{"id":3195,"date":"2021-07-07T22:45:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-07T22:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/socal.law\/?p=3195"},"modified":"2022-06-21T20:38:45","modified_gmt":"2022-06-21T20:38:45","slug":"chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 420, Part II: Closing the Book on Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-bankruptcy-how-in-re-united-cannabis-could-open-the-doors-to-bankruptcy-relief-for-cannabis-adjacent-businesses\/\">previous article<\/a>, I discussed the potential impacts of a then-forthcoming decision in the case of&nbsp;<em>In re United Cannabis Corporation<\/em>, which had the potential to widen access to federal bankruptcy relief to cannabis-adjacent hemp businesses.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the&nbsp;<em>In re United Cannabis<\/em>&nbsp;case ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.&nbsp; On January 12, 2021, after approximately eight months of consideration, Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. of the District of Colorado issued a one-page ruling dismissing<a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;the bankruptcy petition \u201cpursuant to 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 1112(b) and . . . finding good cause.\u201d&nbsp; In so doing, he snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses that dabble in cannabis to successfully pursue chapter 11 bankruptcy.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Because the ruling does not provide any substantive reasoning for the decision, industry observers are left to speculate.&nbsp; One can only assume that the court found the evidence offered by the U.S. Trustee\u2014namely, that the debtor was not nearly as removed from the cannabis arena as it purported to be based on the debtor\u2019s website and marketing materials\u2014credible enough to justify dismissal on the grounds that a plan of reorganization could not be untainted by federally illegal cannabis money.&nbsp; In so doing, the court left the fundamental question of how the 2018 Farm Bill\u2019s legalization of hemp affects the availability of bankruptcy to businesses that have toes in both the cannabis and hemp pools.&nbsp; For the time being, the safer route\u2014and the route perhaps favored by conventional wisdom\u2014for businesses is to completely segregate their cannabis and hemp businesses, both on a practical and corporate\/legal level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado\u2019s declination to decide the issue raised by&nbsp;<em>Way to Grow<\/em>&nbsp;only illuminates other quirks in the current state of affairs for bankruptcy in the cannabis context.&nbsp; In particular, the ruling in&nbsp;<em>United Cannabis<\/em>&nbsp;displays the tension between how different bankruptcy courts have construed section 1112 vis-\u00e0-vis section 1129(a)(3).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 1129(a)(3) provides that a bankruptcy plan shall only be confirmed where,&nbsp;<em>inter alia<\/em>, \u201c[t]he plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law.\u201d&nbsp; On its face, this statute would seem to preclude plans funded by federally illegal cannabis, given that those funds would be derived from a \u201cmeans forbidden by law.\u201d&nbsp; However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed in&nbsp;<em>Garvin v. Cook Investments NW<\/em>,&nbsp;<em>SPNWY, LLC<\/em>, 922 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2019).&nbsp; In that case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington\u2019s confirmation of a chapter 11 plan for reorganization over the U.S. Trustee\u2019s objection that one of the debtors was renting real property to a cannabis growing operation.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Id.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/em>The Ninth Circuit parsed the language of section 1129(a)(3) quite narrowly, holding that that subsection \u201cdirects bankruptcy courts to policy the means of a reorganization plan\u2019s&nbsp;<em>proposal<\/em>, not its substantive provisions.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Id.<\/em>at 1033.&nbsp; The Ninth Circuit applied that interpretation to the case at bar, and found that although income funneled into the plan would ultimately be derived from a federally illegal source\u2014the cannabis grower tenant\u2014that had no bearing on whether the plan had been&nbsp;<em>proposed&nbsp;<\/em>in good faith.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>See id.<\/em>&nbsp;at 1035-36.&nbsp; Importantly, the Ninth Circuit refused to rule on the argument that section 1112(b) mandated dismissal of the petition, concluding that \u201cthe Trustee waived the argument by failing to renew its motion to dismiss\u201d after the Bankruptcy Court\u2019s initial dismissal of a previous motion to dismiss with leave to renew at the plan confirmation hearing.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Id.&nbsp;<\/em>at 1033-34.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This literal interpretation of section 1129(a)(3) has been explicitly criticized in courts within other circuits.