Tag Archives: debt

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 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).

Desperate California Cannabis Vendors Seek Credit Protection

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes
No Comments

Cannabis companies representing 45% of California’s cannabis sales are pushing a bill that will crack down on non-paying customers. Well known operators, including Kiva, Lowell Farms, Nabis and Sunderstorm, recently formed Financial Stability for California Cannabis (FSCC) and moved to support Assembly Bill 766.”

The bill, nicknamed “The Cannabis Credit Protection Act,” would require a cannabis licensee to pay for goods and services sold or transferred by another licensee no later than 15 days following the final date set forth in the invoice. If full payment is not received by that date, the seller would be required to report this to the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), which in turn would notify the delinquent buyer and begin disciplinary proceedings. The buyer would be prohibited from purchasing any other cannabis products on credit until the delinquent invoice was paid. In addition, the DCC would be empowered to issue a penalty (unspecified), taking into account “the frequency and gravity of the licensee’s [past] failure to pay outstanding invoices”.

In a letter of support for AB 766, the FSCC stated, “This culture of nonpayment that has emerged in California’s cannabis market leaves businesses across the entire industry and supply chain – as well as ancillary businesses that support legal cannabis operators – with outstanding balances and unpaid invoices sometimes totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars…This ballooning debt bubble in the cannabis industry will only continue to grow without proper oversight, putting the entirety of the state’s supply chain at risk of collapse and impacting state revenue decline even further.”

Opponents of the bill acknowledge the problem of non-payment in the industry, but feel AB 766 is too heavy handed and is “ripe for abuse.” In a blog post for the international legal firm Harris Bricken, cannabis attorney Griffen Thorne writes, “[L]icensees who are reported would be legally prohibited from buying goods or services on credit from other licensees until they pay the invoices for which they were reported in full … The person making the report has to give the DCC almost no information in order to make the report. There is no hearing. There does not even seem to be an opportunity to contest the report. The second a report is made, the other side loses its rights to buy goods on credit – presumably even under preexisting contractual arrangements with third parties. This seems like an obvious due process concern and ripe for abuse.”

The number and amounts of unpaid cannabis product invoices have ballooned over time and have driven California cannabis vendors to take such extreme measures. Collections and outstanding receivables are a symptom of an industry struggling under heavy taxes and competition from illegal operations that pay no taxes whatsoever, and which now account for over 60% of all cannabis sales within the state.

In order to ascertain the current status of AB 766, 420CPA reached out to Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), co-sponsor of the bill along with FSCC, the Cannabis Distribution Association, California Cannabis Industry Association and the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association. We corresponded with Tania Dikho, Ting’s Legislative Director. Ms. Dikho informed us that the bill was heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 18, but it was not passed.

“It’s a 2-year bill meaning we can’t act on it until this legislative year is over, so the bill will not have another hearing [and we] can’t make any changes to it until next year,” explained Ms. Dikho.

The 2-year status is a tenuous one. The bill must be approved by the Assembly and make its way to the Senate between early January 2024 and January 31, 2024 or it may no longer be acted upon and will die a legislative death.

Businesses that would like to voice their opinion for or against AB 766 should contact their state legislative representatives.

Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

A Q&A with Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff
No Comments
Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

As the former CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union (PCCU), Sundie Seefried has been in the credit union space for 39 years. Established in 2015, Safe Harbor Financial is now a leading provider for banking and financial services in the cannabis industry.

Seefried founded Safe Harbor as a cannabis banking program for PCCU, and since then it has withstood scrutiny of 16 separate federal and state exams. Entering its ninth year as a cannabis banking program, they have almost 600 accounts in 20 states and have processed over $14 billion in transactions for the cannabis market. In September, Safe Harbor began trading on Nasdaq under the symbol SHFS. The company has also announced a definitive agreement to acquire Abaca, an industry-leading cannabis financial technology platform.

Seefried has seen it all in the cannabis banking world. We wanted to get her thoughts on some current events, the future of cannabis banking and lending, and what the next few years might hold in store for an industry ready to grow.

Cannabis Industry Journal: Tell us a bit about yourself. What is your background and how did you find yourself in the cannabis industry? How did you get to become president and CEO of SHF?

Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

Sundie Seefried: I’ve been in banking in the credit union space since 1983. I became CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union in 2001 and stayed there for 21 years. Everything I do, I have a very conservative nature just from being in the banking world and doing things methodically and building good foundations that endure long term. In 2014 when FinCen issued guidance, I was supposed to retire, and I had dinner with some old friends that were attorneys who couldn’t get bank accounts for their clients in the cannabis industry. They asked me to help and I looked into it for them. I assumed the regulator would shut me down but he didn’t; he actually encouraged me to move forward and look further into things. As I educated the board, we saw just how unsafe Colorado was and the serious need for the community to figure things out with respect to banking and cannabis. Coming from that credit union perspective, I said I think we can do this, let’s try and I’ll go through the third parties necessary. And that’s how we got into this, just looking to try and help solve Colorado’s problems and get banking access for cannabis companies. 

CIJ: Tell me about your company’s mission. What is your financing strategy in cannabis and of the companies you do business with, what do you look for most?

Seefried: Our mission remains the same, and that is to normalize banking in the cannabis industry as much as possible. Because the black market still exists, the issue becomes sorting the legal entities out from the illicit actors in the industry. We know that the illicit market is trying to hide amongst the legal environment, which really makes things difficult for upstanding cannabis businesses. We can normalize banking by making sure we help legitimize the compliant entities and sort out the bad actors. We really only want to work with legitimate players with licenses, who are fulfilling expectations on the regulatory level and have no problems with compliance. We have been able to do that on the depository side.

