Cannabis Bankruptcy and Restructuring: Legal Pathways and Solutions

Executive Summary

Cannabis companies face unique bankruptcy challenges due to federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act, creating a legal paradox where state-licensed operators cannot access traditional Chapter 11 protection despite operating lawfully under state law. A landmark June 2026 Chapter 15 ruling has opened new pathways for cannabis restructuring by recognizing foreign insolvency proceedings, offering a potential blueprint for distressed operators. The cannabis industry has witnessed over $3 billion in distressed debt since 2022, with dozens of multi-state operators (MSOs) pursuing out-of-court workouts, receiverships, and assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) proceedings as alternatives to federal bankruptcy. This evolving legal landscape affects thousands of dispensaries, cultivation facilities, and ancillary businesses across 38 states with medical programs and 24 states with adult-use markets. The recent Chapter 15 decision represents the first time a U.S. bankruptcy court has explicitly addressed cannabis restructuring mechanics, potentially transforming how the $30 billion domestic industry manages financial distress.

Why Cannabis Bankruptcy Matters

The inability to access federal bankruptcy protection costs cannabis companies an estimated $500 million annually in restructuring inefficiencies and creates systemic risk across a rapidly maturing industry. Traditional bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code provides businesses with automatic stays against creditors, debtor-in-possession financing, and court-supervised reorganization plans that bind all stakeholders. Cannabis operators lack these protections despite generating $27.5 billion in legal sales during 2025, according to industry data. The stakeholder impact spans multiple constituencies. Approximately 428,000 Americans work directly in state-licensed cannabis businesses, with jobs concentrated in California, Colorado, Michigan, and Florida. When cannabis companies fail without bankruptcy protection, employees lose wages and benefits with limited recourse. Secured lenders holding an estimated $8.2 billion in cannabis debt face prolonged collection timelines and reduced recoveries compared to traditional Chapter 11 cases. Landlords with cannabis tenants cannot efficiently terminate leases or reclaim properties through bankruptcy mechanisms. Patients and consumers in medical markets experience supply disruptions when dispensaries close abruptly. The financial scale of cannabis distress has grown substantially. Between January 2023 and May 2026, at least 47 MSOs pursued some form of restructuring, including MedMen Enterprises, Harborside Inc., and Parallel. Industry analysts estimate that 30-40% of licensed operators face near-term liquidity challenges due to oversupply in mature markets, 280E tax burdens, and limited access to capital. Without bankruptcy, these companies pursue state-law alternatives that fragment creditor recoveries and create jurisdictional conflicts across multi-state operations.

Background and History

The Controlled Substances Act Barrier

Federal bankruptcy protection became unavailable to cannabis companies in 1970 when Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act, classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code, codified at Title 11 of the United States Code, requires that debtors operate lawfully under federal law. Section 1129(a)(3) mandates that reorganization plans be "proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law." Courts have consistently interpreted this requirement to exclude businesses engaged in activities that violate the CSA. The first major judicial precedent emerged in 2017 when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the Chapter 11 case of Arenas Venture, a licensed Colorado cannabis landlord, in In re Arenas. Bankruptcy Judge Howard R. Tallman ruled that even ancillary businesses facilitating cannabis operations could not proceed under bankruptcy protection. The decision established that courts must dismiss cases involving CSA violations regardless of state licensing.

Early Restructuring Alternatives

Between 2017 and 2020, distressed cannabis operators developed workarounds. Receiverships became the primary tool, particularly in California, Colorado, and Washington. A receivership involves a state court appointing a neutral party to take control of a company's assets, liquidate or restructure operations, and distribute proceeds to creditors. Unlike bankruptcy, receiverships lack automatic stays, cannot bind non-consenting creditors to reorganization plans, and operate under varying state laws. Assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) proceedings emerged as another alternative. In an ABC, a distressed company voluntarily transfers assets to an assignee who liquidates them and distributes proceeds according to state priority statutes. California's ABC statute, codified in California Civil Code §§ 1800-1802, became particularly important as the state's cannabis industry grew. However, ABCs cannot reorganize businesses or discharge debt, limiting their utility for viable operations seeking to restructure rather than liquidate.