&nbsp; Indeed, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan sharply critiqued&nbsp;<em>Garvin<\/em>&nbsp;in dicta for its de facto affirmation of illegal conduct pursuant to a bankruptcy plan:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Court does not necessarily agree with the&nbsp;<em>Garvin<\/em>&nbsp;court\u2019s holding about \u00a7 1112(a)(3).&nbsp; And, respectfully, one might reasonably question whether the&nbsp;<em>Garvin<\/em>&nbsp;court should have refused to decide the \u00a7 1112(b) dismissal issue.&nbsp; That refusal, on waiver grounds, arguably is questionable, because it allowed the affirmance, by a&nbsp;<em>federal&nbsp;<\/em>court, of the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan under which a debtor would continue to violate&nbsp;<em>federal&nbsp;<\/em>criminal law under the [Controlled Substances Act].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>In re Basrah Custom Design, Inc.<\/em>, 600 B.R. 368, 381 n.38 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Moreover, the District Court of Colorado in&nbsp;<em>In re Way to Grow<\/em>, the very case that seemingly left the door open for&nbsp;<em>United Cannabis&nbsp;<\/em>in the first place, also criticized&nbsp;<em>Garvin<\/em>&nbsp;for unduly focusing on the \u201cmeans forbidden by law\u201d clause of section 1129(a)(3), rather than the \u201cgood faith\u201d portion of the same.&nbsp; 610 B.R. 338.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As a result, there is an embryonic circuit split on the issue of interpreting section 1129(a)(3) as applied to cannabis business petitioners, with the Ninth Circuit in the minority and the Sixth and Tenth Circuits in the presumptive majority.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As fascinating as this may be on an academic level, for businesses in the cannabis industry, this circuit split will likely have little bearing on the ultimate issue of whether businesses that dabble in cannabis can obtain the benefits of federal bankruptcy.&nbsp; Reason being, section 1129(a)(3) is just one ground for dismissal on the basis of illegality.&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Garvin&nbsp;<\/em>itself noted in its final paragraphs that there are plenty of other reasons to dismiss cannabis bankruptcies\u2014not the least of which is section 1112(b).&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Garvin<\/em>, 922 F.3d at 1036.&nbsp; Indeed, running an illegal business as part of a bankruptcy plan could conceivably run afoul of any number of the listed bases for \u201ccause\u201d under section 1112(b)(4), including but not limited to the \u201cgross mismanagement of the estate\u201d prong name checked by the court in&nbsp;<em>Garvin<\/em>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The unceremonious dismissal of the petition in&nbsp;<em>United Cannabis&nbsp;<\/em>raises more questions than answers.&nbsp; Unless and until cannabis is descheduled, or some other form of federal reform occurs, the Bankruptcy Courts will be left to continue to battle it out over interpretations of section 1129(a)(3), comfortable in the knowledge that section 1112 provides a backstop for dismissing cannabis-funded petitions and plans.&nbsp; However, the issue raised in&nbsp;<em>United Cannabis<\/em>\u2014whether a company that has cannabis-derived revenue can have a chapter 11 plan approved if the plan doesn\u2019t require that revenue\u2014remains tantalizingly unanswered for now.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-css-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>&nbsp;Curiously, the court styled the order as one \u201cgranting\u201d the U.S. Trustee\u2019s \u201cMotion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 1112(b).\u201d&nbsp; However, the U.S. Trustee never filed a Motion to Dismiss.&nbsp; Rather, the U.S. Trustee filed a response to the court\u2019s own Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed\u2014although, that response did raise section 1112(b) as a reason for dismissing the case.&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>However, the\u00a0In re United Cannabis\u00a0case ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.\u00a0 On January 12, 2021, after approximately eight months of consideration, Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. of the District of Colorado issued a one-page ruling dismissing[1]\u00a0the bankruptcy petition \u201cpursuant to 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 1112(b) and . . . finding good cause.\u201d\u00a0 In so doing, he snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses that dabble in cannabis to successfully pursue chapter 11 bankruptcy.