underlying lawsuit.

1. The Appointment of a Receiver

The appointment of a receiver rests within the trial court’s discretion. Code of Civil Procedure section 564 contains the broadest statutory authority to appoint a receiver. Subdivision (b), details twelve possible situations in which a receiver may be appointed, most of which are beyond the scope of this article. The most common of these is a lender’s request to appoint a receiver when a borrower defaults on a loan and the lender seeks the appointment of a receiver over its collateral. The statute, however, clarifies that the situations listed in the statute are not exclusive: a court may appoint a receiver “[i]n all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.”

The receiver’s powers are limited by the statute under which the court appointed the receiver and those conferred by the court. The appointment order should, therefore, detail the duties the receiver owes to the court, and actions that the court authorizes the receiver to take to perform those tasks. The order should also specify the property that will be part of the receivership estate.

2. The Receiver’s Powers

The receiver has general statutory powers.2 The statutory powers include (i) commencing or defending litigation; (ii) taking and possessing property of the receivership estate, (iii) receiving rent, collecting debts, and making transfers, and (iv) acting in accordance with the court’s instruction with respect to the property.3 But the court’s authorization is necessary to sue the receiver and for the receiver to commence litigation.4 In the foregoing scenarios, the receiver is immunized personally from tort liability, but not in his or her official capacity as receiver.5

In addition to taking possession of property, the receiver may dispose of receivership property with the court’s approval.6 If the receiver is an equity receiver, the receiver may take possession and satisfy creditors from all the debtor’s assets.7

The court may further authorize the receiver to issue “certificates of indebtedness” to raise money to administer the receivership estate.8 This device permits the receiver to provide liquidity to the estate and gives the certificate holder an interest-bearing priority claim against the receivership estate.

3. Liquidating Cannabis Assets Through a Court Appointed Receiver

After the court appoints the receiver, the receiver should have sufficient powers to, among other things: (i) take over the management of the company; (ii) open bank accounts; (iii) borrow money by issuing receivership certificates; (iv) manage all of the company’s property; (v) hire counsel and other professionals; and (vi) sell the receivership estate’s assets for the benefit of the creditors. To maximize repayment to the creditors, the receiver may hold an auction to sell the assets and assist in facilitating the cancellation of company’s state license while the buyer of the assets secures its state license after the local license is transferred.

State cannabis licenses may not be sold or transferred.9 Yet, to maximize recovery for the creditors, the receiver may need to participate in the regulatory process to maintain a license during the pendency of the receivership and to assist in the amendment of a license while a prospective buyer seeks to obtain its own license. To do so, the receiver will first need to qualify as a licensee under state law to join as a licensee on the license and further the licensee as a going concern. Next, the principals of the prospective buyer will themselves need to qualify as licensees under the license. Then, once the sale of the company’s assets (including any interest in the license) to the buyer closes, the receiver and the company’s original owners will terminate their capacities as licensees of the license, leaving only the new owners as licensees. Thus, the proposed order should be written with attention to ensure the receiver has powers to further the foregoing and not diminish the value of the receivership estate.

After the conclusion of the sale of all assets, the receiver will need to obtain a discharge from the court of his or her duties as receiver. The receiver may do so by the parties’ stipulation or by motion. Together with the request for a discharge, the receiver should seek approval to pay: (i) any lenders to the receivership estate; (ii) professionals that the receiver hired; and (iii) him or herself for his or her services. Upon the court’s approval, the receivership will be terminated.

The conflict between federal and California law regarding cannabis continues to be an impediment for stakeholders in California’s cannabis market. Because of this conflict, stakeholders in California’s legal cannabis market lack access to vital traditional institutions, such as bankruptcy remedies. As a result, stakeholders must be prepared to consider alternatives such as a court appointed receiver, which can be a useful alternative to both secured creditors and unsecured creditors. Stakeholders who pursue a court appointed receiver will benefit from a long-established body of law and experienced professionals.