The 2018-2022 Capital Boom and Bust

Cannabis industry debt exploded from approximately $1.2 billion in 2018 to over $9 billion by 2022 as Canadian MSOs and U.S. operators pursued aggressive expansion. Companies including Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries, Trulieve, and Cresco Labs raised billions through senior secured notes, sale-leaseback transactions, and equity offerings on the Canadian Securities Exchange. Interest rates on cannabis debt ranged from 8% to 15%, reflecting federal illegality risk and limited institutional participation. The capital boom funded acquisitions across state markets. Curaleaf acquired Grassroots for $875 million in 2020. Trulieve purchased Harvest Health & Recreation for $2.1 billion in 2021. These transactions assumed continued market growth and federal reform. When neither materialized as expected, overleveraged operators faced maturity walls. By late 2022, wholesale cannabis prices had declined 40-60% in mature markets including California, Oregon, and Michigan due to oversupply. California wholesale flower prices fell from $1,200 per pound in 2020 to under $500 per pound by 2023. Operators with high fixed costs and debt service obligations faced immediate liquidity crises. MedMen, once valued at $3 billion, began closing dispensaries and defaulting on obligations in 2022.

The 2023-2025 Restructuring Wave

The period from 2023 through 2025 saw unprecedented cannabis restructuring activity. At least 23 MSOs pursued out-of-court debt exchanges, extending maturities and reducing principal in exchange for equity. Harborside completed a debt-for-equity swap in March 2023, converting $75 million in senior debt to equity and extending remaining obligations. Parallel restructured approximately $400 million in debt through a combination of asset sales and creditor negotiations in 2024. Receiverships accelerated. California state courts appointed receivers for at least 31 licensed cannabis businesses between January 2023 and December 2025, according to court records. These proceedings typically lasted 8-14 months, compared to 12-18 months for traditional Chapter 11 cases, but resulted in lower creditor recoveries due to lack of automatic stays and DIP financing. The absence of bankruptcy protection created particular challenges for multi-state operators. A company with licenses in eight states might face separate receivership proceedings in each jurisdiction, with different receivers, conflicting court orders, and duplicative professional fees. Creditors with cross-collateralized debt across multiple states struggled to enforce security interests efficiently.

The June 2026 Chapter 15 Breakthrough

On June 11, 2026, a U.S. bankruptcy court issued the first ruling recognizing a foreign cannabis insolvency proceeding under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, creating a potential restructuring pathway for companies with Canadian operations. Chapter 15, codified at 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1532, implements the United Nations Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, allowing U.S. courts to recognize and assist foreign bankruptcy proceedings. The case involved a Canadian-domiciled cannabis company with operations in both Canada, where cannabis is federally legal, and several U.S. states. The debtor filed insolvency proceedings under Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and sought recognition in U.S. bankruptcy court under Chapter 15. The court ruled that while the debtor's U.S. cannabis operations violated the CSA, the foreign proceeding itself was lawful and entitled to recognition. This allowed the Canadian restructuring plan to bind U.S. creditors and provided automatic stay protection for U.S. assets. Legal experts immediately recognized the decision's implications. The ruling suggested that cannabis companies could potentially restructure through Canadian insolvency proceedings while obtaining U.S. court recognition and enforcement, effectively circumventing the direct bankruptcy prohibition. The decision cited the principle of international comity and Congress's intent in enacting Chapter 15 to facilitate cross-border restructurings.

Key Players in Cannabis Restructuring

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts

Federal bankruptcy judges have consistently dismissed cannabis cases while expressing frustration with the legal framework. In In re Arenas (2017), Judge Tallman noted that "this court is not unsympathetic to the Debtor's situation" but found dismissal mandatory under existing law. The U.S. Trustee's Office, which oversees bankruptcy administration, has actively moved to dismiss cannabis cases, arguing that court resources cannot support illegal activity under federal law. The June 2026 Chapter 15 ruling represents the first significant departure from blanket dismissal. The presiding judge distinguished between authorizing new illegal activity and recognizing foreign proceedings addressing existing situations. This reasoning may influence other courts considering Chapter 15 cannabis cases.

