In an earlier update, we told you about an appeal pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that would decide whether a landlord receiving rent from someone involved in the state-legal cannabis industry could ever confirm a plan of reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The value of the legitimate cannabis industry in the United States (measured by annual sales) is rapidly approaching $10 billion and expected to exceed $20 billion within the next five years. As the market grows, many companies that do not grow or sell cannabis are nonetheless doing business with those that do. Media companies are running advertisements for dispensaries, agricultural-equipment manufacturers are selling machinery to cannabis growers, and lawyers, accountants, and other professionals are providing services to clients directly involved in the industry.

In an important decision for lenders, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided In re SW Boston Hotel Venture LLC, holding that a bankruptcy court was right to give a lender a claim for post-petition interest beginning on the date of the sale of its collateral rather than the commencement date of the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

In a decision issued yesterday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that insiders can't be given a special opportunity to invest in a bankrupt debtor under the guise of contributing "new value" unless the debtor makes the same investment opportunity available to other potential investors.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana in connection with In re Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. held that electricity was a “good” for purposes of section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. That means that anyone sells electricity to a person who later goes bankrupt is entitled to a high-priority administrative expense claim for the value of the electricity delivered in the 20 days prior to the bankruptcy.

On Dec. 4, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit delivered its long-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.). The Bellingham decision effectively clears away much of the analytical underbrush that had surrounded—at least in the 9th Circuit —several important post-Stern v. Marshall questions.

In the last two weeks, the 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals each issued decisions on important intellectual property issues in bankruptcy.

In a decision with significant implications for borrowers and lenders, on May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a bankruptcy court's findings that upstream guarantees and associated liens delivered by a bankrupt debtor's subsidiaries were avoidable as fraudulent transfers.

A new decision from a New York federal district court highlights certain risks faced by persons buying assets out of bankruptcy. Buyers may be subject to successor liability based on the seller's conduct before the bankruptcy if no injury was caused until after the bankruptcy sale. Buyers of bankruptcy assets will need to do additional diligence to ensure that they are not unwittingly acquiring hidden liabilities.

To cram-down a chapter 11 plan on non-accepting classes, at least one impaired class must accept the plan, not counting the votes of insiders. In what is likely to be a controversial opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel that the purchaser of a bankruptcy claim was not an “insider” for plan-confirmation purposes, even though the purchaser acquired the claim from the debtor-LLC’s sole member, an insider, under questionable circumstances.