throbber
Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-12692-JGR
`Chapter 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE:
`
`
`
`
`
`United Cannabis Corporation
`Tax ID / EIN: 46-5221947,
`
`
`
`
`
`Debtor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S MOTION
`TO REJECT PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH
`LASCO MANUFACTURING LIMITED AND FLRISH IP, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick S. Layng, the United States Trustee for Region 19 (the “UST”), by and through
`counsel, objects to Debtor United Cannabis Corporation’s Motion to Reject Patent License
`Agreements with Lasco Manufacturing Limited and FLRish IP, LLC (Docket No. 68, the
`“Motion”), and in support of the objection, states as follows:
`
`Background
`
`1.
`UC Colorado Corporation (“UC Colorado”) and United Cannabis Corporation
`(“UCANN” and together with UC Colorado, the “Debtors”) filed their respective voluntary
`petitions for relief under chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, on April 20, 2020 (the “Petition
`Date”). Pursuant to Sections 1107 and 1108, Debtors continue to manage their affairs as debtors-
`in-possession.
`
`2.
`
`An official committee of unsecured creditors has not yet been appointed in this
`
`case.
`
`3.
`On April 22, 2020, the Court entered its Order to Show Cause, which observed that
`the Debtors appear to be engaged in the marijuana industry, observed that activities associated
`with marijuana are illegal under federal law and cannot be condoned by the bankruptcy courts, and
`directed the Debtors and the UST to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed.
`
`4.
`On May 11, 2020, the Debtors and the UST filed their responses to the Order to
`Show Cause. For their part, the Debtors’ Response (Docket No. 53) essentially denies any
`involvement with illegal marijuana.
`
`5.
`By contrast, the UST’s Response (Docket No. 55) identified the Debtors’ plain
`representations concerning marijuana-related assets or activities made in publicly available filings
`with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and on the Debtors’ website. For
`example, the UST observed that the Debtors’ homepage at that time promoted products containing
`tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), which is an illegal Schedule I substance under the Controlled
`Substances Act (“CSA”). As another example, and as a matter important to the Motion and this
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page2 of 7
`
`Objection, the UST observed that the Debtors have been issued US Patent #9730911 (the “911
`Patent”) which pertains, in part, to THC.
`
`6.
`On May 15, 2020, UCANN filed the Motion, by which it seeks this Court’s
`approval of the rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a) of two license agreements by which it licensed
`the right to use the 911 Patent.
`
`The 911 Patent:
`
`7.
`The 911 Patent appears to be one of UCANN’s more significant assets. In its
`Schedules, UCANN lists over $28,000,000 in liabilities compared with only about $107,000 of
`assets, including an encumbered vehicle and an investment in WeedMD, Inc., plus certain assets1
`with an “unknown” value. See Docket No. 39 at p. 23-39.
`
`8.
`UCANN also disclosed its ownership of the 911 Patent, but assigned a $0.00 value
`to it. See id. at 29.2 This is perplexing (and doubtful) as UCANN treats the 911 Patent as highly
`valuable. UCANN has been an active plaintiff seeking to protect its interest in litigation asserting
`infringement of the 911 Patent beginning in 2018 and up to the Petition Date.3 Patent litigation is
`not inexpensive. UCANN scheduled a claim of $779,910 in favor of Cooley LLP, which is the
`law firm that has been prosecuting UCANN’s patent infringement action. See id. at 35. Therefore,
`UCANN’s assertion now that the 911 Patent is worthless is inconsistent with UCANN’s recent
`and informed decision to incur $779,910 of unpaid legal fees relating to the patent, plus any other
`legal fees that may have actually been paid with cash or stock.
`
`9.
`One can only surmise that UCANN valued the 911 Patent at $0.00 because it
`pertains, in part, to THC and because UCANN is a chapter 11 debtor seeking the benefits of federal
`bankruptcy law. In their Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 53), the
`Debtors acknowledge the 911 Patent, but carefully omit the material fact that the 911 Patent
`involves THC, stating: “The 911 Patent claims various liquid cannabinoid formulations that
`contain the non-psychoactive cannabinoid, CBD, among other cannabinoids.” Debtor’s Response
`at ¶ 17 (emphasis added). One of the unidentified “other cannabinoids” is THC.
`
`10.
`The Debtors were not nearly as reluctant to acknowledge the 911 Patent’s
`connection to THC in their SEC Form 10-Q report for the third quarter of 2019 (the “Form 10-
`Q”), which is the most recently filed quarterly report.4 In that recent public filing:
`
`a. the Debtors disclose that they “own distinct intellectual property relating to the
`legalized growth, production, manufacture, marketing, management, utilization
`

`1 Assets assigned an “unknown” value include interests in certain subsidiaries, including Debtor UC Colorado, and in
`joint ventures, causes of action, and UCANN’s websites. See Docket No. 39 at pp. 25-30. 
`2 UCANN also disclosed that it owns US Patent #10,555,928. See id. According to the Debtors’ testimony at the
`Meeting of Creditors held on May 28, 2020, this second patent is related to the 911 Patent. 