References

  1. Cal. Rules of Ct., r. 3.1179(a).
  2. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 568-570.
  3. Free Gold Mining Co. v. Spiers, 136 Cal. 484, 486 (1902); Steinberg v. Goldstein, 129 Cal. App. 2d 682, 685 (1954).
  4. Vitug v. Griffin, 214 Cal. App. 3d 488, 493 (1989).
  5. Chiesur v. Superior Court, 76 Cal. App. 2d 198, 201 (1946).
  6. Helvey v. U.S. Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 81 Cal. App. 2d 647, 650 (1947).
  7. Turner v. Superior Court, 72 Cal. App. 3d 804, 812 (1977).
  8. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 568.
  9. See e.g., Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5023(c).

Solutions & Alternatives to Bankruptcy for Cannabis Businesses

By Richard Ormond
1 Comment

A Cannabis Related Business (or CRB), whether a plant-touching operation or a provider of goods and services to plant-touching operations cannot seek protection from the bankruptcy court as it is a federal court and cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. As such, a CRB does not have the benefit of a court approved restructuring as provided by Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and does not receive the benefit of an orderly liquidation as provided by Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, alternatives to bankruptcy do exist and are available to a CRB.

Historical Considerations

Before the emergence of the Bankruptcy Code, businesses and their creditors had very few options available to undertake a court-supervised restructuring or liquidation other than seeking the appointment of a court neutral, typically called a receiver or special master. That “neutral” would take the business or its assets into “legal custody” or custodia legis and begin the process of dissolving the entities, selling the assets or otherwise sell the business as a going-concern. In the 1880s and 1890s with the Gilded Age coming to an abrupt halt, this process was successfully used to restructure and recapitalize the failing network of over-extended railways and rail lines, leading to the consolidation in the market that remains to this day.

Cannabis businesses can be legal and now an “essential” business but, still cannot receive the benefits of bankruptcy court.During the Great Depression, the federal judiciary established “reference” courts to deal specifically with bankrupt businesses and individuals laying the foundations for the modern bankruptcy code which is still in effect today. Many of those first precedents used to establish the bankruptcy code and rules were drawn directly from the receivership case law and receivership statutes ever-present in the historical record of common law cases and common law countries, reaching all the way back to the Courts of Chancery in Britain established soon after the Norman invasion of the British Isles in 1066.

In the United States, the equitable power of courts to initiate receiverships or other insolvency proceedings and crafting orders and decrees based on equity, as opposed as based on law or statute, is codified clearly in Article III of the United States Constitution. Today, receiverships and special masters are still utilized by state and federal courts to remedy unique circumstances where a simple bankruptcy cannot address the inequities presented in that case.

State Court Powers & Financing of Receivership Estates

State courts in particular, and California especially, have a wide body of case law supporting the equitable powers of the court, the quasi-judicial immunity of the receiver and the many equitable tools available to receivers. These powers include the negotiation and transfer of liens, with liens attaching to proceeds of sales of assets, the dissolution of a business and the establishment of a claims process akin to a bankruptcy or assignment for benefit of creditors.

One of the many overlooked powers of a receiver is their ability to bring in outside financing or capital to fund the receivership estate to maintain a business as an ongoing concern or to provide short term leverage so that assets can be properly maintained, “dusted off” and sold.

This process of bringing in new capital is typically done by the issuance of receivership certificates. These certificates are approved, ahead of time, by the court and courts can authorize that such certificates prime all other claims (including sometimes administrative claims) and that these certificates can be reduced to a security interest recorded against real or personal property.

