Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling last week in the Celsius Network bankruptcy case addressing whether customer deposits on a cryptocurrency exchange or platform are property of the debtor or property of the customer. The answer, not surprisingly, depends on the Terms of Use governing the account in question. In this case, the Court found that the terms clearly and unambiguously provided that ownership of cryptocurrency assets deposited into “Earn Accounts” resides with Celsius.

El pasado 28 de diciembre de 2022 se publicó en el BOE el Real Decreto-ley 20/2022, de 27 de diciembre, de medidas de respuesta a las consecuencias económicas y sociales de la Guerra de Ucrania y de apoyo a la reconstrucción de la isla de La Palma y a otras situaciones de vulnerabilidad.

The Southern District of New York vacated a bankruptcy court’s judgment holding a debtor’s business competitor (C) “in contempt for violation of the [Bankruptcy Code’s] automatic stay…and assessing sanctions” of $19.2 million. In re Windstream Holdings, Inc., 2022 WL 5245633, *1 (2) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 6, 2022).

The unique circumstances of the last few years (and hard-charging investors) have forced many borrowers without adequate near-term liquidity to engage in more creative and aggressive liability-management transactions. These transactions have often taken the form of "uptiering" financings.

Four years after New York grocery chain Tops’ exit from Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain ruled that the Tops’ Chapter 11 trustee may proceed with litigation against certain private equity investors. The trustee alleged that the investors drove the company into bankruptcy by paying themselves more than $375 million in dividends while neglecting to address Tops’ unfunded pension liabilities.

“… [B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate …,” held the court. Id.

La reforma concursal recientemente aprobada ha sustituido los acuerdos de refinanciación y los acuerdos extrajudiciales de pago por los planes de reestructuración. Para los socios en general, y de la empresa familiar en particular, esta reforma supone un cambio de paradigma, ya que, en determinadas condiciones, los acreedores podrían imponerles un plan de reestructuración mediante el cual los acreedores tomen el control del capital de la compañía, amortizando las participaciones de los socios fundadores o preexistentes.

The “connections” of the chairman (“W”) of the debtor’s investment bank (“S”) to his family’s foundations do “not give rise to an actual, active conflict of any kind,” held a bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York on Oct. 17, 2022. In re SAS A.B., 2022 WL 10189110, *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2022). According to the court, it “is only through strained speculation [by the U.S. Trustee] that a potential issue can even be posited.” Accord, In re Harold & Williams Dev. Co., 977 F.2d 906 (4^th Cir.

“…[B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5^th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate . . .,” held the court. Id.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.