Following an August 11, 2022 opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, certain irrevocable surety bonds will not be considered executory contracts in bankruptcy, even when a court applies a functional multiparty approach to the traditional Countryman definition of an executory contract.
Some 12 months ago, following the publication of that year’s Courts Service Annual Report, we suggested that 2020 would be remembered as a year like none other. However, a year later, the publication of the Courts Service Annual Report for 2021 (Report) describes a year of legal activity, in a debt recovery context, that very closely mirrors 2020.
The crypto winter has overcast the summer for many Voyager customers. Upon the commencement of Voyager’s chapter 11 filing in July, customer accounts were frozen. Unable to trade their own crypto assets, some frustrated customers rushed to consult with legal counsel. Others began studying bankruptcy law in the hopes of finding a legal solution. It was only late last week, on August 4, when some customers found relief from the crypto storm: Judge Michael Wiles approved Voyager’s motion to allow certain customers who had cash in their accounts to withdraw cash, up to $270 million.
Following an August 4, 2022 memorandum opinion from Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, a party to a safe harbored contract can qualify as a “financial participant” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code even where the party was not a financial participant at the time of the transaction.
The European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 were signed on 27 July 2022 to give effect to an EU directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1023). The Directive aims to ensure that member states have in place effective frameworks for early warning and prevention of corporate insolvency.
Voyager Digital Assets, Inc., a leading cryptocurrency brokerage and lending platform, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on July 5, 2022 in the Southern District of New York following a recent financial crisis impacting the crypto industry, which investors are calling the “crypto winter.” The filing was followed by the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Celsius Networks. While the situation is fluid, these two filings could be the beginning of a series of bankruptcies by major cryptocurrency companies.
The High Court recently rescinded an order adjudicating a debtor bankrupt in Ireland because the debtor failed to disclose material facts to the Court in his application for bankruptcy. In doing so, the Court established a duty of full disclosure that debtors must comply with when seeking to be adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland.
This decision will be welcomed by creditors where there is a concern that a debtor may seek to relocate from other EU member states to Ireland to avail of Ireland’s comparatively benign bankruptcy regime.
Background
Following a July 6, 2022 memorandum opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, lenders and noteholders seeking to preserve the priority of their liens must make any desired subordination protections explicit in their security documents. Judge Craig T. Goldblatt’s decision in In re TPC Group Inc. upholds a prepetition “uptier” transaction and narrows the issues before the Bankruptcy Court regarding TPC Group Inc.’s desired entry into a debtor-in-possession loan with an ad hoc group of noteholders over the dissent of minority holders.
The High Court has held that disclosure of debts and undertakings given to the Circuit Court in seeking a protective certificate for a personal insolvency arrangement can be relied on in other proceedings.
Background
The McLaughlins were engaged in a long running saga of litigation with Bank of Scotland plc (“BOS”) and, after a loan sale, Ennis Property Finance Limited (“Ennis”).
In 2016 they issued High Court proceedings against Ennis and Tom Kavanagh (the “Plenary Proceedings”).
On March 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) revisited the issue of the rejection of filed-rate contracts in bankruptcy where such contracts are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The ruling marks the first time the Fifth Circuit has addressed this issue since its 2004 decision in In re Mirant Corp.1 In Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v.