We have always been a low-cost provider and our clients count on that. As we move into the lending part of the industry, we’re looking to do the same thing. There are lenders who charge one-to-three percent per month, 18 to 36 percent per year. We, on the other hand, are targeting more of an eight to thirteen percent annual rate. More of a conservative approach. Real debt underwriting. No extremely high interest rates. We look for the collateral, we look for well-organized businesses and solid documentation. Those are the businesses we are trying to bring into the fold and offer them normal loans. Cannabis will always have a premium on it simply because it is illegal at the federal level and there are additional hoops we have to jump through. Because of the potential forfeiture and seizure, if there are bad actors, etc., it really behooves any clients coming to us to also place their depositary services with us so we can prove their legitimacy and provide loans to them.

CIJ: Let’s talk about the Canopy Growth news. They announced they are pulling the trigger on acquiring Wana Brands, Acreage Holdings and Jetty Extracts, under the Canopy USA holding company and ahead of federal legalization. On the surface, it looks like they are bypassing a lot of the hurdles American cannabis companies currently face with financial red tape. As a foreign company trading on the NASDAQ dealing with a schedule 1 substance, do you expect Canopy to have a significant, some would say unfair, competitive advantage with their early entry? Or is this perhaps more of a rising tide lifting all boats scenario? What effect will this have on the current market landscape?

Seefried: I find it a very interesting move on their part. Certainly, they have a big advantage in comparison to other companies. The consolidation in the industry is moving so quickly. Other players will keep up with this just as fast as Canopy is moving in. That’s my opinion in terms of what I see in the consolidation area of the market. I think what it really hurts is small businesses. My heart goes out to them. So many of them worked so many years to build excellent small companies with boutique shops, and this whole move will really change that part of the industry.

I see a lot of these small players, non-vertically integrated companies, being impacted in a negative way due to such mass consolidation and the entry of foreign businesses. We need to get more competitive on a global level in order for our companies to grow and thrive. This happened back in 2018, when so many companies started doing those reverse takeovers onto the Canadian Securities Exchange and suddenly, they were putting tens of millions of dollars into the U.S. market. People didn’t see that as a competitive disadvantage for American companies, but now this move by Canopy may really show that we have to look at things more globally.

CIJ: Biden’s announcement regarding the scheduling review for cannabis has a lot of industry folks very hopeful that federal legalization is closer to a reality than before. Do you share their optimism?

Seefried: Closer than before, yes. But how close? I am not convinced it will happen quickly. If they are really going to consider rescheduling or descheduling, everything happens in Washington very incrementally. Eight years and seven attempts at the SAFE Banking legislation and still no movement on that front. Tomorrow, we’re going straight to legalization? I have a hard time swallowing that one. I just don’t see that big of a jump all at once. I think it is interesting coming just before the midterms and votes are really needed now more than ever.

What Biden did was a great start. Especially for those people in prison for possession. The interesting part of it is, we are very serious about people who have used it, but the people who have sold it and are in prison might be in the same situation. Given how the laws worked for so long, just based on the amount of cannabis you had could get you automatically labeled as a dealer, which isn’t the case for a lot of incarcerated folks.

The fact is, the social equity and justice issue, who do you free or who do you not free from prison, is a very difficult issue to get through. I think it is a great step forward and it will help some people who were treated unjustly, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

“I believe we’ll start seeing pressure from the global market on the United States to move things along a little faster in our own country.”As far as rescheduling, if they go from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II drug, that will do no good, but it certainly is a bone to throw to the industry if you want to look like you are making some progress. Schedule II is still subject to 280E tax code so it will only do so much. If they want to make things more equitable and actually level the playing field, they have to do something about the 280E issue hindering every cannabis business in the country.

As far as full legalization, I am not optimistic because of all the players that need to be involved. Full legalization will require a change to the IRS tax code 280E as well as other tax issues. I think there are too many players: The DOJ, FinCen, the DEA, the FDA, the IRS. All of these agencies will have to agree on full legalization and moving forward in unison. The DEA is trying to fight illicit actors and illicit drugs. FinCen is trying to follow the money to find illicit actors. As long as there is an illicit market it will make their job tough, and on top of all of that, we have politics in play. That is just my take on legalization. It is going to be a much more complex problem than just legalizing the plant and moving on. Rescheduling seems like lower hanging fruit, but they will have to move it higher than a Schedule II.

CIJ: With the midterm elections here, there are a number of legalization measures in a handful of states, along with political control of Congress on the ballot. How do you think a Republican or Democrat controlled Congress will affect cannabis legalization progress?

Seefried: I just finished doing some lobbying in September in DC and spoke to some Senator offices in person, and I heard a lot of interesting topics being discussed. One of the things that keeps popping up is that social equity and justice is a huge issue. If we can’t solve this injustice in our system that has been going on for decades and decades, maybe they’ll hold banking legislation hostage. You can’t correct 50-60 years with one piece of legislation. Everything has to be incremental, unfortunately, so there will be some give and take there. I think that was a primary focus, especially with the Democrats and I do think it is a worthy cause.

On the Republican side, economically improving our competitive advantage as a country. They are starting to see the jobs being created and the tax revenue coming in and the growth of the industry. They will have to make that decision at some point in time whether they are going to leave the American cannabis industry behind or allow them to compete on a global level. I really think everything will move slowly and continue as it has happened in the past.

I believe we’ll start seeing pressure from the global market on the United States to move things along a little faster in our own country.

