The struggles of failing marijuana businesses to wind down and pay creditors in an orderly fashion serve no one. Among the problems marijuana businesses face such as lack of access to banking and onerous taxation stemming from IRC 280E is the lack of access to bankruptcy proceedings.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 18, 2022 in Indian Overseas Bank Versus M/S Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. And Another[1] observed that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot be continued once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has been initiated and moratorium is ordered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The process of bankruptcy or insolvency may involve a company selling business assets in order to pay creditors or simply to remain financially liable. In some cases, this may include selling distressed assets. This article explains what a distressed asset is, how to deal with such an asset, and what may be the ramifications of engaging in this process.

What is a distressed asset?

Bankruptcy law has its own set of rules. When a company files for Chapter 11 reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing triggers an automatic stay that prohibits any attempts by creditors to exercise control over any property of the bankruptcy estate; the bankruptcy court then has jurisdiction over all property of the estate, which includes all property “wherever located and by whomever held.” See 11 U.S.C. §541(a); 28 U.S.C. §1334(e)(1).

In its decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court  held that  “Harmonious construction of clause (10) of Section 3 of the I&B Code read with clauses (20) and (21) of Section 5 thereof would reveal, that even a claim in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority would come within the ambit   of ‘operational debt’.

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.

Introduction

法制審議会民事執行・民事保全・倒産及び家事事件等に関する手続（IT化関係）部会（以下「部会」といいます）の第8回会議（2022年8月5日開催）において、「民事執行・民事保全・倒産及び家事事件に関する手続（IT化）の見直しに関する中間試案^[1]」（以下「本試案」といいます）が取りまとめられました。現在パブリックコメント手続が実施されており、パブリックコメント期間は、2022年8月24日から2022年10月24日までになります。本試案については、その趣旨に関する詳細な説明資料として、部会事務局である法務省民事局参事官室において、「民事執行・民事保全・倒産及び家事事件等に関する手続（IT化関係）の見直しに関する中間試案の補足説明[2]」が公表されています。

１ 概要

平素は格別のご高配を賜り、厚く御礼申し上げます。 このたび、森・濱田松本法律事務所では、各分野の近時のリーガルニュースを集めて、 Client Alert 2022 年 9 月号（Vol.105）を作成いたしました。実務における一助となれば 幸いに存じます。

A February 16, 2021 decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held, in In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, 520 F. Supp. 3d 390, that lenders who received almost $900 million mistakenly wired to them by Citibank (the administrative agent for a $1.8-billion syndicated seven-year term loan to Revlon [2016 Loan]) were entitled to keep the money.