A bankruptcy court’s recent denial of a debtor’s petition for bankruptcy relief on narrow grounds casts a long shadow on the viability of bankruptcy relief for those employed in the cannabis industry. Though confining the court’s holding to this debtor’s case, the court concluded that because the debtor engaged, and intended to continue engaging, in activities that violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act, the debtor could not objectively have filed for bankruptcy or proposed a plan of reorganization in good faith, as required by Federal bankruptcy law.

The latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) took effect on December 1, 2022. This collection of modifications may be broadly divided into two categories: (i) amendments and a new rule promulgated to account for the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”), and (ii) amendments clarifying or consolidating non-SBRA specific Bankruptcy Rules.

SBRA-Related Amendments

Could bankruptcy protection be on the horizon for individuals and companies actively involved in the cannabis industry? Potentially yes, following President Biden’s October 6, 2022 request for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the administrative process to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).

On Friday, 29 July the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the "Regulations").

Voyager Digital Assets Inc., along with two of its affiliates, filed bankruptcy petitions in the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2022. The filing is significant—it followed months of an extreme downturn in the cryptocurrency sector which led to the collapse of Three Arrows Capital, a Singaporean cryptocurrency hedge fund (that borrowed $350 million and 15,250 Bitcoins from Voyager).

This case was an emergency interlocutory application by Mr Hennessy to prevent a receiver – Ken Tyrrell – and Everyday Finance DAC (the "Defendants") from taking possession, marketing and/or selling charged lands in County Laois (the "charged lands" or the "lands").

Although there is no technical requirement for a judgment to apply to make a debtor a bankrupt (as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Harrahill v Cuddy[1]), the Court has a very wide discretion to refuse to issue a bankruptcy summons. Therefore, an applicant will typically rely on a judgment to ground a bankruptcy petition.

Background

The High Court recently extended the bankruptcy period of an Irish businessman to a total of 13 years.

The usual bankruptcy term is one year, however this can be extended in cases of non-cooperation or non-disclosure of assets with the maximum term being 15 years.

On Monday 8 November, the High Court imposed one of the longest ever disqualification periods for a company director. The Court held that this was "one of the most extreme cases of using a company for [oil] laundering", and granted an application on behalf of the liquidator of Gaboto Limited for the disqualification of the two directors for a period of fifteen years.

With Hertz emerging from a bankruptcy with a positive result for shareholders, we are reminded of the interplay between the equity markets and the bankruptcy alternative.

Some firms facing financial challenges during the pandemic were able to avoid a bankruptcy filing altogether because of their ability to raise the necessary funds through an equity offering. Hertz provides an example of a situation where the bankruptcy filing instead of wiping out the equity enhanced value.