Cryptocurrency in Celsius’ Earn Accounts belongs to the bankruptcy estate, and not to the depositors who placed it there, according to a January 4 memorandum opinion from Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.

Recent rulings out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and its lower bankruptcy courts have emphasized the circuit’s broad interpretation of section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects bankruptcy sales from being overturned on appeal.

In her September 23 opinion in In re Royal Street Bistro, LLC, et al., No. 21-2285, District Judge Sarah S. Vance provided a comprehensive summary of the Fifth Circuit case law while mooting a debtor’s attempt to appeal a sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

To encourage parties to transact with debtors in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code in corporate bankruptcies provides highest priority to “administrative expenses,” which include “the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b); id. § 507(a)(2).

We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.

A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

On March 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) revisited the issue of the rejection of filed-rate contracts in bankruptcy where such contracts are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The ruling marks the first time the Fifth Circuit has addressed this issue since its 2004 decision in In re Mirant Corp.¹ In Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” While Congress has general authority to establish a bankruptcy system, bankruptcy laws must be “uniform.” But not every aspect of the bankruptcy system is the same across every judicial district.

A recent order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) allowed a debtor to reopen a completed auction based on a significantly more attractive, but untimely, bid. The late bid was approximately three times the cash consideration of the previously declared winning bid, and also provided for the additional containment of potential environmental risks. The decision is being appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “District Court”).

Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.