Many authorities and commentators have considered cryptocurrencies, and the blockchains that undergird them, as a potentially disruptive force in the financial industry. Now, that disruption has made its way to a different side of finance—bankruptcy, and during the past year, the United States bankruptcy courts have had to confront many unexpected challenges involved in dealing with cryptocurrency.

The European Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 – MiCA), which entered into force on 29 June 2023, is a significant new regulation that will impact the treatment of cryptocurrencies and digital assets. MiCA requires the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to develop a series of regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implement technical standards (ITS) and Guidelines. Many of these regulations are to be developed in close cooperation with the European Banking Association (EBA).

Judgment creditors should be aware that the English Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper construction of s423 Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors)¹.

In a scholarly, comprehensive and lengthy opinion written by one of the Southern District of New York’s most recently appointed Bankruptcy Judges, the issue of whether the reinstatement of defaulted and accelerated debt requires the payment of default-rate interest and fees was answered in the affirmative, undoubtedly to the delight of lenders everywhere.

On June 27, 2022, Three Arrows Capital (“3AC”), a crypto hedge fund, commenced liquidation proceedings in the British Virgin Islands and thereafter filed recognition proceedings in, among other countries, the United States and Singapore.

The vast majority of corporate debt issuances are made pursuant to a trustee structure. This approach affords investors the advantage of uniformity of treatment and facilitates collective action, as opposed to the alternative 'fiscal agency' or direct issuance structure. But what happens when an individual investor in a global note structure seeks to take direct enforcement action against an issuer?

Executive Summary

How close is too close? The answer to this question can have dire implications for people and companies involved in the cannabis industry who wish to seek bankruptcy protection.

Although a non-insolvency case the recent case of PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors (“PACCAR”) has caused waves in the litigation market (including insolvency litigation market) following the Supreme Court finding that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) where funders recover a percentage of the amount awarded to a claimant are damaged based agreements (DBAs) – which- unless the LFA complied with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regs”) means that they are unenforceable.

Summary

Trustees and officeholders (such as administrators, receivers and liquidators) can ask the Court to approve steps that they propose to take in the administration of their estate (such as the sale of an asset or settlement of a claim).

When a debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, section 524(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code prohibits a creditor from seeking to collect a prepetition debt against the discharged debtor or its property. Importantly, the discharge does not extinguish the debt—it merely limits recourse against the discharged debtor. Section 524(e), however, provides that the discharge does not affect the liability of non-debtors for the discharged debt.