We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.

Factual Background

In a December 16, 2021, decision,¹ Judge Colleen McMahon of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed the bankruptcy court order confirming the Chapter 11 plan of Purdue Pharma, L.P.

Liquidation brings about the formal end to a company, in case it has been insolvent or impotent to pay its responsibilities. It is a procedure of terminating the affairs of a company by the virtue of realizing the assets, discharging the liabilities, and distributing the surplus, among the shareholders. For such a proceeding to take place, an administrative person namely, a liquidator has to be appointed by the board of directors. Ultimately, the name of the company is stricken out from the register of companies.

One year ago when the German out-of-court restructuring regime, StaRUG, came into force, people hoped for it to be the beginning of a new viable rescue culture in Germany.

Whilst generally not public, it appears there have been substantially more professional articles covering StaRUG than cases themselves (believed to be around 10-20 for the year).

There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?

At the end of 2021, the Spanish government approved draft reforms of the Spanish insolvency laws that transposes Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks into Spanish law.

The reform will bring about a comprehensive change in insolvency proceedings in Spain. So what are these changes and what effect will these have in practice?

Restructuring Plans

Legislation

简介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，尽管香港法院承认维持完好契据（「维好契据」）的提供者在内地所提出的清盘程序并向管理人提供各种协助，但境外债券持有人在维好契据下的权利仍应根据合约的专属司法管辖权条款在香港裁决。

维持完好安排与释疑函件类似，都是内地企业支持其附属公司发行境外债券的常用增强信贷方式。由于维好契据不构成担保，内地企业集团往往以此规避禁止为境外债务提供抵押的规定。

背景

A number of key decisions from the English courts in 2021 illustrate the litigation trends that are likely to have implications for the financial services industry in 2022 and beyond (see below “Cases to watch in 2022”).

Market misconduct and mis-selling

In the first of a series of claims issued by ECU Group Plc in relation to alleged wrongdoing in the foreign exchange markets by a number of banks, the High Court held that:

The impact of Covid-19 is clearly the big talking point for 2022, with several questions arising: will new variants emerge, what steps will governments take to limit the spread, and what impact will it have on industries? To date, enforcement actions, insolvencies and restructurings have been relatively light, but with new restructuring legislation reforms on the horizon, and creditors starting to ramp up speed to enforcement, it appears likely that there will be an increase in winding up and cross-border restructuring work.