We have written before about the virtual dead end faced by marijuana companies who try to seek protection in the bankruptcy courts. Almost uniformly, bankruptcy courts have shut their doors on marijuana companies, including their landlords and suppliers.

Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.

We recently published a blog identifying issues which cryptocurrency pose in insolvencies; not least identifying and classifying it, how to take control of it and realising value for the insolvency estate.

Given cryptocurrencies are global, the question of how to classify cryptocurrency on insolvency is not limited to just one jurisdiction.

The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.

In Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. PG&E, 549 U.S. 443 (2007), the Supreme Court held that bankruptcy law does not disallow a post-petition unsecured claim for attorney’s fees to the extent such claim is authorized by a pre-petition contract and not otherwise expressly disallowed. That pronouncement should have stopped all future litigation over the issue. That has not been the case.

As noted in prior posts, the Ninth Circuit opened the door, albeit narrowly, to cannabis company bankruptcies when it issued its opinion in Garvin v. Cook Invs. NW on May 2, 2019. In Garvin, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the confirmation of a plan of reorganization proposed by the lessor to a marijuana growing operation.

On May 17, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York announced that the Official Committee of Consumer Creditors (the “Consumer Committee”) appointed in the In re Ditech Holding Corp. bankruptcy case would not be disbanded. Ditech, supported by the ad hoc group of term loan lenders (the “Ad Hoc Group”), had filed a motion requesting that the Consumer Committee be disbanded or alternatively have a limited scope and budget. After receiving objections from the U.S.

Can a waiver of rights ever be beneficial to the person granting the waiver?  Yes.  In In re Adamson Apparel, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in a 2-1 

As a part of our continuing coverage of the 2012-2014 Final Report and Recommendations of the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, we’ve reported on a number of the Commission’s proposed revisions and reforms to the Bankruptcy Code, many of which (i.e., systemically important financial institutions, cross-border cases, DIP financing, etc.) primarily impact the traditional big players i

Since it burst onto the Bankruptcy Code scene in 2005 with the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, which affords a creditor administrative priority for the value of goods the debtor received within 20 days prior to its bankruptcy fi