The crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?

This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.

You represent the unsecured creditors committee in a complex Chapter 11 case, where you have reason to believe that the debtor’s officers and directors have, and continue to, engage in self-dealing and are breaching their fiduciary duties by not advancing a plan in the best interest of creditors. So, the committee asks you to seek the appointment of an examiner to investigate.

The Italian Government has approved the Legislative decree no. 19 of 2 March 2023 (the “Decree”) implementing in Italy the Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019, amending the Directive (EU) 2017/1132 regarding, among other things, cross-border mergers, demergers and transformations.

The UK High Court has considered and granted permission for a so called “credit bid” in an application by the Special Administrators of Sova Capital Ltd (in special administration) for a substantial portfolio of illiquid Russian securities. The transaction structure, involving the transfer of securities in exchange for the release of a £233m claim against the estate, is unprecedented in the UK where ‘credit bidding’ has no technical recognition.

In a unanimous decision handed down on Feb. 22, 2023, the Supreme Court reinforced one of the Bankruptcy Code’s important creditor protections. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), the Court confirmed, in an opinion authored by Justice Barrett, that the Bankruptcy Code bars the discharge by individual debtors of debts fraudulently obtained by the debtor’s agent or business partner.

Der BGH hat mit Entscheidung vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) eine langwährende, insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit entschieden. In seiner Entscheidung nahm der BGH an, dass sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte erstreckt. Dies legt einen lange bestehenden und intensiv geführten Streit bei, ob sich das Verwertungsrecht neben beweglichen Sachen im Besitz des Verwalters und abgetretenen Forderungen auch auf sonstige Rechte wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt.

In its decision of October 27, 2022 (IX ZR 145/21), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled on a long-running dispute under German insolvency law. In its decision, the Court assumed that the insolvency administrator's right of realization under section 166 German Insolvency Code (InsO) does not extend to other rights.

In den letzten Wochen haben in Deutschland zwei größere Betreiber der stationären Pflege und von betreutem Wohnen Insolvenz angemeldet. Auch wenn dies aus unserer Sicht nur Einzelfälle sind und kein Krankheitssyndrom der Pflegebranche darstellt, geben diese Fälle Anlass für eine kurze rechtliche Orientierung wie sich solche Insolvenzen auf alle Leistungsbeziehungen auswirken.

Auswirkungen auf Miet- und Pachtverhältnisse

There is seemingly, in the opinion of a great number of bankruptcy courts, a conflict between the United States Bankruptcy Code requirements that a debtor reorganize or liquidate “in good faith,” the federal Controlled Substances Act [21 USC § 841] (“CSA”) prohibiting, among other things, the distribution or sale of marijuana, and the laws of over half of the states in the country that authorize the sale of marijuana for medical and other purposes.

In a previous blog post from June 2022, we discussed the Tenth Circuit’s post-Sigel decision in John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC v. U.S. Trustee (In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC), 15 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021), which held that the government must pay a refund to a Chapter 11 debtor based on what the debtor would have paid over the same time were the case in a Bankruptcy Administrator district.