More than 75% of the U.S. population lives in states that have legalized cannabis for adult and/or medical use.

Pursuant to a 2022 directive from President Joe Biden, a 2023 recommendation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and a scientific review released in January supporting the HHS's recommendation, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is now evaluating whether to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.

In contrast with a majority of bankruptcy courts that routinely dismiss cannabis-related cases for perceived violations of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California in the recent opinionIn re Hacienda, No. 2:22-BK-15163-NB, (Bankr. C.D. Cal. July 11, 2023), refused to conform to the same historical standard. Instead, the Bankruptcy Court struck down the U.S. trustee’s motion to dismiss not once but twice in favor of confirming a marijuana business’ Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

Background

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.

In In re Roberts, No. 22-10521, 2022 WL 4592086 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2022), the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a Debtor’s alleged ownership interest in cannabis-related companies did not require a dismissal of the case and that a Chapter 7 trustee could administer the Debtor’s assets. This represents a significant change from prior decisions from this Court, which has usually dismissed any bankruptcy case involving cannabis.

Background

In the recent decision of Paragon Offshore, No. 16-10386 (CSS), 2021 (Bankr. D. Del. June 28, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the court) addressed the issue of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (OUST) could collect its quarterly fees against assets that were previously transferred to a litigation trust (the litigation trust) free and clear of any and all claims, liens and other encumbrances pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation.

Alerts and Updates

The Third Circuit’s ruling in In re Tribune provides important insight on what it means for a plan to unfairly discriminate.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.