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

In May 2022, HM Treasury published a consultation to take views on how best to regulate the failure of stablecoin companies using pre-existing insolvency legislation. Stablecoin companies are classed by the UK Government as systemic “digital settlement asset” (DSA) firms. A large failure could have a significant disruptive effect on the economy, so the area requires robust statutory processes in place to manage any wind-down.

How has HMRC managed its metamorphosis from benevolent supporter of businesses during the pandemic to hard-nosed tax collector?

Alex Jay, Tim Symes, Charlie Mercer and Aleks Valkov consider a recent decision relating to alleged transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s423”). Stewarts act for the fifth, sixth and eighth defendants.

Environment, social, and governance (ESG) are factors directors, investors, industries, and governments increasingly focus on when making commercial decisions. This is particularly so given increasing public awareness of such issues following recurrent environmental disasters and international summits such as COP26. Tim Symes and Ryan Hooton review the current regulatory environment in the UK, how it might bite on a company’s insolvency and when directors may find themselves personally liable for their actions.

Chris Corbin and Jeremy King, part owners of the company that owns the famous Wolseley restaurant had their company pushed into administration by its co-owner and major lender, having been in default since 2020, and now owes £38m. Administration might not have come as a surprise to anyone in that case.

However, directors and shareholders will not usually get anything like as much notice of a lender’s intention to appoint administrators and will frequently get none at all, as  Insolvency and Asset Recovery Partner Tim Symes explains here.

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.