CIJ: As we inch closer to 2023, what do you expect the next year to offer for the cannabis financing market?

Seefried: I would say, with or without legislation, they’re finding greater access to banking. And the reason they are getting better access to banking is because none of us have been prosecuted for simply engaging in cannabis banking. I think we have set a precedent over the past eight years, not only us but other service providers in the industry and that we are not being prosecuted.

I see more financial institutions entering the market slowly. The second reason access to capital and banking will increase is because every financial institution in the country wants that lending relationship. In order to get there, they want to start with the depository relationship, and they don’t want smaller players presently doing it and getting all of those relationships before they enter the market. I think the competitive nature of the financial industry to land that lending relationship is going to force them into the game sooner than later.

Financing the Cannabis Industry Part 3: A Q&A with Matt Hawkins, Founder of Entourage Effect Capital

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Businesses often require outside capital to finance operating activities and to enable scaling and growth. Financing in the cannabis industry is notoriously challenging with regulatory obstacles at the local, state and federal levels. Recent market dynamics pose additional challenges for both financiers and cannabis operators.

We sat down with Matt Hawkins, Founder and Managing Partner of Entourage Effect Capital (EEC) to learn more about EEC and to get his perspective on recent market trends.

Aaron Green: In a nutshell, what is your investment/lending philosophy?

Matt Hawkins, Founder & Managing Partner at Entourage Effect Capital

Matt Hawkins: Entourage Effect Capital’s long history and experienced leadership allow us to access and construct high potential later-stage growth investments with sought-after industry leaders. We want to get ahead of what is happening on the regulatory and federal level to build scale with our investments.

Green: What types of companies are you primarily financing? What qualities do you look for in a cannabis industry operator or operating group?

Hawkins: Essentially, we are focused on investing in companies that will benefit the most when legalization occurs. We are currently working on multiple such deals, and separately, we are excited by how our newly minted, early-stage focused Arcview Ventures Seed Fund will provide a pipeline to the next generation of leading growth opportunities. When evaluating opportunities, we always look for the potential for scale and a strong management team.

Green: Capital market dynamics have led to significant public cannabis company revaluations in 2022. How has this affected your business?

Hawkins: As an industry, we all want companies to be valued for what they are worth, and right now, there are a lot of companies where that’s not the case due to the downturn in valuation. For us, it works the other way, because we are now able to invest at lower valuations with the hope of more upside when valuations reset.

Green: Debt on cannabis companies balance sheets have increased significantly in recent years. What is your perspective on that?

Hawkins: Debt is at its highest in industry. Operators don’t want to take equity capital at this point because valuations have come way down. However, we are lucky to have been in this business for a long time so that we can create our own deals. Our reputation precedes us — as a result, combined with the strength of our portfolio, people want us in their capital stack.

Green: How does the lack of institutional investor participation in the cannabis industry affect your business?

Hawkins: The lack of institutional capital in the industry makes it difficult for a large chunk of companies to grow and scale. For the industry to grow, there needs to be a different type of investor, investors who are not scared to go through the peaks and valleys we go through as an industry, whereas retail investors take their losses and move on. Everybody’s competing for the same small pool of money; managing cash is the most important factor for operators, whether private or public, big or small.

Green: What would you like to see in either state or federal legalization?

Hawkins: The illicit market still has a strong presence, and until we get regulatory reform, it’s going to continue. Reducing the tax burden on legalized markets would bring more revenue to both operators and the government because they’d reduce the market share of the illicit market, with the price offset trickling down to the retail customer.

Passing the SAFE Banking Act would create consequential changes for the cannabis industry. There is also a small chance that the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq could start listing legal plant-touching businesses. If that happens, more institutional capital would enter the market and flush the industry with cash, with market caps going way up. There is a lot of unease and uncertainty with retail investors that prop up the stocks in the space, and it will continue until there is regulatory movement, even on the private side.

Green: What trends are you following closely as we head towards the end of 2022?

Hawkins: I don’t see anything happening unless the SAFE Banking Act passes. Otherwise, things are status quo, especially with public companies. For private companies, we’re going to see a lot more consolidation, especially in California.

Financing the Cannabis Industry Part 2: A Q&A with Pelorus Equity Group Managing Partner, Travis Goad

By Aaron Green
No Comments

Businesses often require outside capital to finance operating activities and to enable scaling and growth. Financing in the cannabis industry is notoriously challenging with regulatory obstacles at the local, state and federal levels. Recent market dynamics pose additional challenges for both financiers and cannabis operators.

We sat down with Travis Goad, Managing Partner of Pelorus Equity Group to learn more about Pelorus and to get his perspective on recent market trends.

Aaron Green: In a nutshell, what is your investment/lending philosophy?

Travis Goad: Our investment and lending philosophy is focused on being honest, upfront and doing what we say we’re going to do for both our borrowers and our investors. At Pelorus, we lend against cannabis-use real estate assets.

Every lender in this space is a hybrid between real estate and corporate lending. However, if you think about it as a political spectrum, with one side being pure real estate lending and the other pure corporate lending, Pelorus is as close as you can be to pure real estate lending in this sector while also being properly collateralized. What sets us apart from our recently launched lending peers is that we lend against the real estate asset value only, even though we’re collateralized by the real estate and license.

We lend between 60% to 75% of the value of the real estate, which means sponsors need to raise equity for the 25% to 40% remainder of the project cost. This allows us to be covenant-lite for our borrowers while giving them the flexibility to grow their business as they see fit.