`3 The patent infringement action is styled United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc., 1:18-cv-01922-
`WJM-NYM, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. See id. at p. 2. 
`4 Per the SEC’s EDGAR System, the Form 10-Q was filed November 14, 2019. The UST attached a copy of the Form
`10-Q to his Response to the Court Order to Show Cause at Docket No. 55. 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page3 of 7
`
`and distribution of medical and recreational marijuana and marijuana infused
`products;”
`
`b. the Debtors disclose that they “license [their] intellectual property to businesses
`in the cannabis industry;” and
`
`c. the Debtors disclose that the 911 Patent was issued on August 15, 2017, and
`that it pertains to “proprietary formulations based on compounds extracted from
`cannabis plant materials” including cannabinoids, with one of the cannabinoids
`being “tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).”
`
`Form 10-Q at p. 27 (emphasis added).
`
`11.
`A copy of the 911 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”5 As set forth in a
`summary, the 911 Patent includes formulations of cannabinoids, including THC:
`
`See Exhibit “A” at page (column) 1.
`
`12.
`The 911 Patent then describes various formulations and processes, many of which
`involve THC. As just a few examples:
`
`
`
`
`UCANN explains that THC is the “principal psychoactive constituent” and
`that “[n]on drug plants produce relatively low levels of THC and high levels of
`CBD, while drug plants produce high levels of THC and low levels of CBD.” See
`id. at p. 4.
`
`
`“In some aspects the cannabis plant material is derived from a cannabis
`strain having a minimum of 15% THC and less than 1% CBD.” See id. at pp. 2, 9
`(italics in original).
`

`5  UCANN attached the 911 Patent to its First Amended Complaint in the aforementioned patent infringement
`litigation. 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page4 of 7
`
`
`“In other aspects the cannabis plant material is derived from cannabis
`strains having a minimum of 10% CBD and less than 10% THC.” See id. at p. 9
`(italics in original).
`
`
`In one formulation, THC is less than or equal to 9% and CBD is greater than
`or equal to 40%. See id. at p. 8.
`
`
`UCANN claims numerous formulations involving THC, including for
`example, “[a] liquid cannabinoid formulation, wherein at least 95% of the total
`cannabinoids is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).” See id. at p. 18 (Claim No. 5); see
`also Claims No. 6, 7, and 9, in which at least 95% of the cannabinoids are THC.
`
`13.
`In the Form 10-Q, the Debtors assert that, on a consolidated basis, they derive
`revenue from hemp processing and from licensing their intellectual property: “All of the
`Company’s revenues are derived from the sale of legal CBD products that were extracted from
`industrial hemp plants or from licensing fees for the use of our patented product formulations.”
`Form 10-Q at p. 7 (emphasis added).6
`
`14.
`The Debtors also advise that future enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act
`“may cause significant financial damage to us.” See id.
`
`15.
`The Debtors further advise that “[t]he factors that will most significantly affect
`future operating results will be:
`
`
`State by state regulatory changes with respect to marijuana in the United
`States; and
`
`
`
`Rescheduling of marijuana by the federal government.”
`
`See id. at p. 32.
`
`The License Agreements:
`
`16.
`Through the Motion, UCANN requests that the Court apply federal law under 11
`U.S.C. § 365(a) to allow UCANN to reject (i) a Supply, Distribution, and Licensing Agreement
`between UCANN and Lasco Manufacturing Limited and (ii) a Licensing Agreement between
`Debtor and FLRish IP, LLC (together, the “License Agreements”). UCANN Attached both
`License Agreements as exhibits to its Motion.
`
`17.
`911 Patent.
`
`
`
`In both License Agreements, UCANN granted the counterparty a license to use the
`
`
`

`6 The 911 Patent and the apparently related Patent #10,555,928 are the only patents disclosed by the Debtors in their
`Schedules. See Docket No. 39 at p. 29; see also Docket No. 37 in Case No. 20-12689-JGR at p. 49. 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page5 of 7
`
`Objection
`
`18.
`As discussed in detail in the UST’s Response to Order to Show Cause (Docket No.
`55), under the CSA, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally “to manufacture,
`distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled
`substance.” See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The term “controlled substance” means “a drug or other
`substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of [the CSA].”
`21 U.S.C. § 802(6).
`
`19.
`Congress has designated both marijuana and THC as Schedule I substances. See
`21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I (c)(10) & (17).
`
`20.
`It is a violation of the CSA to conspire with another to violate any part of the CSA.
`See 21 U.S.C. 846. Anyone who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” a
`violation of federal law, including the CSA, “is punishable as a principal.” See 18 U.S.C. § 2(a).
`
`21.
`The Motion pertains to the rejection of License Agreements relating to the use of
`the 911 Patent, and the 911 Patent relates in part to illegal THC. The UST objects to the Motion
`for the following reasons:
`
`22.
