Individuals undergo bankruptcy proceedings for many reasons, chief among them to seek relief from their debts and obtain a fresh financial start. However, the opportunity for a fresh start can be limited when the bankrupt’s debts arise from securities fraud. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Poonian v.

Corporate governance practices are truly put to the test in two instances: 1) the commencement of litigation; and 2) entry into the zone of insolvency. The latter (distressed circumstances) increases the likelihood of the former (claims against directors and officers).

When distressed circumstances do arise, it is critical to ensure that best practices are in place and adhered to. Often, there may be little time in a crisis to consider and adopt new governance practices given the speed at which events may unfold. Directors need to get it right, and quickly.

Fund sponsors continue to face a challenging fundraising market and many are sensitive to increasing investor demand for liquidity. Higher interest rates and public market dislocation continue to make capital-raising difficult, while decreased fund distributions are limiting capital available for new commitments, leading investors to prioritize liquidity and invest cautiously.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) recently revisited the stringent boundaries on the types of claims that can be brought against court-appointed officers. The decision in North v Davison, 2024 ABKB 242 (the Decision) highlighted the protective measures that courts employ to safeguard the integrity and function of receivership proceedings against unfounded or speculative claims. In the Decision, the Court struck down a counterclaim against Ernst & Young Inc.

In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.

Appeals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) generally result in an automatic stay of the order under appeal—a potentially costly and disruptive outcome. Accordingly, the BIA requires by default that an interested party first seek leave to appeal a lower court decision unless its appeal meets a set of prescribed circumstances that appears broad but, in practice, has been construed very narrowly by the courts (i.e., making it difficult to obtain leave to appeal). In Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.

In insolvency proceedings, it can be difficult to navigate how to close out a transaction with an insolvent counterparty without suffering excessive collateral damage. One question that may arise in this process is whether a contract with the insolvent party can be relied upon. Canadian insolvency laws provide special treatment for a certain category of contracts called eligible financial contracts (EFCs).

As the cannabis industry matures, there will be winners and losers. Losers lack access to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Marijuana related assets cannot be sold free and clear of liens and encumbrances via the tried and true bankruptcy section 363 sale, which leaves the loser’s creditors without the best tool to maximize the value of the loser’s assets, and deprives acquirers of a federal court order conveying assets. What’s the state of play, and what’s the alternative for the losers, their creditors, and the companies that would acquire them?

STATE OF PLAY

Insolvency legislation is full of trade-offs—chief among them is expediency versus fairness. On the one hand, insolvencies are often urgent matters with the fate of the debtor’s business or the value of its assets resting on a speedy and efficient resolution of its creditors’ claims. On the other hand, those creditors expect to be treated fairly and receive a real opportunity to advance and resolve their claims, which often entails a slow, deliberate process.