It may be fair to say that non-US entities involved in a chapter 15 case, the mechanism through which US courts recognize foreign insolvency proceedings, do not anticipate having to litigate claims raised in the chapter 15 case outside of the bankruptcy court. This may be due in large part to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1), an abstention statute applicable in chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings.

On November 11, 2022, FTX, the world’s third-largest cryptocurrency exchange, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States. Reports suggest that the exchange might have a shortfall of as much as US$8 billion. The collapse has sent shockwaves through the cryptocurrency market, undermined investor confidence and led to renewed calls for authorities to accelerate the implementation of fit-for-purpose regulations.

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

The Eleventh Circuit has held that amounts paid post-petition for an administrative expense claim under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code do not reduce the “new value” otherwise available to the creditor as a defense to a preference claim. Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19761 (11th Cir. July 18, 2022).

In Jackson v. Le Centre on Fourth, LLC (In re Le Centre on Fourth, LLC), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33845 (11th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit rejected creditors’ due process challenge to the release afforded to the debtor’s affiliates in a confirmed Chapter 11 plan.

Florida law provides that a UCC-1 financing statement is “seriously misleading” if it does not include the debtor’s correct name, unless “a search of the records of the filing office under the debtor’s correct name, using the filing office’s standard search logic, if any, would disclose” the financing statement notwithstanding the misnomer. But how much of a search is required?

The Eleventh Circuit has joined the Second in holding that consent to be called using an autodialer and/or prerecorded messages, given as part of a contract, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 2020 WL 2092594 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020).

On December 12, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a highly anticipated ruling in theFirstEnergy Solutions Corp. bankruptcy case, regarding the efforts of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (FirstEnergy or FES) to reject certain wholesale power purchase contracts.

On February 16, 2018, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an opinion that may prove important for non-defaulting parties to trading contracts. In an appeal arising out of the Linn Energy bankruptcy, the district court held that a party seeking to terminate a safe-harbor contract pursuant to section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code is not restricted by any time limitation, and therefore does not waive its safe-harbor rights if it fails to terminate the contract within a certain amount of time.

The 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code included the addition of an administrative expense claim for the value of goods received by the debtor in the 20 days prior to the bankruptcy filing. The allowance of an administrative expense priority—which generally garners payment in full—for a prepetition claim was a break from tradition and a significant boon to suppliers of goods. For that same reason, however, debtors have had an incentive to fight against the magnitude of such claims in any way possible.

On March 10, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum Order, in which it affirmed a controversial bankruptcy court ruling. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., an upstream oil and gas producer, could reject a number of its gathering contracts with midstream energy companies.