Over the past year, digital asset investors have become acutely aware of asset custody and counterparty credit risks due to the high-profile bankruptcies of Voyager, Celsius, BlockFi, and FTX. These investors have found that, at times, their assets may be stuck in a bankruptcy proceeding for years. However, these investors—now bankruptcy claim holders—have options for more immediate liquidity.

DURING THE PAST YEAR, many investors in the distressed debt market have received postreorganization private equity1 either through a confirmed plan of reorganization or through participation in a rights offering. Unlike publicly traded equity, each new issuance of postreorganization equity leaves recipients, issuers, and agents potentially facing uncharted territory in terms of how the instrument is to trade and settle.

The UK Supreme Court today delivered an important decision on the meaning of the so-called 'balance sheet insolvency test' in s.123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) (BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail 2007-3BL PLC [2013] UKSC 28 ("Eurosail")).

On Feb. 18, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) held that (i) an assignment of unsecured contract claims from AT&T to ReGen Capital I, Inc. (“ReGen”) was broad enough to include right to receive “cure” payments in the event the debtor, UAL Corporation (“United”), assumed the underlying executory contracts, but (ii) ReGen could not successfully assert a “cure” claim because United had not assumed the executory contracts, even though United’s confirmed plan of reorganization included them on a list of assumed contracts. ReGen Capital I, Inc. v. UAL Corp.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently construed the terms of a customary loan agreement to preclude certain hedge funds viewed as “acquir[ing] distressed debt and engag[ing] in predatory lending” from voting on a debtor’s plan of reorganization. Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC v. NB Distressed Debt Investment Fund Ltd. (In re Meridian Sunrise Village, LLC), 2014 WL 909219 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2014).

The SIPC Trustee for Lehman Brothers Inc. ("LBI") and the Joint Administrator of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE") today announced an agreement in principle to resolve all claims, approximately $38 billion in the aggregate, between their respective entities.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the bankruptcy court in the United States and the English High Court. According to the LBI Trustee, if approved, "the agreement sets the stage for distributions that will provide 100 percent recovery of customer property."

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently vacated a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had declined to enforce the contractual allocation of claim impairment risk between a bankruptcy claim buyer and its seller.[1] Relying on the plain language of the documents, the Second Circuit held in Longacre Master Fund, Ltd. v. ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. (Longacre)that the debtors’ objection to the claims had triggered the seller’s repurchase obligation.

On Dec. 21, 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey approved a liquidation plan for collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) Zais Investment Grade Limited VII (“ZING VII”). The plan incorporates a settlement between senior noteholders who had initiated the bankruptcy case by filing an involuntary petition against the CDO, and junior noteholders who were appealing the Bankruptcy Court’s April 26, 2011 order granting the involuntary petition.

CURRENTLY, NEGOTIATION and documentation of claims trades remain largely unregulated, with only limited oversight from bankruptcy courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Generally, the bankruptcy court’s, or the claims agent’s, involvement in claims trading is ministerial, i.e., maintaining the claims register and recording transfers if the form complies with the rule. Only if there is an objection to a claims transfer does the bankruptcy court become involved in the substance of a transfer.

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]