Celsius’ retail borrowers finally have an answer on who owns the cryptocurrency they deposited into Celsius in exchange for a loan from Celsius – spoiler alert: on November 13, 2023 the bankruptcy court held that Celsius’ terms of service “clearly and unambiguously” gave Celsius ownership of retail borrowers’ cryptocurrency. The bankruptcy court’s decision follows its January 2023 decision which similarly held that the cryptocurrency of Celsius’ “Earn” customers also belonged to Celsius because the terms of service similarly unambiguously granted Celsius title ownership.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has recently handed down its decision in proceedings (“Arrium Proceedings”) brought by a number of lenders against former officers and employees of Arrium Limited and its subsidiaries (“Arrium”).
Introduction
Justice Ball’s landmark decision1 dismissing the lenders’ claims addressed various important issues that often arise when a borrower is facing financial distress in Australia, including:
The liquidity-fueled lull in restructuring activity provides both an interesting historical echo of the late 1990s and a useful opportunity for market participants to take note of a deceptively interesting opinion in Giuliano ex rel. Consolidated Bedding, Inc. v. L&P Financial Services Co. (In re Consolidated Bedding, Inc.), Case No. 19-50727, 2021 WL 2638594 (Bankr. D. Del. June 25, 2021) (Shannon, J.).
The Australian Government has introduced new laws which are intended to avoid unnecessary corporate insolvencies in light of the challenges presented by the unfolding COVID-19 global pandemic. The new laws came into effect on 25 March 2020 and include:
In July 2017, we wrote about the case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], in which the Western Australian Supreme Court held that rights of set off enjoyed by an insolvent company’s contractual counterparties would not apply if the company had granted a security interest over the relevant contractual righ
In our previous blog post, we examined the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to uphold the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring by way of scheme of arrangement.
In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs
In one of the most significant decisions relating to schemes of arrangement in Australia in recent years, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring.
In early November, the Ninth Circuit held in In re New Investments, Inc. that a debtor was required to “cure” defaults to an agreement using a post-default interest rate, overturning its prior, decades-old decision In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc., which had held that a debtor could cure agreements at pre-default interest rates.
Background
Creditors seeking to file an involuntary petition against a debtor may want to consider doing their due diligence before using it as a tool in their ongoing disputes with a debtor.