The Mechanics of a Receivership

However, because cannabis is approved at the state level, state courts retain their equitable powers and the power to appoint a receiver over a business in need of restructuring or liquidation. There are many avenues to get to court for this benefit, but the primary path to a receivership is either through a creditor (or group of creditors) filing a lawsuit and seeking the appointment of a receiver. This scenario can be done through cooperation and stipulation but can be hostile as well. The receiver option is available and open to address the needs of insolvency for this rapidly expanding industry.Or, a legal entity, can seek dissolution protection from the state court and seek a neutral dissolution officer (a receiver) to manage that process which may include the infusion of new capital through receivership certificates, the sale of assets to third parties, the negotiation and payment of liens and claims through a claims process and the final restructure of dissolution of the legal entity in a manner similar to a bankruptcy or assignment for benefit of creditors. This voluntary petition is permitted by statute and case law and is a mechanism available to a business that is unable to file for bankruptcy protection but is in dire need of court supervision and authority to work through its insolvency problems. Further, by court order, a receiver is able to establish banking relations where a CRB may be unable.

Typically, it is recommended that any receivership filing whether by creditors, claimants or the business itself, be guided by a well-written, explicit order that outlines the parameters of the receivership, the funding requirements and limits, the rights of claimants and some sort of stay of claims against the receivership estate to give the receiver the time needed to work through all of the issues in that receivership estate. Further, outside funding can be pre-approved by the court and the priority of that funding can be established through the open process that the court provides, much akin to a debtor in possession (DIP) financing motion in bankruptcy court.

Because of the unique circumstance that CRBs find themselves in here in California, where they are a legal and now an “essential” business but still cannot receive the benefits of bankruptcy court, the receiver option is available and open to address the needs of insolvency for this rapidly expanding industry.

Buyer Beware For Distressed Cannabis Assets

By Joanne Molinaro, Geoffrey S. Goodman, Ronald Eppen
No Comments

The legalized cannabis industry remains a budding market in the United States. As the legislative dominoes started to cascade from state-to-state across the country, entrants of all categories—operators, investors, lenders, and retailers—were willing to stand in line for their tickets.  However, signs of fatigue, caused largely by the continuing murkiness of regulatory guidance and investors’ waning appetite for reading the legislative crystal ball, were already surfacing towards the end of 2018 and continued its slide downward into 2019. From March 2019, market capitalization for the 33 biggest cannabis stocks was down 45% by the end of 2019, falling from $54 billion to $30 billion and projected revenues dropped a whopping 17% as well.

Has COVID Made Things Worse?

Against this backdrop, COVID-19 arrived on the scene. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), cannabis seemed to be somewhat insulated from unprecedented disruptions to supply chains and artificial nose dives in demand. Many operators noted a sharp uptick in sales as states implemented shelter-in-place orders. Ironically, the supply chain hurdles created by the lack of federal legalization rendered operators—even multistate operators (MSOs)—uniquely equipped to handle the supply chain woes that others were struggling to contain. Meanwhile, as more and more states slapped the essential label onto both medical and adult use cannabis, operators were permitted to run business as usual (under the circumstances) and legalized cannabis started to look a little more “normal” in the most abnormal of times.

Thus, for a moment, cannabis looked like it might be a counter indicator (or recession-resilient)—while others were going down, cannabis was going up. But, after this brief surge, sales settled down and states began reporting decreases from this time last year and the outlook for the cannabis industry remains unclear.

Is This An Opportunity?

Declining demand, coupled with the issues described above, spells cash-flow problems for cannabis companies – many of which are still relative “infants” compared to their consumer goods counterparts and thus may have yet to create a “rainy day fund.” However, liquidity issues can create opportunities for those who still have cash to inject. In the last year, 13 special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have listed on exchanges with an eye towards “cheap cannabis assets.”Cheap cannabis assets (or distressed cannabis assets) can offer a lowered barrier to entry into what many still believe to be a bull market. However, investors should proceed with caution. While the assets themselves may bear bargain basement price tags as the world grapples with the current recession, the cost of entry is more onerous than many realize. It is thus critical for potential investors to do their pre-due diligence on the who, what, when, where and how of acquiring distressed cannabis assets.

Where Do Distressed Cannabis Companies Go?

