Skymint, 3Fifteen continue battle in court over earnings in receivership

DUSTIN WALSH

Lawyers entangled in the court-ordered receivership of Lansing marijuana giant Skymint continue to battle over the company’s nances.

e alleged trouble stems from Skymint’s $78 million acquisition of Birmingham-based competitor 3Fifteen Cannabis in April 2022.

Skymint, which primarily operates under the parent company of Green Peak Innovations Inc., owes more than $127 million to Canadian investment rm Tropics LP tied to the acquisition. Tropics has since come on as the primary funder of operations as Skymint works through receivership. But the minority lender in the acquisition, New York-based cannabis investment rm Merida Capital Holdings and a majority shareholder in 3Fifteen, is challenging whether its stores should be involved in the receivership at all.

Its lawyers have sought on several occasions to disjoin the company from the court-ordered receivership, despite the acquisition closing more than a year ago.

In the days prior to Skymint entering receivership, 3Fifteen Cannabis retook control of several stores acquired by Skymint, including dispensaries in Hamtramck, Grand Rapids, Camden and two in Battle Creek, according to court records.

But the circuit court judge in Ingham County ordered 3Fifteen to cede control back to Skymint, according to court records, as well as return control of bank accounts with nearly $500,000 in funds to Skymint.

Lawyers for Skymint and the receiver argued in a court hearing two weeks ago that 3Fifteen had not returned the bank accounts and should be held in contempt of court. 3Fifteen’s lawyers argued the order should be reversed and control of those stores and accounts should remain in 3Fifteen’s control.

“( e March 29 order) … required a return to the status quo, required return of money that was improperly taken, and so if you were to enter a stay of that March 29 order, it would reignite the chaos and the smashand-grab tactics that we sought this court’s intervention and protection for,” David Dragich, partner at e Dragich Law Firm PLLC and attorney for the receiver in the case, argued in the hearing to the judge.