In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.
Does a bondholder have standing to petition for winding up? In the landmark decision of Cithara Global Multi-Strategy SPC v Haimen Zhongnan Investment Development (International) Co.
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).
A recent judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 (10 August 2023) is likely to be a welcome decision for liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy in setting clear boundaries as to who has standing to challenge their decision-making in corporate or personal insolvency contexts.
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.
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.
The BVI is a leading international financial centre, and BVI companies play a significant role in the flow of capital across the global economy. As global economic conditions become more challenging, lenders are increasingly reliant on formal insolvency procedures to realise value from distressed assets. As a result, the past year has seen a marked increase in the use of statutory demands against BVI companies as a precursor to an application to appoint liquidators. That trend is set to continue with the ongoing uncertainty in global markets.