Hundreds and hundreds of claims for personal injury and property damage associated with PFAS contamination have been accumulating in the courtroom of a Federal Judge in South Carolina. A little over four years ago the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that Federal claims that Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) containing PFAS used to fight fires had contaminated drinking water had enough in common that they should all be sent to Federal Judge Gergel in South Carolina for disposition.

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

The High Court has made an order appointing an inspector to investigate alleged fraud and unlawful activity by a company. It appears that this is the first time the order has been made on the application of a creditor seeking to recover its “investment”.

Part 13 of the Companies Act 2014¹ sets out the mechanism for the statutory investigation of the affairs of a company. Chapter 2 provides for the court appointment of an inspector to carry out a fact-finding investigation and report to the court. This is a discretionary relief.

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”).

A recent High Court decision has a useful discussion of the law on common interest privilege in Ireland.

In these proceedings,¹ the plaintiff trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover funds from the defendant. The trustee claimed that these funds formed part of a bankrupt’s personal property and should be recovered for the benefit of his creditors.

Yesterday, 17 October 2022, Revenue announced a significant update to the Debt Warehousing Scheme (DWS). Under the DWS, taxpayers with deferred liabilities had until the end of 2022 (and for certain qualifying business, 30 April 2023) to either settle their outstanding liabilities (at 0% interest) or to establish a Phased Payment Arrangement with Revenue (at 3% interest). In light of the current challenging economic environment, Revenue have now extended this deadline to 1 May 2024.

In both jurisdictions the general consensus was that where a company is insolvent, the fiduciary duty of its directors to act in the interest of the company (Irish law), or in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company in the interests of its members as a whole (English law), altered such that directors were required to treat creditors' interests in priority to shareholders' interests. Directors must consider the interests of creditors as a whole, and not just the interests of any individual creditor or class of creditors.

The director of an insolvent company appealed a restriction order made against him. The order prevented the appellant from acting as a company director or secretary for a 5-year period under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to satisfy the court that he acted responsibly in the conduct of the company’s affairs.

The EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks (the“Directive”) precipitated a pan-European review by Member States of their corporate restructuring statutes. Several Member States (including Germany and the Netherlands), as well as the United Kingdom, made sweeping changes to their insolvency processes, in some cases introducing entirely new restructuring mechanisms. By contrast, Ireland preserved its examinership regime, introduced over 30 years ago.