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.

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.

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

On July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA suit. The district court reviewed plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA, which alleged that defendants violated the bankruptcy court’s order discharging his debt and knowingly filed a baseless debt collection lawsuit.

Orrick's Founder Series offers monthly top tips for UK startups on key considerations at each stage of their lifecycle, from incorporating a company through to possible exit strategies. The Series is written by members of our market-leading London Technology Companies Group (TCG), with contributions from other practice members. Our Band 1 ranked London TCG team closed over 320 growth financings and tech M&A deals totalling US$9.76bn in 2022 and has dominated the European venture capital tech market for 7 years in a row (PitchBook, FY 2022).

The manufacturing sector in Germany is currently being hit hard. The reasons are massive increases in material prices and energy costs due to the indirect consequences of the Corona pandemic, disrupted supply chains and the Ukraine war. As a consequence of the economic crisis and insolvency of an important customer, Berner GmbH, based in Osnabrück, decided to continue its restructuring course within the framework of a petition filed on 23.03.2023 with the competent Osnabrück Local Court for the initiation of insolvency proceedings in self -administration.

Das produzierende Gewerbe in Deutschland wird derzeit erheblich in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Grund sind massive Materialpreis- und Energiekostenerhöhungen aufgrund der mittelbaren Folgen der Corona-Pandemie, gestörten Lieferketten und dem Ukrainekrieg. Als Folge der Wirtschaftskrise sowie der Insolvenz eines bedeutenden Kunden hat sich auch die in Osnabrück ansässige Berner GmbH entschieden, ihren Restrukturierungskurs im Rahmen eines am 23.03.2023 beim zuständigen Amtsgericht in Osnabrück gestellten Antrages auf Einleitung eines Insolvenzverfahrens in Eigenverwaltung fortzusetzen.

Bank Asset Auction: Bids for Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and its subsidiary Silicon Valley Private Bank, together or separately, in whole or in part, are due by Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 8 p.m. and Friday, March 24, 2023 at 8 p.m. We’ve previously reported that SVB is open for operations for a minimum of ninety days until it is sold or liquidated.

Mit Entscheidung des BGH vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) hat dieser die insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit zum Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters entschieden. Ausweislich der Entscheidung erstreckt sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte, wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt. Der BGH lehnt eine analoge Anwendung ausdrücklich ab.

Keine Regelungslücke

The FDIC has statutory obligations to maximize the net present value return from the sale or disposition of the assets entrusted to it as receiver, and to minimize the amount of any loss realized.[1] Today we examine the FDIC’s efforts to fulfill its mandate through the transfer of assets to bridge-banks, Silicon Valley Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and Signature Bank, N.A. (“SB”).