The bankruptcy of the Mt. Gox cryptocurrency exchange in 2014 was a pivotal moment in cryptocurrency history. It demonstrated the vulnerabilities of early cryptocurrencies and saw the worst fears of the industry become a reality. However, in the years since it has also provided an excellent example of the successful tracing and recovery of a variety of asset classes. Creditors have recently received the first distributions from the recovered assets of Mt Gox, in stark contrast to the initial claims that access to the assets had been lost forever.

Background

In an opinion issued on Sept. 20 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge David T. Thuma held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent a bankruptcy court from determining whether the automatic stay applies to pending state court litigation. See In re Shook, Case No. 24-10724-t7 (Bankr. N.M. Sept. 20, 2024) [ECF No. 54].

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11's fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. And we are always looking for more input!

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

The current environment of higher interest rates and high inflation may have a deleterious effect on the retail industry. Although the fear of interest rates and inflation continuing to rise appears to have tapered off, both are still relatively high in comparison to the past twenty-year period. Each on its own can have a negative impact on the retail industry, and unfortunately, both combined can present enough challenges to a retail businesses to force them to change strategies for long-term survival.

When a company files for bankruptcy, its creditors often ask the same question: will I get paid? The answer, in part, depends on the priority and proposed treatment of each creditor's claim in the bankruptcy (i.e., who gets paid and in what order).1 In addition to the Bankruptcy Code's other provisions affecting the priority of a claim, the doctrines of recharacterization and equitable subordination can affect the priority of a challenged claim by effectively postponing or eliminating payment on the claim.

Recharacterization

Be careful when you sell intellectual property (“IP”) in return for future royalty payments. You may think your contract is airtight, guaranteeing you a future annuity on the sales of product relating to your IP, but that might not be the case if your buyer files for bankruptcy.

Question: What happens when a Chapter 7 debtor:

• fails to disclose the existence of claims against third parties;
• receives a Chapter 7 discharge and a closing of the Chapter 7 case;
• then, pursues the undisclosed claims by filing a lawsuit against the third parties; and
• the defendants in that lawsuit move to dismiss debtor’s claim for non-disclosure in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

That actually happened—and a U.S. District Court refused to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit on summary judgment:

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.