The value of the legitimate cannabis industry in the United States (measured by annual sales) is rapidly approaching $10 billion and expected to exceed $20 billion within the next five years. As the market grows, many companies that do not grow or sell cannabis are nonetheless doing business with those that do. Media companies are running advertisements for dispensaries, agricultural-equipment manufacturers are selling machinery to cannabis growers, and lawyers, accountants, and other professionals are providing services to clients directly involved in the industry.

In prior posts, we examined whether state-licensed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code. As we noted, the Office of the United States Trustee (the “UST”) has taken the position that a marijuana business cannot seek bankruptcy relief because the business itself violates the Controlled Substances Act 21, U.S.C.

In a recent cross-border insolvency case, Judge Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized an insurance company rehabilitation proceeding in Curaçao as a “foreign main proceeding” under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.[1]

Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a unique remedy to unsecured creditors seeking to collect their debts against an insolvent entity. A careful look at this remedy is contained in an earlier post, entitled Creditors’ Strategic Use of Involuntary Bankruptcy.

A recent chapter 15 decision by Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) suggests that third-party releases susceptible to challenge or rejection in chapter 11 proceedings may be recognized and enforced under chapter 15. This decision provides companies with cross-border connections a path to achieve approval of non-consensual third-party guarantor releases in the U.S.

Background

On December 12, 2018, Parker Drilling Company and its subsidiaries (“Debtors”), oilfield service companies headquartered in Houston, filed pre-negotiated chapter 11 cases in the United Stated Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Honorable Marvin Isgur is Presiding over the cases.

The Companies operate in two lines of business: (a) drilling services (i.e., oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells); and (b) rental tools and well services to E&P companies, drilling contractors and service companies.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a secured lender’s request for relief from the automatic stay, pursuant to sections 362(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, to allow a trustee’s sale of the debtor’s marina under state law. In re Delta Waterways, LLC, Case No. 18-42076-CN (Bankr. N.D. Cal. December 7, 2018). Several missteps and omissions by the debtor appear to have driven the Court’s decision.

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides considerable protection to a tenant in the event of a bankruptcy filing by its landlord.

Evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent, otherwise known in Kentucky as a forcible detainer action, is usually the most straightforward method for a landlord to terminate a tenant’s right to the premises. Although Kentucky judges will offer a hearing to any tenant who requests one, one of the few accepted legal defenses a tenant can present during this hearing is proof that rent was in fact paid within the required timeframe.