• 619.866.3444
  • info@socal.law
  • ProVisors
  • Payments
Gupta Evans and Ayres
  • What We Do
    • Bankruptcy
    • Business Litigation
    • Real Estate Litigation
  • Who We Are
  • Our Team
    • Ajay Gupta
    • Chris Evans
    • Jake Ayres
    • Alessandro Nolfo
    • Aurora Gallardo
    • Mike Covington
    • Alexander Gomez
  • How We Help
    • Referral Partner Process
    • Legal Proceedings Process
    • Case Stories
  • Resources
    • The Blog
    • Our Events
    • For Lawyers
    • Useful Forms
    • Video Library
  • Payments
  • Get In Touch
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Chapter 420 Bankruptcy?: How In re United Cannabis Could Open the Doors to Bankruptcy Relief for Cannabis-Adjacent Businesses

September 12, 2020/in All Blog Posts, Cannabis, Corporate Litigation/by Jake Ayres

Let’s say you’re a hemp/CBD business (that also services the cannabis industry in a limited capacity) and COVID-19 has hit you.  Hard.  You’ve stretched your resources as far as you can, but you’re still on the ropes financially.  The California eviction moratorium has been rolled back and your local eviction moratorium—the only thing protecting commercial tenants (in San Diego County and many others)–is about to expire at the end of September.  The CDC has issued an order forbidding evictions until the end of the year, but only for residential tenants.  Your landlord is waiting in the wings to be paid in full for the back rent you couldn’t afford to pay during the lockdown.  

The b-word—bankruptcy—rears its head in your mind.  But can you, as a business that is still federally illegal, file for bankruptcy—a creature of federal law?

One would think the answer is “absolutely not.”  However, a relatively recent District of Colorado Bankruptcy Court ruling, and its soon-to-be progeny, may eventually provide a glimmer of hope for the distressed cannabis-adjacent business.

On April 20, 2020—a date not without significance for the cannabis industry—United Cannabis Corporation and its associated entity UC Colorado Corporation filed for bankruptcy in the District of Colorado.  Shortly thereafter, on April 22, 2020, Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. issued an Order to Show Cause why the bankruptcy should not be dismissed, citing the rule that businesses whose operations constitute federal crimes cannot take advantage of the federal bankruptcy system.  Arenas v. United States Tr. (In re Arenas), 535 B.R. 845, 847 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2015). 

Despite this seemingly impassable roadblock, the debtors are hoping to take advantage of a narrow gap in the case law hinted at by an earlier bankruptcy case from the District of Colorado—In re Way to Grow, Inc., 610 B.R. 338 (D. Colo. 2019).  In that case, the debtors were a group of business entities selling hydroponic agriculture equipment.  On December 14, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition, citing the fact that although hydroponic equipment can be used to grow any number of crops, the overwhelming majority of debtors’ sales were to cultivators.  In re Way to Grow, Inc., 597 B.R. 111 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2018).  The debtors appealed to the District Court, citing Congress’ passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018—also known as the 2018 Farm Bill—which legalized hemp on December 20, 2018, mere days after the Bankruptcy Court dismissed debtors’ petition.  610 B.R. at 355.  The debtors argued that their products could have been used by their customers for the now-legal cultivation of hemp, as opposed to cannabis.  Id.  The court demurred, stating “[t]his Court does not opine on whether the timing of the Agriculture Improvement Act’s passage excuses Debtors’ failure to develop a proper record or to advance the argument” that “‘the legalization of hemp means that they could reorganize based on the hemp market.’”  Id. at 355-56. 

This brief discussion of the tension between federally illegal cannabis and federally legal hemp as it relates to bankruptcy eligibility left the door ajar for a debtor like United Cannabis.  United Cannabis has filed a petition tailored to fit through that narrow gap, arguing that its chapter 11 reorganization can be funded by its non-cannabis income.  United Cannabis argues that its $4 million bankruptcy estate is overwhelmingly derived from legal hemp/CBD business whose only cannabis-related holding is ownership of stock in WeedMD, a Canadian medical cannabis company whose shares are publicly traded in the United States. 

In other words, United Cannabis has placed the exact question the District of Colorado dodged in Way to Grow squarely before the District of Colorado Bankruptcy Court: Can a company with some income derived from cannabis be allowed to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy if it can fully fund its reorganization without that cannabis-derived income?

As of now, that question remains unanswered.  The debtor and the U.S. Trustee have filed their responses to the court’s OSC and now the parties—as well as industry watchdogs—eagerly await the court’s decision.  The court’s ruling on the Order to Show Cause has been pending since mid-May 2020 and the court has allowed the bankruptcy to proceed as normal in the interim.  Although the court itself has offered no timeline for when it will issue its decision on the Order to Show Cause, nor has it indicated why its decision has been pending for nearly four months, one can only speculate that the court may be waiting for guidance from Congress or elsewhere before issuing its decision.  Moreover, the length of time that has elapsed since the parties in interest submitted their responses to the Order to Show Cause suggests that the court does not view the issue as a black-and-white one—or, at the very least, as a political hot potato.

Regardless of when the decision will be issued, if the court allows the debtors’ petitions to survive its OSC , it could be a watershed moment for businesses who service the industry in a small capacity by opening the door to bankruptcy relief, provided that they can fund their reorganization without cannabis money.  However, the court could easily bypass this question just as the court did in Way to Grow.  The U.S. Trustee, citing United Cannabis’ own marketing materials, argued in its response to the OSC that United Cannabis marketed itself largely as a cannabis company, not as a legal hemp/CBD company.  Per the U.S. Trustee, United Cannabis had, in the recent past, identified numerous cannabis/THC products that it sold and distributed.  If the court finds this evidence credible, it could easily find that United Cannabis is not entitled to bankruptcy relief because it cannot fund its reorganization with non-cannabis money, regardless of whether that route would be a viable path to bankruptcy. 

