Could bankruptcy protection be on the horizon for individuals and companies actively involved in the cannabis industry? Potentially yes, following President Biden’s October 6, 2022 request for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the administrative process to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).

Lowenstein Sandler’s previous articles on crypto bankruptcies discussed the role of a creditors’ committee in protecting the rights of customers and confirmation issues arising in crypto cases. This article will delve deeper into the administration of a crypto bankruptcy case by discussing the role of a creditors’ committee in investigating, preserving, and pursuing causes of action for the benefit of a debtor’s creditors.

Lowenstein Sandler’s previous article on crypto bankruptcies discussed some bankruptcy basics and the role of a creditors’ committee in protecting the rights of customers. This article will delve deeper into the administration of a crypto bankruptcy case by discussing the negotiation of a crypto bankruptcy plan of reorganization.

The recent bankruptcy filings of Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc. (Voyager) and Celsius Network LLC (Celsius) have abruptly introduced many customers to the bankruptcy process for the first time. Lowenstein Sandler’s experienced bankruptcy and crypto practices are monitoring these cases–and the entire crypto market–to help keep crypto customers and other interested parties educated and informed with respect to the bankruptcy process and what to expect going forward.

Who Is Protecting Your Rights?

Voyager Digital Assets Inc., along with two of its affiliates, filed bankruptcy petitions in the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2022. The filing is significant—it followed months of an extreme downturn in the cryptocurrency sector which led to the collapse of Three Arrows Capital, a Singaporean cryptocurrency hedge fund (that borrowed $350 million and 15,250 Bitcoins from Voyager).

With Hertz emerging from a bankruptcy with a positive result for shareholders, we are reminded of the interplay between the equity markets and the bankruptcy alternative.

Some firms facing financial challenges during the pandemic were able to avoid a bankruptcy filing altogether because of their ability to raise the necessary funds through an equity offering. Hertz provides an example of a situation where the bankruptcy filing instead of wiping out the equity enhanced value.

Over the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic upended many industries. While the construction industry has largely been able to operate throughout the pandemic, albeit with increased and ever-changing restrictions on jobsites, one consequence of these disruptions may be an increase in construction-related bankruptcy filings. Already in 2021, there have been over 70 construction-related bankruptcy filings across the country. For many property owners and real estate developers, these filings create a nightmare scenario where work may slow or even stop entirely.

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights directors’ fiduciary duty to evaluate all aspects of multi-stage transactions, including those portions to be effectuated post-closing by successor directors.

Until recently, courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally followed the minority view that non-debtor releases in a bankruptcy plan are prohibited by Bankruptcy Code Section 524(e), which provides that the “discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt.” In the summer of 2020, the Ninth Circuit hinted that its prohibition against non-debtor releases was not absolute, when the court issued its decision in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.

On March 19, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its decision in In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 2021 WL 1046485 (3rd Cir. Mar. 19, 2021), affirming lower courts’ decisions rejecting “triangular setoff” agreements as a proper basis for the application of setoff rights under section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code.