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.
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.
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
Last November we wrote about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Highland Capital Management, L.P., where the court reversed the bankruptcy court’s approval of a plan’s exculpation clause for non-debtors and limited the universe of parties covered by that provision. Relying on Bank of New York Trust Co., NA v. Official Unsecured Creditors’ Comm.
簡介
在最近英国最高法院的一项判决中，资不抵债或接近资不抵债的公司的董事有责任考虑债权人的利益。虽然 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 涉及英国公司法，但它将对理解英联邦地区清盘情况下的董事职责产生深远影响，尤其是在离岸司法管辖区。
Sequana
普通法和 2006 年《公司法》均规定公司董事有义务以诚信行事，以促进公司的成功。传统观点认为，公司利益等同于公司股东的利益。近几十年来，法律开始承认，当公司濒临破产或资不抵债时，公司债权人的利益可能会受到公司管理层的影响。因此，法律开始要求董事在破产情况下履行对公司的信托义务时考虑债权人的利益。这条被称为 West Mercia 规则（源自 West Mercia Safetywear Ltd (in liq) v Dodd [1988] BCLC 250）的规则从未在案例中得到一致解释，而法院使用的语言经常混淆规则的性质及其产生的确切情况。
Introduction
In a recent decision, the United Kingdom Supreme Court clarified the duty of directors of insolvent or near insolvent companies to consider the interests of creditors. While BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 relates to company law in the United Kingdom, it will have far reaching implications on the understanding of directors' duties relating to insolvency across the commonwealth and, in particular, offshore jurisdictions.
Sequana