We have written before about the virtual dead end faced by marijuana companies who try to seek protection in the bankruptcy courts. Almost uniformly, bankruptcy courts have shut their doors on marijuana companies, including their landlords and suppliers.

There is currently a split in authority on the issue of whether a trustee may recover from an immediate or mediate transferee if the recipient received proceeds from a fraudulent transfer but not the fraudulently transferred property itself.

Running a family-owned farm is not easy work under the best of economic circumstances, and it can be nearly impossible when times are tough. More than 30 years ago, during the mid-1980s, John Cougar Mellencamp’s mournful song “Rain on the Scarecrow” discussed the epidemic of family farm foreclosures hitting the American Heartland. Thankfully, the overall family farm economy is not at that crisis level today, but storm clouds are rumbling.

Consider these facts. A debtor in bankruptcy sued two parties for breach of contract. The debtor assigned its rights and interests in the cause of action to another entity. The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the court now lacked jurisdiction over the case. They asserted that the debtor’s assignment of the cause of action destroyed the bankruptcy court’s “related to” jurisdiction. Who wins?

Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).

On August 9, 2019, in a unanimous decision (written by a former bankruptcy judge), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation of the Peabody Energy Chapter 11 plan (“Plan”)¹ with a prominent backstopped rights offering component.

On August 23, 2019, President Donald J. Trump signed into law two bills amending the Bankruptcy Code: (i) the Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019 (“FFRA”); and (ii) the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA,” and with FFRA, the “Acts”).¹ Here are summaries of the Acts and important takeaways.

DEBT LIMIT INCREASE APPLICABLE TO AGRIBUSINESSES

In In re Linn Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 4149481 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019), the Fifth Circuit recently reminded us that if a debt instrument looks like a security and quacks like a security, it likely is a security for purposes of subordination under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The implications of characterizing an instrument as a security under section 510(b) is that any claim arising therefrom is subject to subordination to general unsecured creditors.

On August 23, 2019, President Trump signed into law the “Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019.” The primary effect of the “SBRA” is the creation of a subchapter to Chapter 11 for small business debtors, i.e. those with no more than $2,725,625 in secured and unsecured debts combined, to address the unique issues faced by those companies in the bankruptcy process.

In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.