Cookies just took another multimillion-dollar hit. On September 9, 2026, Gron Ventures and Red Tech announced a final arbitration award of more than $61.5 million against Cookies Creative Consulting & Promotions (CCCP), the company behind the Cookies brand, and president Parker Berling.

Retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail Andler, sitting as AAA arbitrator, found fraud, securities fraud, intentional interference with contract, and breach of contract. Cookies’ counterclaims were rejected. The company and Berling are jointly and severally liable. Founder Gilbert “Berner” Milam was a named respondent, but the arbitrator declined to hold him liable for the fraud damages after finding insufficient evidence of his fraudulent intent.

That distinction matters. So does the rest of the record.

What the arbitrator actually found

Red Tech put in $10 million in 2019. Gron put in $5.5 million in 2020, via convertible notes with protective provisions meant to block self-dealing and related-party deals without consent.

The award describes a pattern: undisclosed affiliate transactions, a $57 million buyout of the investors that fell apart, and a 2023 Series A the arbitrator called a “sham.” Part of that financing, the award found, involved Series A stock issued to an entity tied to 12/12 Ventures — a fund co-founded by Milam and Berling and managed by Matt Barron — for which the $5 million was never paid. That kept the round below the threshold that would have triggered automatic conversion and stronger investor rights.

The buyout collapse and the Series A were treated as one scheme. Damages were measured off the failed $57 million exit: $29.9 million to Red Tech and about $27.18 million to Gron, plus roughly $4.49 million in fees and costs after a 15% lodestar cut. Total: just over $61.5 million against CCCP and Berling.

Discovery was ugly. During the hearing, Berling acknowledged emails and agreements that had not been produced. A forensic review followed. The neutral reported missed repositories, late privilege logs, and software that deleted information from Berling’s computer during a litigation hold. Respondents later stopped paying for the review. The arbitrator imposed a rebuttable presumption that Schedule 2.12 related-party deals were not properly disclosed or approved, plus monetary sanctions. Oral testimony from Respondents’ principals, without corroborating documents, was not enough to rebut it.

On credibility, Andler was blunt. The investors were credible. Milam was credible on matters he personally handled, but “more akin to the visionary founder and was busily immersed in his desires to be in the music industry.” He deferred operations to Berling. Berling “was not a credible witness based on internal and external inconsistencies in his testimony and his manner of giving testimony.” That tracks what Milam has said about himself. He is the face and the brand. Operations sat with Parker.

“Betrayal” while the case was pending

In 2023, with the arbitration already underway, Milam posted album artwork on Instagram titled “BETRAYAL.” He sits at the head of a dark conference table. Other men in suits flank him. Ski-mask reflections sit in the polished surface under each figure. The figures have a stark resemblance to Parker Berling and Matt Baron. Bizarre to say the least. The tracklist includes titles such as “Arrogance Is Ignorance” (One Shot Kill).

The post was later pulled from the public account. 

The image is public record of how he framed the fight at the time. The award later described a board-level push that included an emergency meeting while investor directors were in Antarctica, a refused conversion notice, and removal of one of the investors from the board.

This is not the only case

The unpaid $5 million Series A subscription the arbitrator flagged is now in other filings that have not been decided:

NedCo, LLC v. CCCP (San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-26-634213). A holder of more than 10% of CCCP stock alleges a 12/12 entity received $5 million of preferred stock without transferring the money — the same non-payment the award treated as keeping the financing below the qualifying threshold.

Rosenberg / MTV4 v. Barron (AAA demand, May 2026). Douglas Rosenberg, a 12/12 founding partner, and MTV4 allege Barron caused a Barron-controlled entity to take the same unpaid $5 million of Series A stock, and that Barron, Milam, and Berling later moved to strip CCCP’s license to the Cookies brand, declare insolvency, terminate the license back to Milam-controlled Cookies SF, and pursue a roll-up into SummitNorth CS Corp. Barron had not responded as of the notes provided; the allegations are unproven.

Separate from this investor fight, Cookies has been in other expensive disputes: an $8.4 million award it was ordered to pay over the Haight Street store, that Parker essentially said to the judge “this will end Cookies”. Cookies has lived in courtrooms for years. The fights keep landing on the same circle of companies and executives, and the brand has absorbed the cost. A name that used to signal the top of the market now reads, to many in the industry, as a warning label.

The $20 million quote

In a March 2026 VladTV interview, Milam said he had spent about $20 million on lawyers over three years fighting what he called an “attempted hostile takeover,” and that he was prepared to go broke rather than give up the brand he built. The interview predates this final award. The award is now on the other side of that bill.

He has also said he owns a large majority of Cookies and that the public face of the company is the music and the culture. The arbitrator’s description of his role — founder, endorser, music-first, operations delegated — is consistent with that self-portrait. It is also why the award put the fraud damages and fee exposure on the company and Berling, not on Milam personally for the fraud claim.

What this does not say

This is a civil arbitration award, not a criminal conviction. Findings can be confirmed as a judgment; they can also be challenged. Related suits are allegations until a tribunal rules. Cookies and Berling can still argue confirmation, vacatur, or collection issues. Milam has publicly framed investors as sharks trying to take the brand; the award rejected that theory and the company’s countersuit.

The pattern is still clear from the public docket: investors, partners, and now other shareholders keep ending up in front of judges and arbitrators over the same circle of entities — CCCP, Cookies SF, 12/12, related funds, and who actually paid for what. The brand remains one of the most recognizable names in cannabis. The company that licenses it just lost a $61.5 million decision that calls the 2023 financing a sham and the buyout cancellation part of a fraud.

Berner built the name. The award says he handed the operating wheel to Parker. The bill landed on the company and the president. The rest of the lawsuits are still in line. Check out our other stories on Cookies here and here.