Ordinarily, distressed companies requiring capital restructuring look towards the US Bankruptcy Code. Deploying the broad injunctive relief afforded by the automatic stay as both a sword and shield, ailing companies can focus on lining up debtor-in-possession financing while they prospect feasible long-term exit strategies (through a reorganization, asset sale, or some combination of the two). The other major advantage of a chapter 11 is, of course, the “free and clear” order—the veritable clean slate provided by a federal court to good faith purchasers of the distressed assets that allow buyers to proceed with very few strings attached.

These federal benefits are not available to adult use and medical cannabis companies (hemp companies can file for chapter 11). Indeed, some bankruptcy courts have shut the door on not just the operators themselves, but companies that have even tangential dealings with cannabis companies.  With federal legalization, that will likely change; however in the meantime, distressed cannabis companies must look to pseudo-bankruptcy proceedings that offer some of the benefits that a federal bankruptcy can.

Is A State Receivership A Good Restructuring Vehicle For Distressed Cannabis Companies?

The number one option for many distressed cannabis companies will be state receivership. Much like a chapter 11 bankruptcy, the receivership provides for a stay against actions against the company’s assets, i.e., the breathing space it needs to hatch a plan for rehabilitation or exit the game as painlessly as possible. The receiver will be empowered to run the business while ironing out its operational/cash issues or conduct an orderly sale of the assets, usually through an auction process, during which the secured lender will be afforded the right to credit bid. The costs associated with that sale may be charged to the sale proceeds. Thus, in many ways, the state receivership acts like a federal bankruptcy.

How Is A State Receivership Different From A Federal Bankruptcy?

There are two main differences that investors should be aware of between a federal bankruptcy and a state receivership.

As with anything else that’s up for sale, where there’s a will, there’s a way.First, the court appointed receiver (often handpicked by the company’s primary secured lender) will be calling most of the shots from an operational, transactional, and financial perspective. That receiver may not have the kind of operational know-how of running a cannabis company that a typical debtor-in-possession might, making any major transaction more challenging. Even if the receiver has some background in the cannabis industry, he or she will still have a steep learning curve when it comes to the company’s specific business.

Second, the laws vary from state to state on whether a receiver can sell assets free and clear of any and all liens, claims, and encumbrances without the consent or satisfaction of those claims. Accordingly, buyers of distressed cannabis assets will want to take a close look at potential successor liability risks on a state-by-state basis.

Can Anyone Buy Or Invest In Distressed Cannabis Assets?

While many industries offer pay to play options for investors and lenders, the cannabis industry may not be as welcoming. Many lenders eyeing potentially lucrative refinancing possibilities that include an “equity kicker” (e.g., warrants) should be aware that states and municipalities often require investors aiming to own or control a substantial portion of the company’s business to satisfy most, if not all, of the regulatory requirements for holding the various licenses for operating in the cannabis space. For those interested in MSOs, a deep dive into each applicable state or city’s licensing requirements will be necessary.  Similarly, many states have onerous disclosure requirements for owners or financial interest holders of cannabis companies. Failures to disclose can lead to license suspensions or even forfeitures.

These are just some of the hurdles potential investors and lenders may need to scale. But as with anything else that’s up for sale, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Dank Until Gone Dark: The State of Corporate Insolvency for Cannabis Businesses

By Aaron L. Hammer, David S. Ruskin, Nathan E. Delman
No Comments

Two thirds of all states and the District of Columbia have, to varying degrees, legalized cannabis. With the recent addition of Illinois, eleven states now allow adult recreational use. But cannabis entrepreneurs’ rush of excitement and dreams of cashing in is met with fierce competition and economic risks that makes the dreams, which look so dank at first, end up going dark, or in other words, out of business.

This article discusses the available options for a cannabis business that finds itself on hard times and in need of reorganizing its debts or liquidating altogether. With the federal status of cannabis remaining illegal, cannabis businesses must clear significant hurdles to achieve success. Among the many other pitfalls traditional business owners experience, a cannabis business must navigate limited access to financial institutions and its related security concerns of keeping large amounts of cash on location. Also, they cannot deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses for federal income tax purposes. Turning a profit in legal cannabis can be a big challenge.

