As noted in prior posts, the Ninth Circuit opened the door, albeit narrowly, to cannabis company bankruptcies when it issued its opinion in Garvin v. Cook Invs. NW on May 2, 2019. In Garvin, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the confirmation of a plan of reorganization proposed by the lessor to a marijuana growing operation.

Se presentó a inscripción en el Registro Mercantil escritura pública de fusión en la que la sociedad absorbente estaba íntegramente participada por la sociedad absorbida (que se encontraba en liquidación). Los acuerdos de fusión fueron adoptados por el socio único de la sociedad absorbente (esto es, por la sociedad absorbida, representada por el liquidador). La registradora denegó la inscripción argumentando, entre otras cosas, que resultaba preciso también el acuerdo de la junta general de la sociedad absorbida.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court finally answered the question of whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and rejects the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. To cut to the chase, trademark licensees won.

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.

En su Sentencia de 1 de marzo de 2019 [RJ 2019/622] el Tribunal Supremo ha venido a interpretar la excepción a la subordinación de los créditos de las personas especialmente relacionadas con el concursado que se contiene en el artículo 92.5º de la Ley Concursal (LC).

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.

Las Sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 10 de julio y 31 de octubre de 2018 [RJ 2018/2814 y RJ 2018/4729] han debido decidir si una sociedad (TIP) ostentaba el control sobre otra (TRECAM) a los efectos de determinar si esta segunda pertenecía al grupo de la socia única (CAM) de la primera (lo que resultaba relevante para la calificación en el concurso de TRECAM de los créditos de CAM y de otra filial íntegramente participada de esta ultima entidad).

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.