As discussed in previous installments of this White Paper series, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the “Bill”)¹ proposes a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework in an effort to bring stability to the digital asset market. One area of proposed change relates to how digital assets and digital asset exchanges would be treated in bankruptcy. If enacted, the Bill would significantly alter the status quo from a bankruptcy perspective

OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY

一、股东的责任

一般来说，股东只就其认购股份的出资承担责任，而如果公司无偿债能力进而清盘，股东层面并不负有任何法律责任。但仍需注意可能存在的例外情况，例如：

第一，穿透公司法人人格向股东追索。如某人在已有债务的情况下，通过将财产转移给新设立公司的方法逃避该既有债务，法院可能判令要求穿透公司面纱。而在实践中该法律原则因要求严格，很少能够被使用。

第二，股东参与到公司有欺诈目的的资产转移当中，或作为不正当的协助者、不正当的收受财产者，或者参与策划该欺诈行为等。

二、董事和公司管理人员的责任

在清盘开始后，董事实际上失去了管理公司的权力，但是由于董事的地位，其需要在以下两种情形下承担责任：一是如果他违反了原本就对公司负有的义务，清盘人代表公司能够向董事进行追责；二是在清盘前和清盘过程中，董事均负有特定的责任。

一方面，董事负有一般的对公司的信义义务，包括为公司利益行使权利，为公司避免利益冲突等，以及其他法定义务，比如董事必须采取一切合理步骤确保公司备存及保留会计记录至少7年（如有），以及必须确保公司按时提交财务报表等。如这些行为已经发生，董事可能需要承担责任。

系列导语

在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，进而影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机。这些投资人可能是企业公募或私募债券的持有人、享有抵押品的银团放贷机构、各类融资架构中的夹层债权人，或是享受回购权或强制出售权的权益投资人。

跨境投资项目下的债务重组，往往会涉及多法域下的复杂法律问题、救济方式和司法程序。特别是在典型的境外持股架构下，当开曼公司作为境外母公司出现债务危机时，如何通过BVI及香港子公司逐级下沉债权人的风控或增信机制，如何衔接和落地相关境内外救济措施，如何最终帮助债权人控制或取得境内子公司的资产或其提供的担保品或抵押品，这些问题的妥善解决是债务重组成功的关键。这要求参与跨境债务重组项目的专业执行团队具有跨市场和跨国界的运作能力、多法域的法律和司法实操经验、高效的项目管理能力以及深刻的风险认知和风险反制筹划能力。由于各个法域下的质权之设立、优先顺位和有效性对于债权人和质押权人来说至关重要，加强对主要离岸法域对质押行为的程序性规定和质权有效性的判定认识能有效地防范潜在的交易风险。

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.

Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition in the United States of foreign bankruptcy proceedings have increased significantly during the more than 16 years since chapter 15 was enacted in 2005. Among the relief commonly sought in such cases is discovery concerning the debtor's assets or asset transfers involving U.S.-based entities. A nonprecedential ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has created a circuit split on the issue of whether discovery orders entered by a U.S. bankruptcy court in a chapter 15 case are immediately appealable.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 is a prerequisite to a U.S. court enforcing, under the doctrine of comity, an order or judgment entered in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding or a provision in foreign bankruptcy law applicable to a debtor in such a proceeding.

In Short

The Situation: In Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed that certain types of private student loans are not "obligation[s] to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend" that are exempt from discharge in bankruptcy absent an undue hardship.