In the wake of several high-profile collapses of cryptocurrency exchanges, most notably FTX, Celsius, and Voyager, the state of the digital asset landscape is ever-changing, with more questions and landmines than clear paths forward. Among the many issues that arise in these bankruptcy cases is the question of how to treat and classify digital assets, especially cryptocurrencies—e.g., who owns the cryptocurrencies deposited by customers.

US governmental authorities, including the US Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, took actions to provide both insured and uninsured depositors of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) (as well as Signature Bank) access to their deposits beginning Monday, March 13. However, despite these actions, many customers are still dealing with the aftermath of an uncertain weekend, and practical questions remain to be answered.

There is no set of fixed rules when negotiating intercreditor arrangements as every deal is fact-specific, generally subject to significant negotiation and ultimately dependent on competing business rationales and negotiating leverage. The below outline is a useful tool for understanding the basic mechanics and strategic bankruptcy considerations in negotiating and documenting intercreditor arrangements.

Intercreditor Agreements Under the Bankruptcy Code

The National Security and Investment Act 2021 ("NSIA" or "the Act") came into force in the UK on 4 January 2022. NSIA expands the UK Government’s powers to scrutinise certain acquisitions and investments on national security grounds. NSIA applies where a target entity is within one of the 17 sensitive sectors set out in the Act and has activity in the UK. The UK Government’s power applies to transactions which complete in the period following 12 November 2020.

The pandemic has brought much uncertainty to the hotel sector — Intermittent national and regional lockdowns, work from home mandates and restrictions around domestic and international travel have left hoteliers in the unenviable position of keeping the lights on but without the occupancy or footfall of pre-2020. Government measures have no doubt helped, especially the ability to furlough large sections of the workforce, but as these measures are tapered down, some hotels – particularly city centre and airport hotels which rely on business travel — will struggle.

Insight

Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)

Status Of Crypto-Assets Under English Law

The definition of ‘property’ in section 436 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is considered by many to be wide enough to be inclusive of crypto-assets, and recent developments in this jurisdiction also support the position that crypto-assets constitute property under English law.

When a business entity that is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is closely related to another business entity, FERC takes the position that under some circumstances it may treat the two different legal entities as if they were one single entity.

In retail bankruptcies, it is important for suppliers consigning goods to merchants to be aware of the commercial law rules governing consignments. Disputes among consignors, inventory lenders, and bankruptcy debtors have been arising frequently in retail bankruptcy cases. Disputes like these can be avoided if consignors consider the basics of commercial law rules governing consignments, particularly under the Uniform Commercial Code, and take steps to protect their rights and interests.

On February 17, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a joint rule that would govern the resolution of large broker-dealers that are designated as “covered financial companies” under the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) provisions (Title II) of the Dodd-Frank Act.