1. Introduction
The longstanding debate surrounding the prioritization of crown debts vis-à-vis private debts has entered a new chapter with the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Prior to the IBC, the common law principle generally granted crown debts preferential status over unsecured debts. This historical primacy stemmed from the sovereign's role as the embodiment of the public good, requiring unimpeded revenue collection for the smooth functioning of the State.
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.
Introduction
Barely six years since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), the Code has already undergone various amendments from to time, to aid its broad objective of time bound insolvency resolution, maximisation of value of assets of corporate debtors and balancing the interests of all stakeholders. Besides the amendments, judicial pronouncements have also played an instrumental role in shaping the Code in its present form.
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
The extant regulatory framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (“ARCs”) has been amended by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), vide its notification titled ‘Review of Regulatory Framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)’ dated 11th October 2022 (“Framework”).
Key Changes:
Some of the key changes brought about by the Framework are as follows:
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.
The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.