The FDIC has statutory obligations to maximize the net present value return from the sale or disposition of the assets entrusted to it as receiver, and to minimize the amount of any loss realized.[1] Today we examine the FDIC’s efforts to fulfill its mandate through the transfer of assets to bridge-banks, Silicon Valley Bank, N.A. (“SVB”) and Signature Bank, N.A. (“SB”).

In the second largest US bank failure since the 2008 global financial crisis, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation took over Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) on March 10 and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as SVB’s receiver. Just two days later, the New York State Department of Financial Services took over another bank, Signature Bank, and appointed the FDIC as receiver. And, yesterday, the share price of various European banks plunged following record one-day selloffs.

The crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?

This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.

Highlights

Counterparties should continue to follow their current contractual obligations

Silicon Valley Bank’s parent company bankruptcy filing will not impact contractual rights

Counterparties should be vigilant and consider alternate financing arrangements

On March 17, 2023, the parent of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) filed for Chapter 11 protection in the Southern District of New York. Unlike SVB itself, its parent, as a bank holding company, was eligible for Chapter 11. In the wake of the recent SVB and Signature Bank failures, it is important for those with potential claims against the parents of failed banks to understand the distinct rules and issues in bank holding company bankruptcies.

What You Need to Know

• Silicon Valley Bank’s 48-hour collapse sent several Big Law firms into action late last week.

• Morgan Lewis, Wilmer, Wilson Sonsini and Ballard Spahr are among the laws firms that launched task forces and webinars over the weekend.

• Despite some reassurance from the FDIC on Sunday, there are lingering issues that are expected to continue to prevent firms’ clients from conducting business in the normal course.

The FDIC receiverships of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank have caused certain early-stage companies to face potentially crippling near-term liquidity issues. These liquidity issues may result in a company becoming insolvent. Therefore, boards of directors of such companies need to consider their fiduciary duties as well as steps that can be taken to mitigate risks.

Fiduciary duties are typically owed to the company for the benefit of its owners.

This FAQ has been updated to take account of developments through March 15, 2023.

US governmental authorities, including the US Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, took actions to provide both insured and uninsured depositors of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) (as well as Signature Bank) access to their deposits beginning Monday, March 13. However, despite these actions, many customers are still dealing with the aftermath of an uncertain weekend, and practical questions remain to be answered.

The recent failures of Silicon Valley Bank (“SVB”) and Signature Bank have dominated news headlines for the last several days. The seemingly abrupt failure of two large financial institutions and the subsequent revelations that some businesses could lose a substantial amount of deposits have a lot of business owners concerned about the security of their funds. However, recent actions by the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) and United States Treasury Department have substantially reduced the risk that depositors will lose deposits.