State Receivers and ABC Assignees

Specialized receivers have emerged to handle cannabis insolvency. In California, receivers including Robb Evans & Associates and Getzler Henrich & Associates have managed dozens of cannabis receiverships. These professionals navigate state licensing requirements, maintain regulatory compliance during transitions, and market assets to qualified buyers. Receiver fees typically range from $300 to $600 per hour, with total costs consuming 8-15% of estate value. ABC assignees operate similarly but focus on liquidation rather than reorganization. California assignees must post bonds and follow statutory distribution priorities, paying secured creditors first, then priority claims including wages and taxes, and finally unsecured creditors on a pro-rata basis.

Cannabis Lenders and Creditors

The cannabis lending market includes specialized funds, family offices, and Canadian institutions. Chicago Atlantic Real Estate Finance provided over $1.2 billion in cannabis real estate loans between 2019 and 2025. AFC Gamma, a publicly traded cannabis REIT, has extended approximately $800 million in senior secured loans. These lenders typically secure loans with all company assets, including licenses, inventory, equipment, and real estate. When borrowers default, cannabis lenders face limited enforcement options. Foreclosing on licenses requires regulatory approval in most states. Inventory and equipment sales must comply with state tracking systems. Lenders increasingly include receivership provisions in loan agreements, allowing them to petition state courts for receivers upon default.

Regulatory Agencies

State cannabis regulators play critical roles in restructuring. The California Department of Cannabis Control, Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency, and similar bodies must approve license transfers, ownership changes, and operational modifications during insolvency proceedings. These agencies prioritize supply chain continuity and regulatory compliance over creditor recoveries. Some states have adopted specific insolvency provisions. Illinois regulations allow temporary license transfers to receivers pending permanent sales. Massachusetts requires distressed licensees to notify the Cannabis Control Commission before ceasing operations, enabling orderly transitions.

Restructuring Advisors

Law firms including Duane Morris, Vicente Sederberg, and Dentons have developed cannabis restructuring practices. These firms advise on receiverships, ABCs, out-of-court exchanges, and regulatory compliance during distress. Financial advisors including Stout, FTI Consulting, and Opportune LLP provide valuation, cash flow analysis, and transaction support. Investment banks specializing in cannabis, such as Viridian Capital Advisors and Ello Capital, facilitate distressed M&A and debt restructurings. These intermediaries connect distressed sellers with qualified buyers, navigate state licensing transfers, and structure transactions to maximize recoveries.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Federal Bankruptcy Code Barriers

Title 11 of the United States Code establishes comprehensive bankruptcy protection but requires debtors to operate lawfully under federal law, creating an insurmountable barrier for cannabis businesses. Section 109 defines eligibility for bankruptcy relief, requiring that debtors be "persons" engaged in lawful business. Section 1129(a)(3) mandates good faith plan proposals "not by any means forbidden by law." Courts apply the Stern v. Marshall framework when analyzing bankruptcy jurisdiction, examining whether the proceeding involves core bankruptcy functions or state-law claims. Cannabis cases fail at the threshold eligibility stage, preventing courts from reaching jurisdictional questions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed this approach in In re Way to Grow (2021), holding that bankruptcy courts lack discretion to proceed with cases involving ongoing CSA violations. Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code provides automatic stays upon filing, immediately halting all collection actions, foreclosures, and litigation against debtors. This protection, unavailable to cannabis companies, allows traditional businesses to stabilize operations while developing reorganization plans. Cannabis operators facing multiple creditor lawsuits cannot obtain similar breathing room.

Chapter 15 and Cross-Border Insolvency

Chapter 15, enacted in 2005, allows U.S. bankruptcy courts to recognize foreign insolvency proceedings and provide assistance to foreign representatives. Section 1515 establishes recognition requirements: the foreign proceeding must be pending in the debtor's home country, the foreign representative must be authorized, and the petition must include specified documentation. Upon recognition, Section 1520 provides automatic relief including stays of U.S. litigation and execution against the debtor's U.S. assets. Section 1521 authorizes additional discretionary relief, including asset turnover to foreign representatives and examination of witnesses. The June 2026 ruling applied these provisions to a cannabis debtor, reasoning that Chapter 15 recognizes foreign proceedings rather than authorizing new illegal activity. This interpretation faces potential challenges. The U.S. Trustee could appeal, arguing that providing bankruptcy relief to cannabis companies violates the CSA regardless of procedural mechanism. Other courts may decline to follow the precedent, creating circuit splits. However, the decision opens a restructuring pathway previously unavailable.

