What we've been up to?
In the six months since our last full newsletter, the UK has witnessed some monumental events, the most significant of course being the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II – followed by no less than three different occupants at Nos. 10 & 11 Downing Street, a UK record summer temperature of 40.3C, inflation hitting a 41 year high, startling increases in energy & food prices (exacerbated by the ongoing war in Ukraine) and, as of this month, the UK economy officially falling into recession.
The recent case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] has clarified what is a ‘relevant debt’ of a company which uses a ‘prohibited name’ and for which a director or person who manages that company can be personally liable for.
Who will be interested in this article?
Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases are a relatively new animal in the bankruptcy world. Subchapter V was added to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in February 2020 to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative process for small businesses wishing to organize under Chapter 11.
Unlike regular Chapter 11 business reorganizations, Subchapter V provides for the appointment of a trustee. However, Subchapter V provides little detail about the role of these trustees. This article discusses how one court dealt with this ambiguity.
Background
Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (June 6, 2022)
The Insolvency Service has recently announced their proposal to increase the cost of deposits payable on creditors’ bankruptcy and winding-up petitions which are presented on or after 1st November 2022.
The proposal is as follows:
Bankruptcy Petition deposit increasing from £990 to £1,500
Winding-up Petition deposit increasing from £1,600 to £2,600
If the proposed changes are approved it will mean the overall fee to issue petitions (including the court fee) will be:
Oliver Fitzpatrick, a partner in the firm’s Business Support and Insolvency team, successfully acted for a company in resisting an application that was made against it by a petitioning creditor for permission to appeal earlier decisions made by Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Barber to (a) dismiss that petition forthwith and (b) have the petitioning creditor pay our client’s costs in dealing with the petition.
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.