On January 13, 2009, in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, the Court of Chancery of Delaware considered the petition by an investor to have Genetrix, LLC dissolved because it was no longer “reasonably practicable” to continue to operate the company when the company had no operating revenue, no prospects of equity or debt infusion, a deadlocked board of directors and an operating agreement that gave no means of navigating around the deadlock. The court found in favor of the investor and concluded that judicial dissolution was the best and only option for the members in the company.

With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).

As a general rule, a debtor realizes taxable income upon the partial or total cancellation of its debt. Special rules may apply, however, when the debtor is a “pass-through” entity—e.g., a partnership, a limited liability company (LLC) that is treated as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes or a subchapter S corporation. Cancellation of debt (COD) income realized by a pass-through entity generally passes through to the entity’s owners, with each owner being required to report its allocable share of such income on its own income tax return.

In a 56-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sent a long-pending trade secrets case, Jasco Tools, Inc. v. Dana Corporation, Appeal No. 08-2762-bk, back to the lower court for further proceedings because of the bankruptcy court's "flawed application of well established summary judgment principles." (Slip Op.

The Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law has been amended effective as of October 29, 2009, by adding new protections for occupants of dwelling units1 in properties that are in foreclosure. These protections will apply to projects which were rental housing from the outset, and to for-sale housing projects in which units are being rented pending sale or which have been converted to rental housing.  

Notice to Occupants by Receivers and Mortgagees in Possession

The South Florida Bankruptcy Court in the Tousa case ordered various creditors that had benefitted from a fraudulent conveyance to disgorge $421,000,000 to the jointly-administered Tousa bankruptcy estates. The court also ordered the avoidance of liens on the assets of various Tousa subsidiary entities who were also debtors in the bankruptcy proceedings. This case may raise increased focus upon the legal theory of fraudulent conveyance, which was the rationale used by the bankruptcy court to order the money returned.

The Seventh Circuit recently held that a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of liquidation is not confirmable over a secured lender's objection if such plan prohibits the lender from credit bidding at a sale of its collateral. In doing so, the Seventh Circuit split with the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal which have confirmed plans that block secured creditors' rights to credit bid, potentially making the issue ripe for review by the United States Supreme Court.

In a recent legal development that underscores the intricate interplay between federal bankruptcy law and the cannabis industry, a court case has emerged involving a bankruptcy filing by an employee of a cannabis company. It’s well established that, because cannabis is generally considered a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), certain cannabis related companies are precluded from obtaining debt relief through bankruptcy. Now individuals employed by cannabis companies might find themselves in the same boat. In Blumsack v. Harrington, 2024 Bankr.

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.

As the cannabis industry matures, there will be winners and losers. Losers lack access to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Marijuana related assets cannot be sold free and clear of liens and encumbrances via the tried and true bankruptcy section 363 sale, which leaves the loser’s creditors without the best tool to maximize the value of the loser’s assets, and deprives acquirers of a federal court order conveying assets. What’s the state of play, and what’s the alternative for the losers, their creditors, and the companies that would acquire them?

STATE OF PLAY