The confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic, high inflation, and increased borrowing costs culminated in countries incurring record levels of debt.[1] Despite this global debt crisis, there is currently no comprehensive set of rules or body of law to govern the restructuring of sovereign debt.
Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.
Subchapter V eligibility requires a debtor to be “engaged in” commercial/business activities.
Case Law Consensus
Case law consensus is that such activities must exist on the petition filing date. That means a debtor cannot utilize Subchapter V when:
- business assets are fully-liquidated;
- unpaid debts are the only remnant of the failed business; and
- prospects for resuming such activities are nil.
So . . . here’s the question: Is that the right eligibility standard?
I say, “No.”
A Hypothetical
As noted by my partner David Besikof, the failure of various blockchain businesses is leading to a number of complications in Bankruptcy Court. However, these complications are now edging into allegations of outright fraud. The dimensions of the fraud alleged by Gemini here appear to be both fuzzy and sweeping.
One of the benefits the US Bankruptcy Code offers debtors is the ability to assign freely contracts under which the debtor has ongoing performance obligations, even if the underlying contract contains a restriction or prohibition against such assignment. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has its limits and does impose certain conditions to such assignment, such as the curing of defaults under the contract (other than so-called “ipso facto” defaults) and the requirement that the assignee be capable of future performance under the contract.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit quietly affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an involuntary petition because the petitioners’ “claims were the subject of bona fide disputes within the meaning of” Bankruptcy Code (Code) §303(b)(1) (petitioner may not hold claim that is “the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount”). In re Navient Solutions, LLC, 2023 WL 3487051 (2d Cir. May 17, 2023).
Summary of Purdue Pharma, L.P. v, City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.), No. 22–110 – Bk (2d Cir. May 30, 2023)
On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.
I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.
前言
美国时间3月10日，加州金融保护与创新部宣布关闭美国硅谷银行（SVB），由联邦存款保险公司接管硅谷银行，原因是流动性不足和资不抵债。值得注意的是，硅谷银行作为服务于美国甚至全球创投圈的专业性银行，其关闭和破产犹如一块巨石在创投圈砸出了巨大的水花，并且波及整个水面。美国著名创投公司Y Combinator CEO将硅谷银行破产事件称为“初创公司的灭绝性事件”。
据相关媒体报道，位于北京的一家创投基金负责人向记者表示，受硅谷银行事件牵连，国内个别创投机构在硅谷银行仍有存款或者其他相关业务，正忙着处理资金问题。从私募基金的角度而言，我们不禁担忧：硅谷银行的此次破产事件是否可能影响由其托管的私募基金的财产安全呢？该事件对境内的私募基金又有哪些警示呢？对此，本文拟梳理境内私募基金托管法规和自律规则，并就相关风险提供专业建议。
一、私募基金托管“三问”
1、第一问：哪些类型的私募基金必须托管？
根据《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》1、《私募投资基金备案须知》2等相关规定，目前四类私募基金必须或者原则上必须托管：
(1）契约型私募投资基金
“Sophisticated financial titans engaged in a winner-take-all battle. There was a winner and a loser. Such an outcome was not only foreseeable, it is the only correct result. The risk of loss is a check on unrestrained behavior.”