One of the benefits the US Bankruptcy Code offers debtors is the ability to assign freely contracts under which the debtor has ongoing performance obligations, even if the underlying contract contains a restriction or prohibition against such assignment. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has its limits and does impose certain conditions to such assignment, such as the curing of defaults under the contract (other than so-called “ipso facto” defaults) and the requirement that the assignee be capable of future performance under the contract.

On June 27, 2023, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) in the BlockFi Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization case filed an Objection to the company’s Plan and essentially requested that the company be liquidated. The Official Committee is made up largely of 600,000 individual customers of BlockFi.

BlockFi is a wealth management and trading firm for cryptocurrency holders that first commenced operations in 2017. In July 2021, we wrote about BlockFi’s bumpy road to going public, even though its valuation had just hit $5 billion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance and fraudulent transfer claims, holding that a debt purchase and sale agreement between a bankrupt debtor, its original creditor, and its new creditor was not avoidable because it did not qualify as a transfer of “an interest of the debtor in property.”

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit determined that the transaction had no effect on the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions played no role.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a contrary trial court ruling and joined with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in holding that a Chapter 13 trustee is not entitled to a percentage fee of plan payments as compensation for her work in a Chapter 13 case when the case is dismissed prior to confirmation.

A copy of the opinion in Evans v. McCallister (In re Evans) is available at: Link to Opinion.

In brief

In Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the English court revisited the vexed issue of fixed and floating charges. Notably, it is the first significant case since the landmark decision in Re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] UKHL 41 to do so.

The distinction between fixed and floating charges is economically important and affects the recoveries a secured creditor may expect to receive in an insolvent liquidation of the security provider.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held that, at a minimum, a substantial change in circumstances is required to justify modification of a bankruptcy plan under Section 1229.

The Eighth Circuit BAP also determined that the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the debtors met their burden of showing an unanticipated, substantial change in circumstances was not clearly erroneous, despite multiple changes by the debtor, nor was the bankruptcy court’s finding that the fourth modified plan was feasible and confirmable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.

Lehman Bros. Int'l (Europe) (In Admin.) v. AG Fin. Prod., Inc., No. 653284/2011 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County May 17, 2023) [click for opinion]

In brief 

The Court of Final Appeal (CFA), in its recent judgment in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 (link to judgment), has ruled on the proper approach towards a bankruptcy petition where the underlying dispute of the petition debt is subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC).