Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy Court Creates Potential Loophole for Cannabis Businesses Seeking Ch. 7 Protection
In a recent opinion, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (the court) in the matter of In re Callaway, No. 24-30082-DM, 2024 WL 3191673 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. June 26, 2024), created a potential loophole for plant-touching cannabis businesses desiring bankruptcy protection when it denied two separate motions to dismiss an individual's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. In particular, the court found that the simple administration of certain ownership interests of retail cannabis dispensaries "is not in and of itself necessarily equivalent to administering marijuana assets." And, as such, a Chapter 7 trustee could administer and monetize these ownership interests without violating the law.
|Background
In this case, Christopher Michael Callaway (the debtor) owned and operated several retail cannabis dispensaries in San Francisco. One of the dispensaries never opened due to litigation with the M. Dattani Credit Trust (the Dattani Trust), which litigation ultimately led to the debtor filing for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (the code).
In addition to the cannabis dispensaries, the debtor also had other noncannabis businesses along with certain intangible property such as domain names. The debtor did not list any tangible assets related to cannabis in his Schedules A/B (the debtor's property) because all of the cannabis assets were owned by the debtor's LLCs "and as such, were not property of the bankruptcy estate." Additionally, the debtor scheduled claims for accrued but unpaid distributions as a minority owner of one of the cannabis dispensaries, which he claimed was valued at several hundred thousand dollars. In his Schedule I (the debtor's income), the debtor reported post-petition monthly income from a cannabis business.
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
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.