The German Federal Court of Justice (the Federal Court) has considered whether a so-called "weak" preliminary insolvency administrator, entrusted to continue business operations with the management during the preliminary proceeding, may take actions in the interest of these operations, where it is unclear whether the debtor has discontinued the business.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.

Key Takeaways

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.

According to the German Federal Court of Justice (the Court), a “related party” (nahestehende Person) within the meaning of German insolvency law includes in the case of a legal entity, an indirect shareholder, provided that it holds more than 25% of the shares. Here, the Court will assume that the legal entity has advance knowledge of the financial situation of its subsidiary.

Background

In a recent case before the Federal Court of Justice, an insolvency administrator was found to have neglected his duties of investigation in a particularly serious and reproachable manner.

Decision

The insolvency administrator had contested the offsetting of an investment subsidy by the creditor bank to balance the debtor’s accounts.

The focus of the decision was whether the insolvency administrator had made the contestation claim within the statutory limitation period. In Germany, this is usually three years and starts:

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.

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

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.

Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.

Decision

The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.

A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.