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 June 20, 2018 opinion, Judge Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim that had been traded during the bankruptcy case and filed by the claim purchaser. The opinion highlights the importance of being vigilant in conducting diligence before acquiring a claim against a bankruptcy debtor, especially regarding the ability of the original creditor to assign the claim without the debtor’s consent.

Directors of a company in financial distress will often turn to their professional advisors to assist in making decisions about the company’s future; whether that be their lawyers, accountants, bank, tax advisors or insolvency professionals.

There was a magical place that’s now in administration. It’s called ‘Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’, Toys R Us’.

As more and more states pass laws allowing the sale of marijuana, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes, investors will try to claim their share of what is certainly going to be a lucrative market. However, even in a growing market, private enterprises fail or need restructuring. This raises the question of whether distressed marijuana businesses, and those doing business with marijuana businesses, can seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

Last Friday, October 13, Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the presumption against extraterritoriality of US law as well as the limits of the doctrine of international comity.

With effect from the commencement of the new financial year in July 2017, the Australian federal and state governments implemented a range of legal and regulatory changes, which could affect entities undertaking or contemplating investments in Australian land, companies or businesses or who are seeking to establish operations in Australia. We have summarised four of these key changes below.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides additional guidance with respect to jurisdictional disputes that bankruptcy professionals often see in practice. In particular, the Gupta v. Quincy Med. Ctr., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9814 (1st Cir. June 2, 2017) case analyzed whether a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a post-sale dispute among a purchaser of estate assets and former employees of the debtors.

On 5 April 2017, an amendment to the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – “InsO”) has come into force which provides for various changes to the avoidance rules and clawback laws in German insolvency proceedings.

The major change affects the right of an insolvency administrator to challenge transactions for willful disadvantage (§ 133 InsO).

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to the professionals retained by an unsecured creditors’ committee (the “Committee”). Rather, in In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del.