On June 27, 2023, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) in the BlockFi Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization case filed an Objection to the company’s Plan and essentially requested that the company be liquidated. The Official Committee is made up largely of 600,000 individual customers of BlockFi.
BlockFi is a wealth management and trading firm for cryptocurrency holders that first commenced operations in 2017. In July 2021, we wrote about BlockFi’s bumpy road to going public, even though its valuation had just hit $5 billion.
Lehman Bros. Int'l (Europe) (In Admin.) v. AG Fin. Prod., Inc., No. 653284/2011 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County May 17, 2023) [click for opinion]
Cognac Ferrand S.A.S. v. Mystique Brands LLC, No. 20 Civ. 5933 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2021) [click for opinion]
In re Markus, 607 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) [click for opinion]
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]