近年市场竞争及经营环境不确定性持续增加的情况下，不少企业有可能面临营运及财务困难，导致债务违约的情况有上升的趋势。如果债务人资不抵债，债权人有权利用破产清盘的程序接管债务人的资产并尽量实现回收最大化。根据香港破产管理署公布的统计数字，在2019年1月至10月期间，强制公司清盘案及破产案呈请的数字达到7,062宗。我们藉此介绍近期香港法院就破产清盘颁发的两个重要判决。

1. 仲裁协议的存在是否会影响破产清盘程序的开展？

香港上诉法院近期在But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873一案中，考虑了债权相关的合同中约定有仲裁条款管辖的情况下，债权人利用法院破产清盘程序的权利会否受限。由于很多的商业协议均载有仲裁条款，法院的判决对债权人的权利及可采取的救济手段有重要意义。

在该案中，上诉人（证券公司客户，即债务人）与被上诉人（证券公司，即债权人）签订的客户协议约定双方之间的争议以仲裁解决。由于上诉人没有偿还保证金账户的欠款，债权人在香港法院申请上诉人破产。上诉人以双方已经约定仲裁为其中一个理由，请求上诉法院撤销债权人发出的法定偿债书。

In another loss for the cannabis industry, a district court recently affirmed the dismissal of chapter 11 petitions filed by companies that sold product used by both state-licensed marijuana growers and non-marijuana growers. The district court’s decision in Way to Grow, Inc. demonstrates that the door that was opened by the Ninth Circuit in Garvin v. Cook Invs.

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.

On May 30, 2019, Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, signed DIFC Insolvency Law, Law No. 1 of 2019 (the “New Insolvency Law”) into law, thereby repealing and replacing DIFC Law No. 3 of 2009. The New Insolvency Law, and supporting regulations (the “Regulations”), became effective on June 13, 2019, and govern companies operating in the Dubai International Financial Centre (the “DIFC”).

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.

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.

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.