The concept of “property of the estate” is important in bankruptcy because it determines what property can be used or distributed for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors. Defined by section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, “property of the estate” broadly encompasses the debtor’s interests in property, with certain additions and exceptions provided for in the Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 541. Difficult questions can arise in a contractual relationship between a debtor and a counterparty about whether an entity actually owns a particular asset or merely has some contractual right.

In 2022, there were several high-profile crypto bankruptcy filings. A big question in these cases is whether there will be any money to satisfy unsecured creditor claims. If there are funds to distribute, then the creditors’ claims will become more valuable, and the cases will become even more interesting.

The latest insolvency statistics in the UK make for grim reading. Per the government’s official assessment, 1,964 corporate insolvencies took place in December 2022, 32% higher than in the same month in the previous year and 76% higher than the number registered three years previously pre-pandemic. With inflation and energy costs remaining high and government support rolling back, companies will be taking whatever steps they can to remain in business.

It’s often hard to persuade a bankruptcy court to grant a motion for substantial contribution. Any attorney thinking about making a motion should first ask herself two questions. First, has my work benefitted both my client and other creditors? Second, did my work result in more than an incidental benefit to the bankruptcy estate? If the answer to either question is no, then the attorney should forget about making the motion. The time spent on it will be wasted, and the motion will be denied.

FTX was the third-largest cryptocurrency exchange at one point, but came crashing down to earth in 2022 and filed for bankruptcy in the US on 11 November. The platform’s downfall has reignited the debate around the regulation of cryptocurrencies globally and in specific jurisdictions. Marc Jones considers the arguments here.

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.

The Supreme Court decision in BTI v Sequana provided the first opportunity for the UK Supreme Court to address the duty of company directors to consider the interests of a company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or when it approaches or is at real risk of insolvency. Natalie Osafo and Francesca Bugg examine the decision and its implications for company directors.

Another domino has fallen. Earlier this year, we wrote about the challenges facing the crypto industry that resulted in the bankruptcy filings of Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, and Voyager Digital. We noted that other crypto entities could also end up in chapter 11, and that prediction has proven correct.

The ramifications of uneven increases to fees in chapter 11 bankruptcies continue to ripple through federal courts.

A U.S. bankruptcy court recently denied chapter 15 recognition to a case in the Isle of Man (IOM). The court ruled that the foreign case was neither a foreign main proceeding nor a foreign non-main proceeding. Although the court found that the IOM proceeding was a “foreign proceeding,” it also held that the debtor’s center of main interests wasn’t in the IOM and the debtor didn't have an establishment there. In re Shimmin, No.