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":3750,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,36,62,37],"tags":[57],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy - Gupta Evans and Ayres<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy - Gupta Evans and Ayres\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Gupta Evans and Ayres\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-07-07T22:45:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-06-21T20:38:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jake Ayres\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jake Ayres\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/\",\"name\":\"Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy - Gupta Evans and Ayres\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-07-07T22:45:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-06-21T20:38:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/#\/schema\/person\/a130f0be54771ee7347ff2a8d66baf6a\"},\"description\":\"Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chapter 420, Part II: Closing the Book on Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/\",\"name\":\"Gupta Evans and Ayres\",\"description\":\"Creative Strategies, Real World Solutions\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/#\/schema\/person\/a130f0be54771ee7347ff2a8d66baf6a\",\"name\":\"Jake Ayres\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Jake-Ayres-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Jake-Ayres-1.png\",\"caption\":\"Jake Ayres\"},\"description\":\"Favorite Quote: \u201cWhen you are content to be simply yourself, and don\u2019t compare or compete, everybody will respect you.\u201d \u2013 Lao Tzu\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy - Gupta Evans and Ayres","description":"Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy - Gupta Evans and Ayres","og_description":"Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses.","og_url":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/","og_site_name":"Gupta Evans and Ayres","article_published_time":"2021-07-07T22:45:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-06-21T20:38:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jake Ayres","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jake Ayres","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/","url":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/","name":"Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy - Gupta Evans and Ayres","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2021-07-07T22:45:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-06-21T20:38:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/#\/schema\/person\/a130f0be54771ee7347ff2a8d66baf6a"},"description":"Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/chapter-420-part-ii-closing-the-book-on-cannabis-adjacent-bankruptcy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/socal.law\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chapter 420, Part II: Closing the Book on Cannabis-Adjacent Bankruptcy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/#website","url":"https:\/\/socal.law\/","name":"Gupta Evans and Ayres","description":"Creative Strategies, Real World Solutions","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/socal.law\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/#\/schema\/person\/a130f0be54771ee7347ff2a8d66baf6a","name":"Jake Ayres","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/socal.law\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Jake-Ayres-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Jake-Ayres-1.png","caption":"Jake Ayres"},"description":"Favorite Quote: \u201cWhen you are content to be simply yourself, and don\u2019t compare or compete, everybody will respect you.\u201d \u2013 Lao Tzu"}]}},"featured_image_src":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","featured_image_src_square":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/melinda-gimpel-9j8k3l9afkc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","author_info":{"display_name":"Jake Ayres","author_link":"https:\/\/socal.law\/author\/jake-ayres\/"},"rbea_author_info":{"display_name":"Jake Ayres","author_link":"https:\/\/socal.law\/author\/jake-ayres\/"},"rbea_excerpt_info":"However, the\u00a0In re United Cannabis\u00a0case ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.\u00a0 On January 12, 2021, after approximately eight months of consideration, Bankruptcy Judge Joseph G. Rosania, Jr. of the District of Colorado issued a one-page ruling dismissing[1]\u00a0the bankruptcy petition \u201cpursuant to 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 1112(b) and . . . finding good cause.\u201d\u00a0 In so doing, he snuffed out any hope that the District of Colorado could become a hub for hemp businesses that dabble in cannabis to successfully pursue chapter 11 bankruptcy.\u00a0","category_list":"<a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/category\/news\/\" rel=\"category tag\">All Blog Posts<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/category\/bankruptcy\/\" rel=\"category tag\">Bankruptcy<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/category\/cannabis\/\" rel=\"category tag\">Cannabis<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/socal.law\/category\/corporate-litigation\/\" rel=\"category tag\">Corporate Litigation<\/a>","comments_num":"0 comments","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3195"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3195"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3195\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3666,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3195\/revisions\/3666"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3750"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/socal.law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}