Travis Goad, Managing Partner at Pelorus Equity Group

The other lending options in the space are much different. While our lending peers may call themselves mortgage REITs, they really are based on a business development company (BDC) lending model. While they may lend borrowers as much as 150% to 180% of the real estate value, they will require significant financial covenants, require control of major decisions and most often want a board seat. We’ve seen this model severely hamstring growth of companies.

The third option available to sponsors is a sale-leaseback. In this structure, lenders will buy your real estate for 100% of the value, but require you to enter into a 15-to-20-year lease that increases 3% each year. There is a temporary benefit to this model from a federal tax perspective, but that will go away when 280E is addressed, either by descheduling cannabis or amending the tax code.

While this structure means you don’t have to raise equity, it gives up the most valuable asset cannabis companies have in the early stages of the industry. Once you sell this asset, it hampers optionality for sponsors – and in a fast-growing industry like cannabis – optionality is the most critical thing a company has. Pelorus’ structure allows maximum optionality, as well as the ability to lower your cost of capital as the industry matures.

From an investor standpoint, they should know that the BDC and sale-leaseback models are a lot riskier than our model. While we’ve seen those models work well in mature industries, we think the cannabis industry is too early-stage and too volatile to go that far out on the risk spectrum. We have the longest history in the space of deploying capital successfully and seeing it returned. Prior to making any loans, we spend a lot of time underwriting the company we’re working with, the real estate and the projections. We look for strong sponsors, great projects and attractive markets.

Before we entered the cannabis lending space, our team at Pelorus had more than 5,000 transactions under our belt, worth $5B, and we leveraged our decades of underwriting experience when starting the Pelorus Fund. As the first dedicated lender in the cannabis space, we have more data and experience than anyone in terms of transactional volume – we’ve looked at more than 2,000 deals and have made 71 deals, worth $468M. We know the intricacies of every market, the particular ordinances, what the costs should be, and utilize the data to help our borrowers succeed. Through our deals and sustained success, we’ve made a name for ourselves as the most trusted and efficient lender in the cannabis space.

Green: What types of companies are you primarily financing? 

Goad: We finance construction and stabilized loans for a range of clients including MSOs, SSOs and ancillary companies. We don’t lend on outdoor cultivation, but are open to working with any cannabis-related business that has commercial real estate, strong financials and experience in the cannabis space. Today, our sweet spot is closing loans in the $10M to $30M per transaction range, but we can fund loans $100M+ and as low as $5M. Since 2016, we’ve financed 4.2M feet of cannabis-use properties for a total of $468M in loans – roughly 15% to 20% of the entire US market.

Green: What qualities do you look for in a cannabis industry operator or operating group?

Goad: We are meticulous in our underwriting process and underwrite the company, the real estate and the market. We’re one of the few lenders today that has capital to deploy, which has given us the opportunity to continue to take market share while also increasing the quality of our borrowers. Whether you’re an MSO, smaller state operator or ancillary business, we recognize quality across the sector. Brand affinity and shelf space are critical in this market, and we like working with companies that have a competitive edge in getting their branded product to customers. We try to target companies that offer a unique product, or have a unique position within the state they are located.

To qualify for our lending program, borrowers need to own their real estate. If the sponsors own the real estate or intend to own the real estate, we offer two main lending products: we provide construction loans that range between 60% to 75% of the project that are typically 18-month terms; and more recently implemented, we also lend on fully stabilized assets that are cash flowing and operational up to 75% of the value and up to a 5-year term.

By the time a borrower comes to us, they should already have a license (or be acquiring a license at closing), have their required equity raised to completely fund the project and have all local approvals to begin construction.

Green: Capital market dynamics have led to significant public cannabis company revaluations in 2022. How has this affected your business? 

Goad: As far as how market dynamics have impacted our fund, we’ve been pretty insulated because we are a privately held company. From our inception, we’ve worked hard to create an innovative model, and have had many firsts. We were: the first dedicated lender in the cannabis sector; the first lender to become a private mortgage REIT; the first to be issued an FDIC warehouse line of credit; the first to get an investment grade rating; the first to issue an unsecured bond with institutional investors; the first to update our fund to a billion dollars. Amid all these firsts, we made a conscious decision not to go public. This has been one of the best decisions we’ve made and has shielded us from much of the market volatility we are seeing.

As for the broader market, we’ve seen our sponsors that are publicly traded impacted pretty significantly by the recent market dynamics. We’ve also seen flow-on effects for non-publicly traded firms. Our loan book is performing excellently, but we’re in a very challenging market for marijuana-related businesses to raise equity, making debt even more attractive. For most of our competitors, who chose to go public, they’ve been unable to raise much capital to deploy, whereas our market share is increasing and we continue to grow in this tough environment. We remain bullish on the sector in the medium/long term and are finding excellent opportunities to lend in this challenging environment.

Green: Debt on cannabis companies balance sheets have increased significantly in recent years. What is your perspective on that?

Goad: Increased access to debt capital markets is a sign of a maturing market. The U.S. cannabis sector has a great tailwind with growth of new markets, but it’s facing some significant headwinds tied to tax inefficiencies and inadequate state-level enforcement. All of these issues can be solved with political action, but so far that hasn’t happened and it’s causing pain in the industry. These industry dynamics are set against a broader macro backdrop of risk-asset repricing and increased volatility, which leads to outsized volatility in cannabis due to limited liquidity. That increased volatility has made it very challenging to raise equity in this market.