COVID-19 has taken its toll on a wide swath of industries—including the “essential” cannabis industry.  Despite this designation, cannabis businesses have been cut off from Paycheck Protection Program loans and bankruptcy, among other federal forms of economic relief.  However, if the United Cannabis court decides that mixed hemp/cannabis companies can file for bankruptcy if they can reorganize without cannabis money, that pushes the cannabis industry an inch closer to enjoying the governmental benefits that its non-cannabis business counterparts enjoy. 

https://socal.law/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg 1707 2560 Jake Ayres https://socal.law/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/gupta-evans-ayres_brand-identity_v4-02.png Jake Ayres2020-09-12 17:35:002022-06-21 19:30:58Chapter 420 Bankruptcy?: How In re United Cannabis Could Open the Doors to Bankruptcy Relief for Cannabis-Adjacent Businesses

California Bill to Substantially Increase the Homestead Exemption Goes to Governor Newsom for Signing (AB 1885)

September 3, 2020/in All Blog Posts, Corporate Litigation, Real Estate/by Ajay Gupta

With all the craziness around eviction moratoriums, COVID-19, and election politics dominating the headlines, the California legislature quietly passed AB 1885 (its Senate Corollary was SB 832) on Tuesday, September 2nd.  AB 1885 increases the California homestead to the greater of $300,000 or the countywide median sale price of a single-family home in the calendar year prior to the year in which the judgement debtor claims the exemption, not to exceed $600,000.   As a frame of reference, the following are projections for a few of California’s major metropolitan areas:

  • San Diego County:  $600,000 (estimated $628,500 Median)
  • Los Angeles County:  $600,000 (estimated $664,500 Median)
  • San Francisco County:  $600,000 (estimated $1,444,000 Median)
  • Riverside County:  $400,500

The homestead exemption protects the value of a homeowner’s home in the event of a bankruptcy or a judgment creditor enforcing a judgment.  The exemption provides that a specified portion of equity in a homestead, as defined, is exempt from the execution to satisfy such debts.  However, the exemption does not protect against voluntary liens, such as a deed of trust or even a homeowner’s association lien.  In addition, federal and state tax liens are generally not subject to any homestead protections.  Depending on certain characteristics of the homestead’s residents, the law currently prescribes that the amount of the homestead exemption is either $75,000, $100,000 or $175,000—a stark difference from the potential $600,000 exemption now permitted under new AB 1885.

Proponents of AB 1885 argue that the current homestead standards are designed for an era when properties were simply worth less.  The California homestead exemption protected almost the full value of a median priced home 45 years ago; but, today the homestead exemption covers barely 15%.  Also, many other states with much lower home costs have far higher exemption amounts, with 8 states providing their homeowners with an unlimited exemption.  Finally, proponents argue that COVID-19 mandates higher exemptions because a higher exemption will allow for individuals, who would otherwise lose their homes, to access bankruptcy relief during this economic disaster.

Creditors’ rights advocates argue that increasing the homestead exemption six-fold for most Californians is unwarranted and the product of political pandering during a once in a lifetime pandemic.  While most opponents do not dispute that the homestead exemptions are outdated, they push for a graduated increase that is less severe and that takes age and disabilities into account. 

Regardless of your opinion, this bill is sitting on Governor Newsom’s desk and is expected to be signed into law.  If signed, the bill is likely to be effective on January 1, 2021; however, there may be procedural mechanisms for the Governor to make it effective immediately.

If you’d like to weigh in on this signature, now is the time. Send your emails to the governor at leg.unit@gov.ca.gov.

https://socal.law/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/craig-marolf-uHwVOiIeS1o-unsplash-scaled.jpg 1707 2560 Ajay Gupta https://socal.law/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/gupta-evans-ayres_brand-identity_v4-02.png Ajay Gupta2020-09-03 17:41:002022-06-21 23:12:04California Bill to Substantially Increase the Homestead Exemption Goes to Governor Newsom for Signing (AB 1885)

Search Blogs

Categories

Recent Blogs

  • Out of the Frying Pan: AB 1200 and the New Online and Physical Labeling Requirements for California CookwareFebruary 22, 2023 - 12:15 am
  • The First Amendment, Bad Reviews, and You: So You’ve Been Smeared on the Internet – Part IOctober 4, 2022 - 8:49 pm
  • GEA’s Demand Letter to Union Bank Secures Release of Erroneous LoanJune 10, 2022 - 11:43 pm

Connect

HEADQUARTERS

1620 Fifth Ave #650
San Diego, CA 92101

CONTACT

P: 619-866-3444
F: 619-330-2055
E: info@socal.law

CONNECT

  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to Twitter
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to Instagram
  • Link to Youtube
gupta evans ayres brand identity RGB Vertical White 2
smal bbb Logo
Avvo Small Logo
superlawyers Logo
small userway Logo
SDCBA Logo

© Gupta Evans & Ayres 2022 – all rights reserved

site design by digitalstoryteller.io

1620 Fifth Ave #650
San Diego, CA 92101

P: 619-866-3444
F: 619-330-2055
E: info@socal.law

  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to Twitter
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to Instagram
  • Link to Youtube
gupta evans ayres brand identity RGB Vertical White 2

small userway Logo
smal bbb Logo
Avvo Small Logo
superlawyers Logo
SDCBA Logo

© Gupta Evans & Ayres 2022 – all rights reserved

site design by digitalstoryteller.io

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Accept settings

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Accept settingsHide notification only