Judge Calls Hemp Entrepreneur's Governance 'A Complete Mess' in Court Order

By The CT CannaTimes Investigative Desk

11/20/2025

A Court Order Emerges — And Its Language Is Unusually Blunt

A newly issued Massachusetts Superior Court order is sending quiet but significant shockwaves through the New England hemp and cannabis community.

The order concerns Mike Goodenough, a figure familiar to Connecticut lawmakers, hemp farmers, and small processors for his public testimony and organizing efforts on hemp legislation.

While CT CannaTimes makes no accusations and draws no conclusions, the Court’s own words paint a picture that is highly relevant to stakeholders who have worked with or followed Goodenough’s advocacy in Connecticut.

The injunction, issued November 18, 2025, in Himalayan High, LLC v. Mike Goodenough, opens with a stark assessment:

“Succinctly speaking the current situation relative to the governance and operation of Himalayan is a complete mess.”

— Mass. Superior Court Order, p.1

The Court attributes this state of affairs “exclusively” to what it calls the “ultra vires actions of Mr. Goodenough.”

What the Court Says Happened Inside the Company

The judge describes several categories of unilateral action, writing that Goodenough:

• “unilaterally changed the corporate form,”

• “diluted certain shareholder statuses,” and

• altered “the tax status of Himalayan”

— all “without… any regard” for the rights of members or the Board of Directors.

The filing also notes:

“There is a confounding issue concerning three separate Operating Agreements allegedly prepared by some unnamed lawyer and CPA firm.”

— p.1

At the hearing, Goodenough reportedly stated these changes were made because “a lender supposedly required it,” though the judge noted:

“No documentation of any kind from the lender or anyone else was provided.”

— p.2

The Court then makes one of the most striking statements in the entire order:

“In the Court’s judgment Mr. Goodenough is winging it; with no regard for corporate form, his legal obligations or the rights of those in business with him.”

— p.2

The Court further states:

“The Court has grave concerns about what else is going on that is unknown to the parties or the Court.”

— p.2

CT CannaTimes is not adding interpretation; these are direct quotations taken verbatim from the filing.

The Actual Court Orders — No Interpretation Added

The judge issued the following directives, exactly as written:

1. Goodenough is “preliminarily enjoined from taking any further actions on behalf of Himalayan High, LLC… without the express written consent of the Board of Directors.”

2. He is “preliminarily enjoined from commingling, encumbering or transferring… assets… without express written approval from the Board of Directors.”

3. By December 12, 2025, he must provide a “full and complete accounting of all corporate funds, assets, transactions, and debt.”

4. The Board of Directors shall take “immediate and full management authority and operational control” until further order of the Court.

— pp.2–3

These four directives conclude the order.

Again, CT CannaTimes is quoting only what the judge wrote.

Why Connecticut Readers Recognize the Name

Mike Goodenough is not simply a Massachusetts hemp entrepreneur — he is a known figure in Connecticut’s hemp and cannabis policy landscape, frequently appearing in:

Legislative Testimony

Goodenough has testified before Connecticut committees on issues including:

• hemp–cannabis product distinctions,

• market barriers for small hemp farmers,

• the economic impact of regulatory changes,

• the need for processing and retail opportunities for local growers.

His remarks often positioned him as a representative voice for Connecticut’s small hemp businesses during the turbulent years surrounding the rollout of adult-use cannabis.

Small Business Advocacy

Goodenough has been associated with small-business coalitions advocating for:

• micro-grower opportunities,
• hemp processing inclusion,
• local manufacturing protections,
• resistance to corporate over-consolidation.

These groups helped shape public conversation around Connecticut’s transition from a patchwork hemp market to a structured adult-use cannabis system.

Regional Cross-Border Role

Goodenough has also been cited in discussions linking Connecticut hemp operators with Massachusetts processors, distributors, and agricultural networks — making a Massachusetts court order especially notable to CT stakeholders.

CT CannaTimes is not alleging any misconduct in Connecticut. His public advocacy roles are part of the public legislative record.

Why This Filing Matters — Without Drawing Conclusions

This exposé is not concerned with guilt, innocence, or legal strategy. It highlights the judicial language itself, because that language is part of the public record and is unusually direct.

For Connecticut policymakers, small growers, and processors, the order may raise policy-level questions, such as:

• How should the state consider the governance histories of individuals who influence legislation?
• What levels of oversight should exist for cross-state business actors?
• How can Connecticut ensure small-business advocacy remains transparent and accountable?

These are general policy questions, not statements about this case or any individual.

CT CannaTimes Legal Notice & Publisher Protections

• CT CannaTimes is reporting solely on a publicly filed Massachusetts Superior Court document and publicly documented Connecticut testimony.
• All quotations are taken exactly from the court order, with no embellishment or analysis.
• CT CannaTimes does not accuse any person of wrongdoing in any jurisdiction.
• This exposé does not interpret the order or speculate about facts beyond what appears on its pages.
• This article is not legal advice.
• All individuals remain presumed innocent in any unresolved civil or criminal matter.
• Any party named is welcome to provide a written response for publication.

#CTCannabisNews #CTHemp