For companies that have strong assets on their balance sheet, they’re still able to access capital via the debt markets. This is creating clear winners and losers, as companies that choose to sell their real estate have significantly fewer capital raising options than those that choose to keep real estate assets on their balance sheets. Overall, this increased debt trend has been great for our business – our pipeline has increased rapidly and we’re able to lend to strong operators with solid assets at attractive rates for investors. Our fund continues to have inflows, and since we’re one of the few lenders with capital to deploy, we’re still open for business and deploying capital in this challenging environment.

Green: How does the lack of institutional investor participation in the cannabis industry affect your business? 

Goad: The current regulatory environment impacts the type of investor that comes into this space. Rather than being dominated by institutions, this sector has largely been funded by retail investors and family offices. This has created challenges in aggregating large amounts of capital, both on the operator and the debt-fund side of the business. It can lead to delays in loan closings, as it takes borrowers a longer amount of time to raise the required equity to close their transaction. As we’re seeing with our publicly traded peer group, it can also lead to lenders having trouble raising capital to deploy. As for Pelorus, we’ve been very fortunate that our length of time in the industry and track record of successfully making loans and having them repaid has set us apart in fundraising. Our decision to stay private has been a critical factor in our fundraising success as well. Overall, the lack of institutional investor participation is a double-edged sword: the lack of liquidity has caused challenges broadly, but since we’ve had significant capital to deploy, it’s created great opportunities for us to make loans with attractive risk/returns in this challenging market.

Green: What would you like to see in either state or federal legalization?

Goad: Given the stalemate in the Senate and the sharp bipartisan divide, I don’t think federal legalization will happen during this administration. That said, there are incremental actions that the government should take to strengthen the cannabis sector. First of all, the Cole Memo needs to be reinstated to add additional protections for cannabis and cannabis-related businesses. As 280E has clearly been detrimental to the overall health of the cannabis industry, we also believe the tax code should be amended, or better yet, we should address the conflict between state and federal policy. We also need to get SAFE Banking approved in order to open up the cannabis sector to credit cards and potentially open up banking to the sector in a more material way. Unfortunately, there’s a choke point in the Senate to get SAFE Banking approved, since there needs to be 60 votes to be filibuster proof. And while there is some talk of SAFE Banking passing during the lame duck session, we are not holding our breath.

Green: What trends are you following closely as we head towards the end of 2022?

Goad: The biggest trends we’re following are on the legislative front (both federally and at state level), which heavily impact revenue and net cash flow growth for the industry. We’re following emerging state markets, such as Alabama and Mississippi, as well as current medical markets poised to transition to adult use in the near term, such as Missouri. The more addressable the population, the faster the industry can grow.

We’d also like to see current legal states address the often-heavy tax burdens that have led to additional challenges for legal businesses and kept illicit markets thriving. No state got everything right at the beginning, but we’re starting to see states address some of the inequities and harmful policies now. California has made some progress in this area, however there are many issues that still need to be addressed.

Federally, 280E is the other major headwind that needs to be addressed as extremely high tax rates are one of the biggest problems for the industry. We’d really like to see that addressed, as cannabis is the only new industry, I’m aware of in the U.S. that has had such disadvantages out of the gate.

M&A in Cannabis: A Guide for Buyers and Sellers

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright
No Comments

Mergers and acquisition activity in the cannabis space tripled from 2020 to 2021, and that pace is on track to continue in 2022. With big players entering the global cannabis market, we’re fielding more questions about mergers and acquisitions of cannabis businesses.

In this guide, we look at the evolution of the U.S. cannabis industry and some best practices and considerations for M&A deals in this environment.

The New Reality of Cannabis M&A Activity

The industry has evolved since adult use cannabis was first legalized in some U.S. states in 2012. More cannabis companies have a professional infrastructure—legal, financial and operational—with executive teams and board members ensuring the organization establishes proper governance procedures. Investors and private equity firms are showing more interest, and some cannabis companies have celebrated their first IPOs on the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE).

At the same time, we are seeing a kind of “market grab” by multistate operators (MSOs) looking to acquire various licenses and expand their market share. MSOs tend to understand the current state of the market. For example, in California and some other states, there is a surplus of cannabis on the market for various reasons, partially due to so-called “burner distribution”—rogue distributors using licenses to buy vast amounts of legally grown cannabis at wholesale prices and selling the product on the black market, thereby undercutting retailers and other legal cannabis businesses. Another reason for the surplus is simply the entrance of many legal cultivators into the market over the past year.

Due to these trends, MSOs are interested in acquiring the outlets to be able to sell the surplus cannabis within California and other new markets.

Transferring Cannabis License Rights

One of the biggest challenges to M&A activity in the cannabis sector is the difficulty of transferring or selling a cannabis license.

Different types of cannabis licenses in California

Cannabis licenses are not expressly transferable or assignable under California law and many other states. However, the parties involved aren’t without options. For example, a business that is sold to a new owner may be able to retain its existing cannabis license while the new owner’s license application is pending, as long as at least one existing owner is staying on board. At the state license level, a change of up to 20% financial interest does not constitute a change in ownership, although the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) must be notified and approve the change.

This process can take a while—often a year or more—since licensing involves overcoming hurdles at the local level as well as the state level with the BCC. It’s crucial to talk with legal counsel about the particulars of the license and location early in the process to best structure the terms of the agreement while complying with state and local requirements.

Seeking a Tax-Free Reorganization in the Cannabis Space

In many cannabis mergers and acquisitions, the goal is to accomplish a tax-free reorganization, where the parties involved acquire or dispose of the assets of a business without generating the income tax consequences that would result from a straight sale or purchase of those assets.

IRC Section 368(a) defines various types of tax-free reorganizations, including:

Stock-for-stock exchanges (IRC Section 368(a)(1)(B)

In a stock-for-stock reorganization, all of the target company’s stock is traded for a portion of the stock of the acquiring parent corporation, and target company shareholders become minority shareholders of the acquiring company.

Often, it’s tough to meet the requirements to qualify for this type of tax-free reorganization because at least 80% of the target stock must be paid for in voting stock of the acquirer.

Additionally, companies may be saddled with too much debt. If the acquirer assumes that debt, it may be classified as consideration paid to the seller and therefore disqualify the transaction as a tax-free reorganization.

In other M&A deals, the acquiring corporation may be unwilling to assume the debt of the target corporation—perhaps because showing these items on its balance sheet would impact its debt-to-equity and other financial ratios.

Stock-for-asset exchanges (IRC Section 368(a)(1)(C)

Rather than acquiring the target company’s stock, the acquirer may purchase its assets. In a stock-for assets exchange, the buyer must purchase “substantially all” of the target’s assets in exchange for voting stock of the acquiring corporation.

A stock-for-assets format offers the buyer the benefit of not having to assume the unknown or contingent liabilities of the target. However, it’s only feasible if the acquirer purchases at least 80% of the fair market value of the target’s assets AND all or virtually all of the deal consideration will be stock of the acquirer.

Tax Consequences Arising from Sale of Assets

If the sale price doesn’t consist primarily of the buyer’s stock, the transaction may be a standard asset sale. This leads to very different tax results.

If the seller is a C corporation, it will typically face double taxation—paying tax once on the sale of assets within the corporation and again when those profits are distributed to shareholders. If the target company has net operating losses (NOLs), it can use those NOLs to offset the tax hit.

If the seller is an S corporation, it won’t have to pay corporate tax on the transaction at the federal level. Instead, shareholders will pay tax on the gain on their individual returns.

For the buyer, the benefit of an asset sale is that the assets acquired get a “step-up basis” to their purchase price. This is beneficial from a tax perspective, as the buyer can depreciate the assets and may be able to claim accelerated or bonus depreciation to help offset acquisition costs.

Reverse Triangular Merger

Often, in practice, we come across what is termed as a reverse triangular reorganization. In this type of merger,

  1. The acquiring company creates a subsidiary,
  2. The subsidiary merges into the target company before liquidating,
  3. The target company then becomes a subsidiary of the acquirer, and
  4. The target company’s shareholders receive cash.

Structuring the deal this way may work to overcome the hurdle of transferring the license but may not qualify as a tax-free reorganization.

Bottom Line

The circumstances and motivations for mergers and acquisitions in the cannabis industry are diverse. As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to structuring the transaction. In any event, it’s crucial to start the process early and seek advice from legal counsel and tax advisors to minimize the tax burden and ensure that both parties to the transaction get the best deal possible. If you need assistance, contact your 420CPA strategic financial advisor.

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).

The CLIMB Act: How the Cannabis Industry Could Benefit

By Zachary Kobrin
No Comments

Like this article and want to see more? Subscribe to our free newsletter here
The cannabis industry could receive a significant boost if the recently introduced Capital Lending and Investment for Marijuana Businesses (CLIMB) Act passes Congress. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Rep. Troy A. Carter, Sr., a Democrat from Louisiana, and Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, a Republican from Pennsylvania. It is intended to boost the cannabis industry by creating greater access to capital, banking insurance and other business services. Unlike the SAFE Banking Act (which specifically addresses banking services for the cannabis industry), the CLIMB Act was introduced “to permit access to community development, small business, minority development and any other public or private financial capital sources for investment in and financing or cannabis-related legitimate businesses.”

Rep. Troy A. Carter, Sr.

Currently, the cannabis industry faces a serious dilemma with regard to accessing not only traditional banking services, but also essential capital and financing sources. The latest member of the cannabis bill alphabet soup attempts to remedy this by addressing two key issues.

First, the CLIMB Act would permit access to key “business assistance” programs from various financial institutions by prohibiting any federal agency from bringing any civil, criminal, regulatory or administrative actions against a business or a person simply because they provide “business assistance” to a cannabis state-legal company. The CLIMB Act defines “business assistance” broadly to include, among other things, management consulting work, accounting, real estate services, insurance or surety products, advertising, IT and other communication services, debt or equity capital services, banking or credit card services and other financial services.

This provision of the CLIMB Act would immediately create more access to traditional insurance, lending and credit. This broad protection would not only apply to private entities providing “business assistance,” but arguably means that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) could not be penalized by Congress or another government agency for providing loans to state-legal cannabis companies. Moreover, currently the cannabis industry does not have access to use credit cards, as major credit card companies refuse to permit such transactions. The CLIMB Act could pave the way for major credit card providers to begin permitting cannabis transactions. Permitting the use of major credit cards like American Express, Mastercard and Visa could result in an increase in sales for cannabis retailers.

The second, and possibly the most important, aspect of the CLIMB Act is that it would amend the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to create a “safe harbor” for national securities exchanges like Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to list cannabis companies and would permit the trading of these cannabis businesses stock. Currently, plant-touching cannabis companies with operations in the U.S. can only be listed on a Canadian-based exchange and can also only be traded in the U.S. via the over-the-counter (OTC) markets. Trading securities on the OTC markets does not provide the same level of security as securities traded on a national exchange like Nasdaq or NYSE. Specifically, the CLIMB Act delineates that the federal illegality of cannabis is not a bar to listing or trading of securities for legitimate cannabis-related businesses.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler

This provision of the CLIMB Act has two immediate effects. First, the CLIMB Act would allow for U.S. cannabis companies currently listed in Canada to list on the Nasdaq or NYSE. Second, this provision would allow more traditional, “blue-chip” industry companies currently listed on Nasdaq or the NYSE who haven’t been able to operate within the cannabis industry as a plant-touching entity, to enter the cannabis industry as an active participant.

In announcing the CLIMB Act, Representative Reschenthaler stated that “American cannabis companies are currently restricted from receiving traditional lending and financing, making it difficult to compete with larger, global competitors. The CLIMB Act will eliminate these barriers to entry, and provide state-legal American cannabis companies, including small, minority, and veteran-owned businesses, with access to the financial tools necessary for success.”

It is important to note that the CLIMB Act, like the SAFE Banking Act, only represents one small, but important step toward cannabis reforms. Neither proposal would legalize, de-schedule or reschedule cannabis. Rather, the CLIMB Act addresses very real-world, operational issues facing the cannabis industry. With that in mind, the CLIMB Act would certainly provide much needed clarity for issues facing all cannabis companies.

Passage of the CLIMB Act is not a forgone conclusion, but rather is quite uncertain. Other pieces of cannabis-related legislation, like the SAFE Banking Act, have passed the House of Representatives multiple times without the U.S. Senate taking any action. Moreover, the CLIMB Act was introduced with only two legislative supporters.

Flower-Side Chats Part 5: A Q&A with Bob Fireman, CEO of MariMed, Inc.

By Aaron Green
No Comments

In this “Flower-Side Chats” series of articles, Green interviews integrated cannabis companies and flower brands that are bringing unique business models to the industry. Particular attention is focused on how these businesses integrate innovative practices in order to navigate a rapidly changing landscape of regulatory, supply chain and consumer demand.

Multi-state operators (MSOs) are on the rise in the United States, navigating complex regulatory frameworks to drive profitability through economies of scale and scope. As an MSO and an early mover in the space, a significant part of MariMed’s current strategy is to complete the acquisition and consolidation of the licensed state cannabis businesses it has developed. It takes seasoned leadership to make that happen, and MariMed’s is led by one of the most experienced and successful MSO management teams in the industry. Over the last eight years, Bob Fireman and his colleagues have won 17 licenses in 6 states, and designed and developed over 300,000 square feet of cannabis cultivation, production and dispensing facilities.

MariMed has also developed a portfolio of award-winning cannabis brands and infused products which are licensed, manufactured and distributed in Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. A recently announced $46 million financing for a facility with Hadron Healthcare Fund will help repay all MariMed debt other than mortgage-backed bank loans and one convertible note, as well as help upgrade and expand the company’s owned and managed cannabis facilities.

We spoke with Bob Fireman, CEO of MariMed. Bob started the foundations of MariMed in 2008 after getting into large-scale hydroponics for urban sustainable agriculture. Prior to MariMed, Bob served as a startup lawyer focused on tech and emerging industries.

Aaron Green: Bob, tell me about how you got started in the cannabis industry.

Bob Fireman: I practiced law for decades. Part of my practice was to help startups in all sorts of industries, particularly technology and new emerging markets. At one point, I was introduced to a fascinating sustainable food business opportunity – to build hydroponic farms on rooftops in cities across the country.

Bob Fireman, CEO of MariMed, Inc.

When one of our projects in San Francisco hit some roadblocks, our team there pivoted to what was becoming the Wild West of California cannabis. My friend and current MariMed CFO, Jon Levine, and I began investing and managing a cultivation site there. That’s where we built our early foundation of industry knowledge.

Fast forward a few years, and I was afforded the opportunity to be involved in the drafting of the proposed Massachusetts medical cannabis legislation.

Through that work, we met a team that had won one of three cannabis licenses in Rhode Island. We formed a real estate LLC and raised the capital to develop a seed to sale cannabis facility in Providence, which was later leased to the Slater Center, a not-for-profit medical cannabis licensed business. Today, the Slater Center is a nationally acclaimed operation that services over 10,000 medical patients.

From there, we took our know-how and formed a new entity that was the formal beginning of the company we now know as MariMed. Initially, we helped win licenses for clients in Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois and Nevada. We also provided management services, working capital and other necessities. Under our management, we organically built these businesses from the ground up, advancing best practices and somewhat quietly creating a network of best-in-class operations throughout the industry.

That led to the consolidation of those businesses that we’re focused on today as a core strategic pillar.

I’m incredibly proud of our team, the core of which has been at this for 10 years. We’ve watched other MSOs try different models of success, with varying degrees of success. For us, focusing on growth markets, building at a reasonable and scalable clip, attracting incredible talent at all levels of the company, and developing fantastic brands that customers love, are the ingredients that have translated to where we are now – strong performance and an exceptionally bright future. “Slow and steady wins the race” has become a mantra.

Green: What trends are you looking at right now? What’s on your radar?

Fireman: My radar has a singular focus, and that’s to create shareholder value. That’s why completing the consolidation of the cannabis licensed businesses we’ve developed and manage into our public company is so critical. Back in the day, the initial available licenses were in medical-only state programs where applicants were required to be not-for-profit state companies. Accordingly, we raised the capital in the real estate entity which leased facilities to the licensees. Our revenue was from rents, management services and licensing fees.

Panacea Wellness in Middleborough, MA is one of MariMed’s adult use cannabis dispensaries

In 2019, we implemented a new strategic plan to consolidate these businesses. While that translates to our being structured similarly to other MSOs in that we are a vertically integrated seed to sale company, we are distinct in our operational excellence, quality product portfolio, and strong balance sheet. Other MSOs have raised large amounts of capital to pay large sums to acquire licensed state cannabis businesses and have found themselves over-leveraged and challenged to assimilate other companies’ methodologies and cultures. By consolidating the businesses and talented people we developed and managed from day one and utilizing our best practices and processes system-wide, we realize enormous capital efficiencies.

Our strategy is paying off. Our core cannabis revenue in 2020 increased 207% to $50.9 million, and our 10k reported EBITDA of $16.3 million. And now we’re on track to double our revenue in 2021.

The last piece of the puzzle is to let the world know what we’ve been doing. Slow and steady has worked for us but gone are the days of doing so quietly. We’re proud of what we’ve accomplished and exceedingly bullish on what’s to come.

Green: What do you look for in an M&A target?

Fireman: When M&A makes sense for us, we first look for single operators and entrepreneurs in states where we are not active and look to partner with business leaders that had the vision and the courage to get into this industry and build solid cannabis businesses from the ground up. I’m looking for businesses that could benefit from being part of a larger, more experienced and well-capitalized company like MariMed. Obviously, as an MSO with a solid platform, MariMed is approached regularly by other MSOs and banks suggesting candidates for M&A opportunities. Lining up with a company that has complementary cannabis licenses in other states and who shares our vision and ethics could be a win-win situation. They must embrace our commitment to diversity, the environment and proper corporate governance. We have been somewhat reticent to do this until we see some increase in our share price and market capitalization.

Green: Are there any new products, or product trends that you’re looking at?

Fireman: Marimed looks to be the most trusted source of high-quality cannabis products that consistently delivers innovative health and wellness solutions to our patients and customers. Our lab scientists are constantly creating and testing new and innovative formulations of cannabinoid compounds including CBD, THCa, CBG, CBN and others that will improve the health and wellness of our customers.

Our brand portfolio is ever-expanding with new and better product offerings. Our award-winning Betty’s Eddies Fruit Chews brand is adding new SKUs of varieties and flavors for both medical and adult use programs. Our Nature’s Heritage flower and concentrates brand is adding a line of solventless concentrates, live rosin, as well as new formulations for RSO, an oil popular with medical patients. Kalm Fusion is expanding its successful line of powdered drink mixes as we see more movement in the cannabis beverage category.

Microdosing is hugely popular right now, and we’re rolling out products in the 2-5mg dosage range. Health and dietary concerns are top of mind as well, and we offer products that are vegan, sugar-free and gluten-free. Ultimately, we want to be sure that we have something on the shelves for every single consumer. The financial hardship created by the pandemic has made consumers more attracted to value added products such as popcorn buds.

Green: You recently announced an equity financing from Hadron. I’m curious to learn more about it from a nuts-and-bolts perspective if you can share any of that information.

Fireman: Over the last year, access to the capital markets for equity raises in cannabis public companies was difficult. The cost of debt was and is still high, and we were looking for a long-term financial partner that understood the industry and could assist us. Hadron Capital has been successful for several years investing in some of the most successful MSOs and they saw the value and potential in MariMed’s experienced management and great assets.

Hadron invested $46 million in equity in MariMed this March. Approximately $16 million was utilized to retire all our short- and long-term debt but for bank secured debt and one convertible note. $7 million is committed to funding our capex and expanding the capabilities of our facilities, enabling us to grow more flower and automate production. The balance of funding will support our consolidation strategy to fund two more roll ups of state licensed cannabis businesses into the public company.

Going forward, it is comforting to have a capital partner to assist us in future acquisitions and M&A opportunities.

Green: I’d love to learn more about your Nature’s Heritage brand, particularly as it relates to the cultivation and the flower products.

Fireman: Our COO Tim Shaw has assembled a cultivation and production team with expertise in all aspects of genetics, growing methodologies, extraction techniques, and packaging innovation. That’s provided us a rich collection of quality genetics that make up Nature’s Heritage, our top-selling flower, oil and concentrate brand in Massachusetts and Maryland. We’ve recently expanded the line to include Rick Simpson Oil (RSO) and solventless concentrates (including live rosin) and have been receiving stellar feedback.

Green: What are you interested in learning more about?

Fireman: Over the last decade, the MariMed core team has seen the emergence and amazing growth of the cannabis industry. The initial medical programs in California and Colorado have now led to some form of legal medical or adult use cannabis programs in over 33 states and districts.

We are most interested in learning and following the federal, state, and international laws and regulations. It is vital to know how these laws will affect our company and the industry as a whole. When might full federal legalization become a reality? What might different versions of the law be? Will state legal programs be protected as well as the companies that took the risk in investing in the industry at its nascent state and how? What will FDA requirements and regulations look like? What medical claims will companies be allowed to make, and what kind of research or trials will be required to put a product on the shelf? What are the ramifications of the MORE Act or the SAFE Banking Act?

Responsible MSOs need to be prepared to rise to or above the standards of care of other industries. A lot of this was impossible in the past because of federal prohibition laws. Soon, if not already, labs and manufacturing processes will need to be GMP certified and more. Consumer data will need to be HIPAA compliant. Cannabis companies have to be good corporate citizens: diversity and equal opportunity should be embedded in business decisions, and commitment to ESG and sound environmental and social policies with good corporate governance need to be in planning and implemented.

Following the laws and holding ourselves to the highest possible safety and business standards will allow the cannabis industry to finally become “mainstream.”

Green: Alright, great. Thank you, Bob. That concludes the interview!