Skip to content

The Power of Receiverships in the Cannabis Industry

March 3, 17, & 31, 2022
1:00 PM ET

As it stands, companies operating in the cannabis space, or ‘cannabusinesses’ cannot avail themselves to the protections afforded by U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. Therefore, alternatives to bankruptcy have become a crucially important consideration.

Join Clark Hill attorneys and industry leaders for this three-part discussion series to learn how financially struggling cannabusinesses can utilize the court system to obtain some financial breathing room, the history of receiverships in cannabis, and tips to bridge the gap between receiverships as a bankruptcy alternative and other workout solutions for cannabusinesses.

Moderated by Robert T. Hoban, Member, Clark Hill

Part 1: History of Receiverships and Cannabis (March 3, 2022)
Panel
Dotan Y. Melech – President, United CMC
Jessica Velazquez – Managing Partner, Indiva Advisors

View Part 1 Recording

Part 2: Deep Dive – Receivers Responsibilities & Regulatory Landscape (March 17, 2022)
Panel
Dotan Y. Melech – President, United CMC
Riana Durrett – Member, Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board
View Part 2 Recording

Part 3: Bridging the Gap Between Receiverships as an Alternative and Workout Solutions  (March 31, 2022)
Panel
Dotan Y. Melech – President, United CMC
Colin Campbell – Managing Director, Sharp Capital Advisors

Related

Event

Clark Hill's Commercial Real Estate Symposium – Dallas, Texas

Join Clark Hill’s Commercial Real Estate attorneys and industry professionals for a timely and dynamic program in Dallas, focusing on the latest challenges and top trends in the CRE industry.

Explore more
Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more