The first thought for a business facing insolvency is bankruptcy. However, bankruptcy courts have not been welcoming to cannabis businesses. Bankruptcy courts are courts of federal jurisdiction, and the federal government is represented by the United States Trustee Program (UST), which is the division of the Department of Justice responsible for oversight of Bankruptcy Courts. Since cannabis remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) as a Schedule I controlled substance, it is unsurprising that the UST creates roadblocks for those seeking relief. In fact, the UST currently and steadfastly seeks dismissal of cases against cannabis businesses, cannabis employees and landlords of cannabis businesses.

But all hope is not lost. First, a change at the head of the DOJ could have a significant effect on how these cases are handled, even without a reclassification of cannabis. Second, recent caselaw shows a willingness by the courts to forge a path allowing cannabis cases to survive. Finally, if federal bankruptcy protection is not an option, other state remedies may be available to unsuccessful cannabis ventures.

The UST’s prosecutorial discretion has a strong influence in how a bankruptcy case can develop. While still very difficult to predict, a compelling analogy for cannabis cases can be seen in how the UST dealt with same-sex marriages in 2011. Nine years ago, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) governed, and Section 3 of DOMA1 defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” In In re Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales, a same sex couple filed a Chapter 13 petition in California, and the UST filed a motion to have the case dismissed. The UST sought dismissal of the joint bankruptcy case, arguing the couple did not qualify for a joint petition under 11 USC § 302(a) because they were in a same-sex marriage. The bankruptcy court denied the UST’s motion. The bankruptcy court in Balas based its opinion partially on a letter from then United States Attorney General Eric Holder, with President Obama’s support, reasoning that Section 3 was unconstitutional as it applied to legally married same-sex couples. The UST appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the UST did an abrupt about-face and dismissed its appeal. In fact, the UST took a further step by publicly stating it would not seek dismissal of any joint bankruptcy filed by a legally married same-sex couple. Similarly, if today’s executive branch decides not to enforce the CSA in bankruptcy court, cannabis businesses in compliance with state law would have access to bankruptcy courts.

Many businesses have pushed the bankruptcy courts to use a similar public policy approach to allowing cannabis businesses to seek debt relief, but it is proving to be a far stickier issue. Bankruptcy Courts have routinely dismissed cases with both direct and indirect relationships to the cannabis industry. The UST has taken a stance firmly against affording relief with any type of connection to cannabis. In an April 2017 letter to Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 trustees, the Director of the UST put it bluntly: “[i]t is the policy of the United States Trustee Program that United States Trustees shall move to dismiss or object in all cases involving marijuana assets on grounds that such assets may not be administered under the Bankruptcy Code even if trustees or other parties object on the same or different grounds.”

Indeed, one can fairly point out a significant difference between allowing a same-sex couple to file a joint bankruptcy. The practical significance of allowing same-sex couples to file jointly is the loss of a filing fee to the bankruptcy court, whereas a cannabis company’s liquidation creates a situation where a Chapter 7 trustee would have a fiduciary duty to liquidate a controlled substance, effectively violating federal law.

However, the UST shows equal hostility to cases involving downstream cannabis businesses such as landlords and even certain gardening suppliers, where there is no risk of cannabis itself becoming property of a bankruptcy estate. A Colorado District Court affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a holding company for purported CSA violations.2 The Court reasoned that since the company owned stock for a large hydroponic gardening company, it willfully aided and abetted criminal activities.

San Francisco’s United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Photo: Ken Lund, Flickr

While the federal executive branch is decidedly opposed to the cannabis debtor, one hope for reform lies with the judicial branch. To this end, the Ninth Circuit handed the biggest victory to date to a downstream cannabis business in Garvin v. Cook. Based on a microscopically close reading of the Bankruptcy Code, the Ninth Circuit held that a reorganization plan which relies partially on money from cannabis does not equate to a plan being “proposed by means forbidden by law” because the statutory text of one section cannot mean “all applicable law” or else the language in a closely related section that “the plan complies with the applicable provisions of this title” would be surplusage.

But this victory has not created much daylight for cannabis ventures seeking to utilize bankruptcy courts. Notably, Garvin could have gone a different direction if the UST had revived a motion to dismiss for gross mismanagement of the estate, which is how most Chapter 11 cannabis cases are dismissed. Indeed, in the weeks following the Garvin decision, two lower courts declined to blaze a new trail, and instead distinguished its cases from Garvin, dismissing debtors with equally indirect ties to cannabis.

Bankruptcy courts have shown significantly more latitude for legal hemp companies. In a promising decision, In re Royalty Properties, LLC, a Northern District of Illinois Bankruptcy Court took no issue with the legality of a debtor growing hemp seeds. The court took pains to distinguish hemp from its psychoactive relative marijuana and based its ruling on the 2018 Farm Bill which effectively legalized hemp. The court even denied as unnecessary an order to approve contracts to grow hemp, stating its approval was not necessary. Ultimately, the reorganization failed for reasons unrelated to growing hemp.  Nevertheless, the case does show a step toward tolerance. Now that CBD giant GenCanna Global has filed a Chapter 11 in Kentucky, the UST’s tolerance will be put on full display.

The United States Trustee Program is a part of the United States Department of Justice

Also, it is worth noting that the unwillingness of bankruptcy courts to take on cannabis cases cuts both ways. Creditors of cannabis businesses, already taking on a certain amount of risk for dealing with borrowers who cannot use depository institutions in a traditional way, also have been prevented from banding together and filing an involuntary bankruptcy against cannabis businesses.

Fortunately, legal cannabis businesses facing insolvency have options aside from federal bankruptcy to deal with debt issues.

An assignment for the benefit of creditors proceeding (ABC) presents one very workable option. In an ABC, a distressed company selects an “assignee” to liquidate the debtor’s assets via state law and distribute the proceeds to the creditor’s benefit. Depending on whether the assets include cannabis, the assignee will likely have to comply with applicable state law to be able to legally liquidate the asset. Nevertheless, an ABC might be the best solution currently available for cannabis companies seeking debt relief.

Another option is a corporate receivership where a disinterested third party, typically an attorney, is appointed to take control of an ailing business. The receiver takes over management of the company and can liquidate the company’s assets. Receiverships present certain advantages over bankruptcy proceedings. They allow for greater flexibility in decision making because the receiver is not bound by the confines of the Bankruptcy Code. Receiverships can be more cost effective, due to less court involvement and administrative expenses. For creditors, there is the advantage of potentially deciding on the receiver. Also, the receiver, unlike a Chapter 7 trustee, does not bear the imprimatur of any government, and is not a public officer within the meaning of a constitutional or statutory provision relating to public officers. Oregon and Washington have both amended their receivership statutes to ensure that cannabis businesses can effectively manage debt without receivers running the risk of violating the law. Ideally, other legal states will follow suit to ensure this remedy is available to cannabis businesses.

Finally, another bankruptcy alternative would be a friendly foreclosure under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Unlike the Bankruptcy Code, the UCC is not federal law, but is adopted individually by each state. Again, considering the secured lender is required to comply with state law, this is another instance where amending state statutes could provide great assistance to a struggling cannabis business and its secured creditors.

Legal options for insolvent cannabis businesses is a new challenge. Society is trending in the direction of a more permissive attitude toward cannabis, so it should follow that the legislatures and courts accept this shift and afford distressed cannabis businesses the same opportunities to reorganize or orderly liquidate just like other legal business entities.

References

  1. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in 2013 US v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).
  2. See In re Way to Grow, Civil Action No. 18-cv-3245-WJM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207846 (D. Colo. Sep. 18, 2019)