`First, the License Agreements submitted with the Motion are unclear as to whether
`the licensees are authorized to use the 911 Patent to manufacture, sell, or distribute products
`containing THC. However, it is clear that the licensees are authorized to use the 911 Patent, and
`the 911 Patent pertains in part to THC.
`
`23.
`UCANN should explain whether either of the License Agreements contemplate or
`allow the use of the 911 Patent to manufacture, sell, or distribute products containing THC. If so,
`the Court should not provide a federal benefit to one party to a contract the purpose of which was
`the violation of federal criminal law. See, e.g., In re Rent-Rite Super Kegs West, Ltd., 484 B.R.
`799 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2012) (as an aspect of its business, chapter 11 debtor was a lessor to a
`marijuana grower, which was cause for dismissal under § 1112(b)); In re Medpoint Management
`LLC, 528 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2015), vacated in part on other grounds, 2016 WL 3251581
`(B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 3, 2016) (bankruptcy court would not grant federal bankruptcy relief to
`petitioning creditors who financed a medical marijuana business in violation of the CSA).
`
`24.
`By seeking court approval of rejection, UCANN is asking this Court to entangle
`itself in readjusting the debts of those who seem to have conspired to violate the CSA. This is not
`the type of issue that belongs in federal bankruptcy court. As Judge Tallman emphasized in the
`Rent-Rite decision, the “Court’s power to adjust the debtor-creditor relationship . . . goes to the
`essence of the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and requires the Court to look to equitable factors to
`determine the propriety of the Debtor’s filing.” Rent-Rite, 484 B.R. at 806. Again, proceedings
`in equity to adjust obligations incurred to further criminal conduct cannot be a valid purpose of a
`bankruptcy.
`
`25.
`Second, according to case law cited by UCANN, its request for authority to reject
`the License Agreements requires a showing that rejection will benefit the estate. See Motion at ¶
`7. However, UCANN does not adequately explain whether rejection of the License Agreements
`would actually result in a benefit to the estate. To the extent that the License Agreements are
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page6 of 7
`
`executory contracts, rejection generally would constitute a breach of the contract immediately
`before the date of the filing of the petition. See 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)(1). UCANN would be relieved
`of its obligation to perform under the agreements, but UCANN does not explain in the Motion
`whether it actually has any remaining performance obligations under the agreements that would
`be avoided by rejection.
`
`26.
`By contrast, rejection may give rise to breach of contract claims in favor of the
`licensees, and presumably would deprive the estate of contractual rights to fees and royalties for
`the balance of the license terms. Furthermore, if UCANN’s objective is to prevent the licensees
`from using the 911 Patent, licensees under rejected agreements generally may elect to retain their
`rights under the agreements. See 11 U.S.C. § 365(n)(1); see also In re Matusalem & Matusa of
`Florida, Inc., 158 B.R. 514, 521-522 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1993) (under § 365(n), rejection of licensing
`agreement would not deprive licensee of right to use intellectual property, but may give rise to
`rejection damages claim; debtor did not demonstrate economic benefit to the estate from proposed
`rejection).
`
`27.
`Third, UCANN does not explain why it seeks rejection of the License Agreements
`at this early stage. To the extent that the License Agreements are executory and therefore governed
`by § 365, UCANN generally may make the decision to assume or reject the License Agreements
`at any time before confirmation of a plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(2). Again, UCANN does not
`explain whether some performance obligation or some expense would be avoided by a prompt
`rejection.
`
`28. With respect to its Order to Show Cause and the Responses thereto filed by the
`Debtors and by the UST, the Court has not yet determined whether the Debtors have demonstrated
`sufficient cause for these cases not to be dismissed. To the extent that these cases remain pending
`before this Court, the Motion might be the first of several instances in which the Court will be
`asked to determine whether it may grant relief under federal law to Debtors with assets and
`transactions connected to federally illegal marijuana and THC. The UST submits that it would be
`more efficient for the Court to first determine whether these cases may remain in chapter 11 before
`taking up issues relating to the 911 Patent or other issues relating to marijuana.
`
`WHEREFORE, the UST objects to the Motion for the reasons set forth above.
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`PATRICK S. LAYNG
`UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
`
`By: /s/ Alan K. Motes
`Alan K. Motes, #33997
`Trial Attorney for the U.S. Trustee
`Byron G. Rogers Federal Building
`1961 Stout Street, Suite 12-200
`Denver, Colorado 80294
`(303) 312-7999 telephone
`Alan.Motes@usdoj.gov
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case:20-12692-JGR Doc#:98 Filed:06/05/20 Entered:06/05/20 14:00:35 Page7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on June 5, 2020, a copy of the UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION
`TO DEBTOR’S MOTION TO REJECT PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH LASCO
`MANUFACTURING LIMITED AND FLRISH IP, LLC was served on the following parties in
`compliance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules:
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` Attorney Aaron J. Conrardy, via CM/ECF
` Attorney Lindsay Riley, via CM/ECF
`
`
`
`/s/ Alan K. Motes
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket