Good news, bad news if you’re a cannabis operator that owes money to a creditor. But probably bad news for the rule of law.
A federal appellate court has ruled that a cannabis operator is obligated to repay his debts to an ex-business partner, but it raised questions about whether the money used to repay the debt could violate federal marijuana laws.
What does this mean for a cannabis operator and potential investors?
The Facts
As usual, our friends at Law360 set the stage:
A Tenth Circuit panel has rejected a cannabis entrepreneur’s attempt to undo a $6.4 million judgment in a dispute with an ex-business partner, but it ordered a district court to revisit an enforcement order that could require the entrepreneur to violate federal drug law to pay the damages.
A Maryland federal judge entered a $6.4 million damages award against Mackie A. Barch and his company Trellis Holdings Maryland Inc. for failing to restore David Joshua Bartch’s stake in a Maryland cannabis cultivation and dispensary business, Culta Inc.
When they failed to pay up, Bartch filed suit in the District of Colorado seeking an order that would require Barch and Trellis to sell off their equity in Culta to satisfy the judgment, which the court granted.
Barch and Trellis claimed that their ex-partner lacked standing to seek enforcement of the judgment because the order would require them to engage in conduct in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Cultivating and selling marijuana is legal under Colorado and Maryland laws, but still prohibited under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The Ruling
The three-judge panel sided, in a divided decision, against Barch and Trellis. According to the court, Barch and Trellis have no path for relief from the judgment because the law only allows a party to seek such relief for violations of due process.
The rift between the majority and the dissent came down to questions of enforceability and practicality. As Law360 wrote:
The dissent argued that Culta’s business practices – which are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act – should have doomed Bartch’s breach of contract suit from the start. By validating the parties’ contract, the majority has instead decided to “ignore the elephant in the room that is the federally illegitimate business enterprise known as Culta,” Judge Baldock wrote.
“Plaintiff’s cause of action is based entirely upon an illegal contract to establish Culta, notably an enterprise in which federal law recognizes no property interest. I simply do not understand why a federal court would lend legitimacy to any of this,” according to the dissent.
The majority recognized that the trial court’s order could potentially require the violation of federal law but were not willing to overturn the order based on that mere possibility. The majority reasoned that because the order did not specifically require Barch and Trellis to cultivate or sell marijuana, it was at least possible that the debt could be repaid without violating federal law. The case was remanded for further instructions and clarity from the trial court on this point.
The Takeaway
Let’s start with one really obvious point and one just regularly obvious point. First, investors should be extremely cautious when providing funds to marijuana companies. This case illustrates how difficult it can be to recover funds when the source of repayments may largely be the result of federally illegal activity. Second, the marijuana industry is replete with unsavory characters. Sure, many marijuana companies are operated by upstanding businesspeople, but the very nature of the industry and its legal status over the decades make it ripe for those who might not feel compelled to follow the strict letter of the law.
Should you choose to invest in a marijuana company, you should do so with the advice of competent, experienced counsel and you should insist that there are legal methods of recovering your funds should that prove necessary. Doing so may seem a tall task, but with a little diligence you may be able to ensure that your funds are secured by assets that are not subject to the same types of challenges in this case.
And, as with any investment, trust but verify.
