The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

Introduction

The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.

Who owns cryptocurrency held by a cryptocurrency exchange? Do the cryptocurrency assets belong to the customers who deposited the crypto with the exchange, or do the cryptocurrency assets belong to the exchange itself? The answer to this question will have huge significance, both in terms of creditor recoveries as well as preferential transfer liability exposure.

In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.

Many authorities and commentators have considered cryptocurrencies, and the blockchains that undergird them, as a potentially disruptive force in the financial industry. Now, that disruption has made its way to a different side of finance—bankruptcy, and during the past year, the United States bankruptcy courts have had to confront many unexpected challenges involved in dealing with cryptocurrency.

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

How close is too close? The answer to this question can have dire implications for people and companies involved in the cannabis industry who wish to seek bankruptcy protection.

The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023

In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).