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.
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.
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 collapse of fashion retailer Missguided has prompted official complaints to the Insolvency Service from suppliers who have alleged that the online brand continued trading and ordering new supply despite the prospect of insolvency. Alex Jay spoke to the Guardian and Yahoo! Finance about what the retailer going into administration could mean for suppliers, and the potential for legal action.
Alex Jay, Tim Symes, Charlie Mercer and Aleks Valkov consider a recent decision relating to alleged transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s423”). Stewarts act for the fifth, sixth and eighth defendants.
Environment, social, and governance (ESG) are factors directors, investors, industries, and governments increasingly focus on when making commercial decisions. This is particularly so given increasing public awareness of such issues following recurrent environmental disasters and international summits such as COP26. Tim Symes and Ryan Hooton review the current regulatory environment in the UK, how it might bite on a company’s insolvency and when directors may find themselves personally liable for their actions.
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.
Chris Corbin and Jeremy King, part owners of the company that owns the famous Wolseley restaurant had their company pushed into administration by its co-owner and major lender, having been in default since 2020, and now owes £38m. Administration might not have come as a surprise to anyone in that case.
However, directors and shareholders will not usually get anything like as much notice of a lender’s intention to appoint administrators and will frequently get none at all, as Insolvency and Asset Recovery Partner Tim Symes explains here.
For a company with robust data protection and recovery practices, a ransomware attack may cause a few extra headaches, but it won’t wipe the company out. Companies without those protections in place, however, risk allowing ransomware to bankrupt their entire enterprise.
A recent order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) allowed a debtor to reopen a completed auction based on a significantly more attractive, but untimely, bid. The late bid was approximately three times the cash consideration of the previously declared winning bid, and also provided for the additional containment of potential environmental risks. The decision is being appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “District Court”).