State Receivership Statutes

Receivership law varies significantly by state. California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 564-570 authorizes courts to appoint receivers for businesses when necessary to preserve property or enforce judgments. Receivers become officers of the court with fiduciary duties to all stakeholders. They operate businesses, market assets, and distribute proceeds under court supervision. Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-70-101 provides similar authority. Michigan Court Rules 2.622 governs receivership procedures. These state frameworks lack bankruptcy's automatic stay, preventing receivers from immediately halting all creditor actions. Secured creditors can often proceed with foreclosures despite receiverships, fragmenting asset sales and reducing recoveries.

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Laws

ABC statutes exist in most states but vary in detail. California Civil Code § 1800 defines ABCs as voluntary transfers of all debtor assets to assignees for creditor benefit. Assignees must provide notice to creditors, liquidate assets, and distribute proceeds according to statutory priorities. California law grants assignees broad powers to operate businesses temporarily, sell assets, and settle claims. Unlike bankruptcy, ABCs cannot discharge debt or bind non-consenting creditors to reorganization plans. Creditors who reject ABC distributions can pursue separate collection actions. This limits ABC utility for companies seeking to reorganize rather than liquidate.

The 280E Tax Complication

Internal Revenue Code § 280E prohibits businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses, creating effective tax rates of 60-80% for cannabis operators. This tax burden exacerbates financial distress and complicates restructuring. In receiverships and ABCs, 280E creates priority tax claims that consume significant estate value. The IRS has filed substantial claims in cannabis insolvency proceedings, arguing that unpaid 280E liabilities constitute priority tax debts. Receivers must reserve for these claims, reducing distributions to other creditors.

State-by-State Restructuring Landscape

California

California has witnessed more cannabis restructurings than any other state, with at least 78 receiverships and ABCs filed between 2020 and 2026. The state's mature market, with over 1,200 licensed retailers and wholesale prices below $400 per pound, has created widespread distress. California courts have developed specialized cannabis receivership procedures, with Los Angeles and San Francisco Superior Courts handling the majority of cases. California's ABC statute provides the most detailed framework nationally, allowing assignees to operate businesses for up to 90 days while marketing assets. The state's Department of Cannabis Control has established expedited license transfer procedures for receivers and assignees, typically approving transfers within 45-60 days compared to 90-120 days for standard applications. Notable California restructurings include MedMen's closure of 17 dispensaries between 2022 and 2024, Harborside's 2023 debt restructuring, and Eaze's 2024 receivership. Creditor recoveries in California cannabis receiverships have averaged 25-40 cents on the dollar for unsecured creditors, compared to 50-70 cents in traditional Chapter 11 cases.

Colorado

Colorado's cannabis market, legal since 2014, has experienced consolidation-driven restructuring. The state's Marijuana Enforcement Division requires license transfer approvals but has accommodated receivers by allowing temporary operational authority pending permanent sales. Colorado receiverships typically involve smaller operators, with estate values ranging from $500,000 to $5 million. Colorado courts apply traditional receivership principles, requiring clear evidence of waste or mismanagement before appointing receivers. Secured lenders have successfully petitioned for receivers in at least 23 cases since 2020. The state's relatively stable wholesale prices, averaging $800-1,000 per pound, have limited distress compared to California.

Michigan

Michigan's adult-use market, launched in 2019, has seen rapid oversupply and at least 31 restructurings since 2023. The state's Cannabis Regulatory Agency has approved emergency license transfers to prevent supply disruptions. Michigan law allows receivers to operate dispensaries and cultivation facilities with temporary regulatory approval. Michigan's receivership cases have involved both small operators and MSO subsidiaries. Wholesale prices declined from $2,500 per pound in 2020 to under $900 per pound by 2025, creating liquidity crises for overleveraged growers. The state's relatively creditor-friendly foreclosure laws have enabled secured lenders to recover 60-75% of loan values through receivership sales.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts requires distressed licensees to notify the Cannabis Control Commission 60 days before ceasing operations, allowing the agency to facilitate orderly transitions. The state has experienced fewer restructurings due to limited license availability and sustained wholesale prices above $2,000 per pound. Massachusetts courts have appointed receivers in at least eight cannabis cases since 2020. The state's high regulatory barriers to entry have supported asset values in receivership sales, with dispensary licenses selling for $1-3 million even in distressed transactions.

