In many of the recent insolvencies of digital asset companies, liquidators have been appointed over companies in which digital assets have been fraudulently transferred from wallets controlled by an insolvent company into other unidentified wallets in foreign jurisdictions.

The anonymity of cryptoassets causes serious difficulties for insolvency practitioners in identifying the third parties who received funds and the location of the digital wallets.

2022年8月31日、ケイマン諸島のリストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度が施行されました[1]。この制度は、ケイマン諸島における支払不能状態会社の再建に関して、更に柔軟な再建方法を導入するものです。これは、リストラクチャリング請願の提出日から自動支払猶予期間が開始するというという特色もあります。

リストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度導入前において[2]、法定支払猶予の効果を有する再建方法は、ケイマン諸島における裁判所監督形式である再建手続において「ライトタッチ」（訳注：一時的な関与のみの想定）ベースの暫定清算人が選任される場合に限定されていました[3]。リストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度は、その手続面を見直し、さらにその利用に際して障害となるものを取り除いています。これには、(a)暫定清算人選任前に会社清算請願を提出しなければならない点（これは社会的信用を毀損する結果もたらします。）[4]、および、(b)暫定清算人が選任されるまでの間は支払猶予が認められない点[5]が含まれます。

2022年8月31日より前、ケイマン裁判所は、会社法（Companies Act）第104条(3)に基づく会社清算請願が提出された場合、以下の両要件を満たすときに、ライトタッチの暫定清算人を選任することができました。

On 31 August 2022, the Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime came into force.[1] The regime was introduced to provide increased flexibility to implement a restructuring of Cayman Islands insolvent companies, including by providing the breathing space of an automatic moratorium that operates from the date of presentation of the restructuring petition.

In the recent decision of FamilyMart China Holding Co v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33 (FamilyMart),[1] the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) found that, although an arbitral tribunal does not have the power to determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company nor to make a winding u

Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.

The finality of asset sales and other transactions in bankruptcy is an indispensable feature of U.S. bankruptcy law designed to maximize the value of a bankruptcy estate as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of all stakeholders. To promote such finality, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits reversal or modification on appeal of an order authorizing a sale or lease to a "good-faith" purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending appeal. What constitutes "good faith" has sometimes been disputed by the courts.