Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy Court Ruling of Cannabis-Related Claims Not Violation of Controlled Substance Act, California District Court Rules
In In re Kojima, No. 8:23-CV-00167-RGK, 2023 WL 4602623 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2023), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the court) affirmed a bankruptcy court's order approving a Chapter 7 trustee's proposed settlement of cannabis-related state court claims held by creditors of the estate.
In so ruling, the court distinguished the case at bar from similar cases, holding that a bankruptcy court's administration of cannabis-related state court claims against a debtor's estate is not a violation of the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).
Background
In 2016, Don and Susan Kojima (the debtors) formed the Adelanto Entities to purchase approximately 47 acres of land in Adelanto, California. The debtors purchased the property with the express purpose of cultivating cannabis alongside their son, Cameron Kojima (collectively with the debtors, the Kojimas). Investors Chase Miles Kaufman, Michael Garrison, and Zachary Powers (collectively, KGP) entered into a profit-sharing agreement with the Adelanto Entities, permitting KGP to use the Adelanto Entities' cannabis licenses for independent businesses. In 2019, the Kojimas became aware that KGP were noncompliant with state and local cannabis laws regarding the identification and recordation of cannabis products. In addition, KGP made allegedly unauthorized transactions leading to $360,000 in damages being assessed against the Adelanto Entities and the debtors. As a result, the Kojimas terminated the profit-sharing agreement with KGP shortly thereafter.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.