Illinois

Illinois regulations explicitly address insolvency, allowing temporary license transfers to court-appointed receivers and assignees. The state's Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has approved at least 12 emergency transfers since 2021. Illinois's limited-license market has maintained higher asset values, with operational dispensaries selling for $5-10 million in receivership proceedings.

Florida

Florida's medical-only market operates under vertical integration requirements, complicating restructurings. Distressed operators must sell entire vertically integrated operations, limiting potential buyers to existing licensees or qualified applicants. Florida has seen at least six major restructurings since 2022, including Parallel's 2024 debt exchange and Liberty Health Sciences' 2023 sale to Trulieve.

Market and Business Implications

MSO Capital Structure Challenges

Multi-state operators carry an estimated $8.2 billion in debt with weighted average interest rates of 11.3%, creating annual interest expenses exceeding $900 million across the sector. This debt burden, combined with 280E tax rates and declining wholesale prices, has created a maturity wall. Approximately $2.1 billion in cannabis debt matures between June 2026 and December 2027, according to industry analysis. Without bankruptcy protection, MSOs facing maturity walls must negotiate out-of-court exchanges or pursue asset sales. These processes lack automatic stays, allowing holdout creditors to pursue collection actions that disrupt negotiations. Creditors with cross-collateralized debt across multiple state subsidiaries face coordination challenges when some entities enter receivership while others continue operating.

Distressed M&A Dynamics

Cannabis distressed M&A has accelerated, with at least 47 significant transactions between January 2024 and May 2026. Buyers include well-capitalized MSOs acquiring competitors' assets through receivership sales, private equity funds purchasing licenses at discounts, and real estate investors acquiring cultivation facilities and dispensaries. Transaction structures vary by state regulatory requirements. In limited-license states including Illinois and Massachusetts, buyers must qualify for license transfers, limiting competition and reducing sale prices. In open-license states including California and Colorado, broader buyer pools support higher recoveries. Distressed M&A pricing reflects the lack of bankruptcy protections. Cannabis assets in receivership sales typically trade at 40-60% discounts to comparable going-concern transactions, according to investment banking data. Buyers demand discounts to compensate for regulatory uncertainty, potential creditor claims, and integration challenges.

Lending Market Evolution

Cannabis lenders have adapted to bankruptcy unavailability by demanding enhanced security packages, including pledges of all assets, personal guarantees, and receivership consent provisions. Loan agreements increasingly include automatic receivership triggers upon payment defaults, allowing lenders to petition state courts without additional borrower consent. Interest rates have risen to reflect restructuring risk. Senior secured cannabis loans originated in 2025-2026 carry interest rates of 12-16%, compared to 8-12% in 2020-2022. Loan-to-value ratios have declined from 65-75% to 50-60% as lenders price in lower recoveries absent bankruptcy protection. Some lenders have shifted to real estate-focused strategies, avoiding plant-touching operations entirely. Sale-leaseback transactions have grown, with cannabis REITs acquiring properties and leasing them back to operators. These structures provide lenders with real estate collateral less dependent on cannabis operations' viability.

Impact on Ancillary Businesses

Ancillary businesses serving cannabis operators face contagion risk from industry distress. Equipment manufacturers, software providers, and professional services firms have experienced payment delays and defaults as operators face liquidity challenges. These ancillary businesses, while not directly violating the CSA, cannot pursue bankruptcy claims against cannabis debtors. The In re Arenas decision established that even landlords renting to cannabis tenants may face bankruptcy dismissal. This precedent has created uncertainty for equipment lessors, technology vendors, and other service providers. Some ancillary businesses now require cash-in-advance payment terms or personal guarantees from cannabis clients.

