Highlights

Long-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in Purdue Pharma shakes up the scope of bankruptcy releases

Insurers get increased ability to participate in bankruptcy cases

Overpayment of bankruptcy fees is not refundable to Chapter 11 debtors

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

Highlights

The Supreme Court held Section 363(m) is only a “statutory limitation” to accessing appellate relief in disputed bankruptcy sales that requires parties to take certain procedural steps to be effective

The Supreme Court also addressed mootness arguments and held that as long as parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of an appeal, the appeal should remain alive

The ruling provides insight as to how the Supreme Court may tackle the controversial doctrine of “equitable mootness”

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.

Highlights

Counterparties should continue to follow their current contractual obligations

Silicon Valley Bank’s parent company bankruptcy filing will not impact contractual rights

Counterparties should be vigilant and consider alternate financing arrangements

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”).

After depositors rushed to withdraw funds from Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), on Friday, March 10, 2023, the US bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named receiver of the closed bank.

Since 1988, the ‘rule in West Mercia’ – so named after the West Mercia Safetywear v Dodd Court of Appeal case – has been the leading authority for when directors of financially stressed companies are subject to the so-called ‘creditor duty’, namely the duty to consider the interests of the company’s creditors.