Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
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.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
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.
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 characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.
The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way1, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing2.
Are bankruptcy doors now opening for cannabis companies? A decision last week from a California bankruptcy court indicates perhaps so, at least for cannabis companies that are no longer operating.
Factual Background