In a bankruptcy, a commercial lender with a lien on collateral valued more than the debt can demand to be paid default interest provided in the loan only to be faced with an objection by the borrower or trustee that the default interest constitutes an “unenforceable penalty” under California Civil Code section 1671(b). A recent decision by the District Court for the Central District of California, however, holds that section 1671(b) does not apply to a default interest rate imposed upon maturity as a matter of law.

A recent decision by a federal appeals court appears to open the doors of United States Bankruptcy Courts nationwide… or does it? The Ninth Circuit’s decision from Garvin v. Cook Investments provides a helpful roadmap for understanding the challenges and opportunities for marijuana-related businesses considering their access to bankruptcy courts.

Marijuana Businesses Generally Violate Federal Law

The court noted that the DOJ might prosecute cannabis-related businesses under the CSA, notwithstanding plan confirmation. Thus, Garvin may have foreclosed any future DOJ CSA-based noneconomic objections to cannabis reorganizations.

Earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited ruling in the Garvin v. Cook Investments, NW, SPNYW case This opinion is certain to be of great interest to both companies operating in the cannabis space and those attorneys representing them.

A controlling question of California law dealing with the interplay between State law presumptions of community property and “form of title” on which there was no controlling California precedent has been certified to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit.

In Brace v. Speier (In re Brace), 908 F.3d 531 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court:

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.

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

In Bennett v. Jefferson County, Alabama, 899 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2018), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled as a matter of first impression that the doctrine of equitable mootness applies in chapter 9 cases. According to the Eleventh Circuit panel, "[T]he correct result is to join the Sixth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit B.A.P.

Does a creditor’s good-faith belief that a discharge injunction does not apply to its debt preclude a finding of civil contempt? Due to a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide this issue.