Earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited ruling in the Garvin v. Cook Investments, NW, SPNYW case This opinion is certain to be of great interest to both companies operating in the cannabis space and those attorneys representing them.

What are the limits of a bankruptcy court’s authority to issue final orders and judgments? Does a bankruptcy court have authority under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to enter final orders in quintessential bankruptcy matters such as fraudulent transfer claims, or are the court’s powers more constrained? While the Supreme Court’s rulings in Stern v. Marshall, 546 U.S. 462 (2011), Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. 25 (2014) and Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct.

There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay forthe product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

In prior posts, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code. As we noted, the Office of the United States Trustee (the “UST”) has taken the position that a marijuana business cannot seek bankruptcy relief because the business itself violates the Controlled Substances Act 21, U.S.C.

The recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Provider Meds, L.L.C. is a stark reminder to chapter 7 trustees that they have an affirmative obligation to examine a debtor’s assets. A trustee’s failure to conduct a sufficient and timely examination may deprive the estate of significant value.

In prior posts, we discussed the perplexing issue of how and whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and moves to reject the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The purpose of bankruptcy is to provide for an orderly process by which a debtor’s assets can be fairly divided and distributed among creditors.

It is also meant to ensure that debtors can start fresh. Not all of a debtor’s assets are available to creditors—the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to keep certain assets safe in bankruptcy through various asset exemptions available under both state and federal law. One such exemption is Michigan’s bankruptcy-specific homestead exemption.

We have discussed plan releases in prior posts. Oftentimes, disputes involving plan releases revolve around whether, and in what contexts, third-party releases in plans are appropriate. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the relatively unique question of whether releases in a confirmed plan are binding upon post-confirmation purchasers of the debtor’s stock.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215, which dealt with the dischargeability of debt in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” under section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Background Facts

In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) ruled that penalties assessed by the state of Michigan against two debtors, stemming from fraud associated with the wrongful receipt of Michigan unemployment benefits, are non-dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2).1

Background Facts