What Experts Say

Bankruptcy attorneys have long advocated for cannabis bankruptcy access. According to legal analysis published by the American Bankruptcy Institute, the current framework creates inefficiencies costing the industry hundreds of millions annually in duplicative proceedings, professional fees, and reduced recoveries. Restructuring professionals argue that bankruptcy protection would enable more cannabis businesses to reorganize rather than liquidate, preserving jobs and tax revenue. Cannabis industry advocates including the National Cannabis Industry Association have called for federal reform to permit bankruptcy access. The organization has proposed amending the Bankruptcy Code to explicitly allow cannabis cases in states where operations are legal, similar to exemptions for other federally regulated industries. Creditor groups have expressed mixed views. Secured lenders with strong state-law remedies sometimes prefer receiverships, which allow faster asset sales without bankruptcy's procedural requirements. Unsecured creditors and employees generally favor bankruptcy access, which would provide automatic stays, creditor committees, and court oversight protecting their interests. The June 2026 Chapter 15 ruling has generated significant legal commentary. Bankruptcy scholars note that the decision creates a potential workaround but raises questions about Congressional intent and the CSA's scope. Some experts predict the ruling will be appealed and potentially overturned, while others believe it represents a pragmatic approach to cross-border insolvency. State regulators have emphasized supply chain continuity over creditor recoveries. According to statements from California's Department of Cannabis Control, the agency prioritizes ensuring patients and consumers maintain access to regulated products during operator transitions. This regulatory focus sometimes conflicts with maximizing creditor distributions. Financial analysts tracking the cannabis sector have noted that restructuring uncertainty depresses valuations and limits institutional investment. According to research from Viridian Capital Advisors, cannabis companies trade at significant discounts to comparable consumer packaged goods and retail businesses, partially reflecting bankruptcy unavailability.

What's Next

The June 2026 Chapter 15 ruling will likely face appellate review within 6-12 months, with the outcome determining whether cross-border restructuring becomes a viable pathway for cannabis companies. The U.S. Trustee's Office has historically appealed cannabis bankruptcy decisions, and this case presents novel Chapter 15 questions likely to attract appellate attention. A circuit court affirmance would establish binding precedent, while reversal would close the Chapter 15 pathway. Federal cannabis policy remains the ultimate determinant of bankruptcy access. The Drug Enforcement Administration's ongoing review of marijuana scheduling could result in rescheduling to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Such rescheduling would eliminate the CSA barrier to bankruptcy, allowing cannabis companies to file Chapter 11 cases like any other business. The DEA's final rule is expected no earlier than late 2026, with implementation potentially extending into 2027. Legislative reform represents another pathway. The SAFE Banking Act, which has passed the House of Representatives multiple times, would provide limited bankruptcy access for state-licensed cannabis businesses. The bill's Senate prospects remain uncertain as of June 2026, but industry advocates continue lobbying for passage. In the near term, cannabis restructuring activity is expected to accelerate. Industry analysts project that 50-75 additional operators will pursue some form of restructuring between June 2026 and December 2027 as debt maturities arrive and market conditions remain challenging. States including California, Michigan, and Oklahoma face particular distress due to oversupply. Receivership and ABC proceedings will remain the primary restructuring tools absent federal reform. State courts and regulators are developing more sophisticated procedures to handle cannabis insolvency, including expedited license transfers and specialized receiver panels. These improvements may narrow the efficiency gap between state-law alternatives and bankruptcy. The Chapter 15 pathway, if sustained on appeal, could attract Canadian cannabis companies to pursue CCAA restructurings with U.S. recognition. Several Canadian MSOs with significant U.S. operations face near-term refinancing needs, making them potential candidates for cross-border restructurings. Distressed M&A will continue consolidating the fragmented cannabis industry. Well-capitalized MSOs including Curaleaf, Green Thumb Industries, Trulieve, and Cresco Labs have indicated interest in acquiring distressed competitors' assets. Private equity funds focused on cannabis, including Poseidon Asset Management and Tuatara Capital, are raising capital for distressed investment strategies.

Further Reading

• United States Bankruptcy Code, Title 11 U.S.C. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11
• Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812
• In re Arenas, Case No. 17-10518 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2017) - https://www.pacermonitor.com
• Chapter 15 Cross-Border Insolvency, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1532 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/chapter-15
• California Assignment for Benefit of Creditors statute, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1800-1802 - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml
• Internal Revenue Code § 280E - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280E
• American Bankruptcy Institute Cannabis Restructuring Resources - https://www.abi.org
• National Cannabis Industry Association Policy Positions - https://thecannabisindustry.org
• California Department of Cannabis Control Licensing Information - https://cannabis.ca.gov
• Viridian Capital Advisors Cannabis Dealtracker - https://www.viridianca.com