The Barton doctrine provides that a court-appointed receiver cannot be sued absent “leave of court by which he was appointed.” Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881).

Section 548 of the bankruptcy code authorizes a trustee, debtor, or other appropriate party to avoid actual and constructive fraudulent transfers that occurred prepetition. In order to prove that a transfer was an actual fraudulent transfer, the trustee (or another appropriate plaintiff) must prove that the debtor made the transfer “with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which to debtor was or became…indebted.” 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1)(A).

An appeals court has issued an insightful decision on the availability of damages when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed in bad faith. See Stursberg v. Morrison Sund PLLC, No. 23-1186, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).

The decision addresses both the interplay between Bankruptcy Code sections 303 and 305 and federal preemption of state law.

Under federal law, a debtor may be criminally prosecuted for various kinds of misconduct in connection with a bankruptcy case, including concealing assets, falsifying information, embezzlement, or bribery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157. The U.S. Trustee, which serves as a watchdog over the bankruptcy process, will refer such cases to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation and prosecution.

In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.

Background

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.

Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.

If your company is named in a new lawsuit or receives a EEOC charge, part of your review process should include checking to see if the filing complainant or plaintiff has a pending bankruptcy action. If so, the next step is to see if the claimant disclosed their lawsuit or administrative complaint in his or her bankruptcy petition. If not, you may have a successful estoppel argument.

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