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.
The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of RCAP (“Board”).
The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has held that National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot exercise its residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to adjudicate upon the contractual dispute between the parties.
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.
The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:
1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.