The rules governing corporate and personal insolvency in Singapore are set out in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), which includes mechanisms to reverse transactions that unfairly deplete a company's assets prior to insolvency, thereby protecting creditors' interests by allowing the value of the company’s assets to be maximised for distribution to its creditors on insolvency.

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.

In 2018, Singapore enacted the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA 2018), which streamlined its debt restructuring regime by consolidating provisions previously set out in various statutes into a piece of omnibus legislation.

Among other developments, the IRDA 2018 built upon existing provisions relating to pre-packed schemes of arrangement (i.e. pre-packed schemes) and enhanced pre-packed schemes as a viable tool in Singapore’s arsenal of debt restructuring mechanisms.

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

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.

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 reporting its lowest annual recovery from False Claim Act (“FCA”) cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reportedly bounced back. On February 1, 2021, DOJ released detailed statistics regarding FCA recoveries during FY 2021, during which DOJ reportedly obtained more than $5.6 billion in civil FCA settlements and judgments, of which $5 billion related to matters involving the health care industry.

This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.

A. Overview

In Denka Advantech Pte Ltd v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 119, the Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) had the opportunity to consider the applicable law with regard to penalty and liquidated damages (“LD”) clauses.

On December 14, 2020, Judge Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, issued an important decision in the CEC Entertainment, Inc. (Chuck E. Cheese) bankruptcy case, Case No. 20-33163, denying the Debtors’ motion to abate their obligations to pay post-petition rent due to government shutdown orders issued as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 1492].