Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.

The new year has seen a rapid pace being set in terms of anticipated and actual legislative, regulatory and common law changes across Australia’s restructuring and insolvency regimes. The federal government’s inquiry into restructuring and bankruptcy laws is ongoing against a backdrop of sustained monetary policy interventions.

Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

Following the sanctioning of the Good Box restructuring plan (RP) it seems the answer is yes. This might sound surprising to those familiar with schemes of arrangement, because that outcome is at odds with the long-standing decision in Re Savoy Hotels.

For those less familiar with schemes and scheme case law, the court declined to sanction the Savoy scheme because the company did not approve it, consequently the judge found that the court had no jurisdiction to sanction it.

Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts denied confirmation of a cannabis company employee’s Chapter 13 plan and dismissed his bankruptcy case. The employee, Scott H. Blumsack (the “Debtor”), is a general manager who is licensed in Massachusetts to work for Society Cannabis Co., a Massachusetts-licensed retailer, wholesaler, and producer of cannabis products.

NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.

Despite the “elegance” of the arguments challenging  the calling of creditors’ meetings on behalf of the former CEO, who argued that the rights of “B” shareholders including himself, would be adversely affected, Trower J found that as neither the contractual terms of the rights themselves nor their economic value would be affected by the plans, he would order calling of the meetings under section 901C(3) Companies Act 2006. There was no real change to the economic value for the B shareholders.  

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission unveiled a draft directive (2022/0408 (COD)) (the “Directive”) proposing to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency laws across the European Union[1].

ICC Judge Barber’s judgment in the case of Purkiss v Kennedy & ors (Re Ethos Solutions Ltd) [2022] EWHC 3098 (Ch) deals with a complex and late application for joinder and to re-amend proceedings. It was handed down following a four day hearing and weighs in at over 200 paragraphs, facts indicative of the unusual nature of the application.

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