Much discussion has been had recently about the fact that cryptocurrencies (tokens and coins) do not fit neatly into a generally accepted financial asset classification. The value of most cryptocurrencies is not pegged to any tangible commodity or fiat currency.

In bankruptcy parlance, the lookback period does not look good for the crypto industry. In the last 90 days, the cryptocurrency markets have suffered huge losses, and in the last 14 days, two major players have sought bankruptcy protection. During the prior 365 days, nearly three trillion dollars of value has been stripped from the digital wallets of cryptocurrency investors, and the industry has been forced to eliminate thousands of jobs.

News outlets and industry publications have been publishing information about recent “crypto winter” bankruptcies. In order to understand the impact of these bankruptcies as well as how they may impact your investments, it is important to understand what is currently known about these recent filings.

Three Arrows Capital Liquidation and Bankruptcy

The Fifth Circuit recently weighed in on the hotly contested issue of whether the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the bankruptcy court has controlling jurisdiction when it comes to the question of a bankruptcy debtor’s ability to reject contracts regulated by FERC. FERC-regulated contracts include electricity power purchase contracts, as well as transportation services agreements involving oil and gas.

In the bankruptcy world, not all claims are created equal. Rather, certain special categories of claims have priority status and are not only paid ahead of other claims, but are also often paid in full. One such category of claims is found in Bankruptcy Code § 503(b)(9), which grants priority claim status for goods which were sold in the ordinary course of business and received by a debtor within the 20-day window leading up to the bankruptcy filing. The code section is very clear, however.

A bankruptcy court’s recent decision in Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co., et al. v. Republic Bus. Credit (In re Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co.), Adv. No. 16-03025-SGJ (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021) serves as a reminder for lenders that they should avoid certain actions when dealing with distressed borrowers. Specifically, in Bailey, a bankruptcy judge found a lender squarely at fault for its borrower’s bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation, and held the lender liable to the borrower’s bankruptcy estate for various breach of contract, tort, and bankruptcy claims.

Within the past 18 months, two bankruptcy courts have used the same factors, but reached opposite conclusions, about the characterization of two merchant cash advance funding transactions as either a “true sale” or not a “true sale” – and instead, a disguised financing. In doing so, the courts’ decisions confirm the importance of appropriate structuring to achieve true sale treatment.

In an underreported amendment to the Bankruptcy Code, the Small Business Reorganization Act amended §547(b) of the Code to add an explicit requirement for the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to conduct “reasonable due diligence” before filing a preference action. The apparent goal of this amendment to the Bankruptcy Code is to reduce the number of frivolous preference lawsuits pursued by trustees.

On August 16, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an individual guarantor remained liable for more than $58 million in commercial debt, despite the individual’s claims that the lenders induced him to provide the guaranty under duress. See Lockwood International, Inc. v. Wells Fargo, NA, et al., Case No. 20-40324 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).

COVID-19 M&A Lessons