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.

Background

Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.

Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.

Background

This case involved a winding up petition presented against Bridger & Co Ltd (the Company) on 15 June 2023. The petition debt arises out of a funding agreement between the parties. The Company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition on various grounds. The court declined to make an injunction.

Decision

The judgment helpfully confirms the position on three issues in these types of proceedings:

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.

Das Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Düsseldorf hat mit einem aktuellen Urteil (27.07.2023 – 12 U 59/22) seine eigene Rechtsprechung bestätigt, nach der die regulären Anforderungskriterien an die Überschuldungsprüfung bei Start-ups nicht uneingeschränkt Anwendung finden können.

Hintergrund – Kriterien der Überschuldungsprüfung

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.

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.

This case concerned the immunity of receivers from claims, where the Court had approved the sale of assets over which they were appointed.

Background

Following a dispute between two shareholders of Blackpool Football Club Limited (BFCL), receivers were appointed by the court over certain assets related to Blackpool Football Club, including the shares held by the majority shareholder in BCFL, Denaxe Limited (Denaxe).

During the marketing process, the receivers concluded the best way forward was to sell the assets as one complete package.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) presented winding up petitions against Fabcourt Developments Limited, Clarkson Murphy Partners Limited, Hall Contracting Services Limited and Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd (the Companies).

The SoS may present a petition for a company to be wound up where it appears that it is expedient in the public interest and if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so.

Background