Are bankruptcy doors now opening for cannabis companies? A decision last week from a California bankruptcy court indicates perhaps so, at least for cannabis companies that are no longer operating.
Factual Background
Last November we wrote about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Highland Capital Management, L.P., where the court reversed the bankruptcy court’s approval of a plan’s exculpation clause for non-debtors and limited the universe of parties covered by that provision. Relying on Bank of New York Trust Co., NA v. Official Unsecured Creditors’ Comm.
Whose crytpo is it? With the multiple cryptocurrency companies that have recently filed for bankruptcy (FTX, Voyager Digital, BlockFi), and more likely on the way, that simple sounding question is taking on huge significance. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Chief Judge Martin Glenn) attempted to answer that question in the Celsius Network LLC bankruptcy case.
While the Judge-made doctrine of equitable mootness continues to beguile and often stymie parties-in-interest seeking to appeal an order confirming a chapter 11 plan (as well as other orders which are on appeal prior to confirmation of a plan), appellants in the Fifth Circuit can continue to rest assured that the doctrine will be applied only as a “scalpel rather than an axe.” That is because in the Fifth Circuit, the doctrine—which can be described as a form of appellate abstention—is applied only on a claim-by-claim, instead of appeal-by-appeal basis.
We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.
Factual Background
Here we go again – proposed bankruptcy venue legislation is back after previous “reform” efforts came up empty. For those seeking legislative action, what are the chances for venue reform now?
In a recent ruling, the Austrian Supreme Court has defined de facto managing directors and their obligations and liabilities in connection to wrongful trading.
The decision
The key takeaways from the ruling are:
Austria is gearing up to implement the EU Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency (known as the Restructuring Directive). We anticipate that the Restructuring Regulation (ReO) will enter into force on 17 July 2021.
The core element of the Restructuring Directive (and of the implementing law) is the promotion of a new restructuring procedure, to avoid the need for formal insolvency proceedings.
The restructuring proceedings
Austria is moving forward with plans to implement the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks. The draft new law implementing the changes was published in February 2021.
The focus of the draft law is to introduce preventive restructuring proceedings. This will provide a structure for pre-insolvency restructuring to allow for the cram-down of dissenting creditors provided certain conditions are met.
Key points of the current draft
Worum geht es?
Das derzeit in der Begutachtungsphase befindliche Restrukturierungs- und Insolvenz Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz (RIRL-UG) soll, wie auch der Name schon andeutet, die EU-Richtlinie über Restrukturierung und Insolvenz (kurz zumeist nur Restrukturierungsrichtlinie genannt) in Österreich umsetzen.
Kernelement der Restrukturierungsrichtlinie und damit auch des geplanten Umsetzungsgesetzes, das Restrukturierungsordnung (ReO) heißen soll, ist eine dem Insolvenzverfahren vorgelagerte präventive Restrukturierung.