The European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the “Restructuring Regulations”) were introduced on 27 July 2022 with immediate effect.

You can read our overview of the regulations, specifically the changes they impose on the examinership process and a short overview of the changes imposed on the Companies Act 2014, here.

Just hours after the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey entered an order dismissing the Chapter 11 Case of Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, LTL Management, as a bad faith filing, LTL filed for Chapter 11 protection again in the same Bankruptcy Court.

As those in the cannabis industry are fully aware, the option of bankruptcy has not been available to cannabis or many cannabis-adjacent businesses to date. The courts have consistently indicated debtors who work in the cannabis industry or derive meaningful income from cannabis activity (directly or indirectly) cannot use bankruptcy, a federal mechanism, so long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Introduction

Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

1 2023 年 4 月 破産管財人による債務の承認と消滅時効の関係 ―別除権者との交渉過程等での債務承認に 消滅時効の中断の効力を認めた最新判例― 弁護士 関端 広輝/ 弁護士 片山 いずみ Ⅰ．破産手続開始後における被担保債権の回収 1．破産手続における担保権の取扱い（別除権） 破産法上、破産債権（破産法 2 条 5 項。破産者に対し破産手続開始前の原因に基づいて生じた財産上の請 求権であって、財団債権に該当しないもの。）は、破産手続によらなければ権利行使ができないことが原則とされ ています（同法 100 条、42 条 1 項・同条 2 項）。つまり、破産債権を有する債権者は、基本的には、破産手続 に従って配当を受けることしかできません。しかし、その例外の 1 つとされるのが「別除権」です。 FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING GROUP NEWSLETTER 破産手続が開始された者の所有財産に担保権が設定されている場合、担保権者は、通常、自身の 有する被担保債権について、当該担保目的物からの回収を試みることになります。 そして、破産手続において破産管財人が選任されていれば、当該担保目的物の処遇や被担保債権 の回収に関し、担保権者が問い合わせや交渉等を行う相手は、当該破産管財人となります。

Bankruptcy lawyers recently gained access to a promising technology for improving the efficiency of tasks like drafting a motion for relief from stay. ChatGPT allows users to employ generative artificial intelligence by chatting with a chatbot on OpenAI’s website https://chat.openai.com/chat.

The Estonian Bankruptcy Act has been amended to establish the Insolvency Division, a state entity responsible for supervising the activities of insolvent debtors and funding bankruptcy proceedings where it deems it necessary to improve the business culture. Modelled after the Finnish bankruptcy ombudsman’s institution, the service aims to bring more efficiency to bankruptcy proceedings. The Insolvency Division is highly anticipated and welcomed, as the previous supervision system did not meet expectations in satisfying creditors’ claims or identifying the causes of debtor insolvency.

The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) was introduced in 2015 via the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015. The Practice Schedule was introduced together with the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) with the intention of providing specific rules to aid in the handling of personal bankruptcies and corporate external administration. 

In a previous blog about the case of Mizen we considered the case from the point of view of “guarantee stripping”, looking at how the CVA dealt with those claims. However, the CVA was challenged on a number of bases, including whether it was unfairly prejudicial as a consequence of “vote swamping”.

In this blog, we look at that aspect of the case.