Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.

This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law Professional Perspectives.

SVB Financial Group, the corporate parent of Silicon Valley Bank, filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on March 17. According to a press release issued by SVB Financial Group, its related entities SVB Securities and SVB Capital are not included in the Chapter 11 filing. This bankruptcy filing comes a week after regulators took control of the failed Silicon Valley Bank.

On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.

Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”).

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)

India has a vast coastline and easy access to shipping routes, yet India contributes only 1% in global trade.[1] Many major shipowners and operators have chosen key international maritime centres such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai as their base for operations.

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.