In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

In Short:

The Situation: After the nationalization of the Dutch SNS banking and insurance group, the Dutch Minister of Finance offered zero compensation to expropriated bondholders.

The Result: Ten years after the nationalization, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed compensation awards totaling approximately €1 billion including accrued interest.

Looking Ahead: The SNS case provides some interesting lessons on where those seeking compensation in the context of bank bailouts and resolutions may head.

In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.

THE BRIEF

FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION QUARTERLY

FALL 2023

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Were There Underwriting Requirements for PPP Loans After All? The Sound-Value Requirement May Pose Risk for PPP Lenders

3

Noteworthy10

District Court Upholds New ERISA Rules on ESG Investing

10

Fourth Circuit Holds That Class-Action Waivers Must Be Addressed Before Class Certification

12

Ninth Circuit: Fees for Claims-Made Settlements Must Be Based on Actual Recovery

13

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it has reached a settlement with the bankrupt crypto company Voyager over the company’s alleged deceptive crypto marketing practices. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleges that from at least 2018 until its declaration of bankruptcy in July 2022, Voyager enticed consumers with promises that their deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and were “safe.” However, consumers’ deposits with Voyager were not eligible for FDIC insurance and were not protected in the event that Voyager failed.

Many authorities and commentators have considered cryptocurrencies, and the blockchains that undergird them, as a potentially disruptive force in the financial industry. Now, that disruption has made its way to a different side of finance—bankruptcy, and during the past year, the United States bankruptcy courts have had to confront many unexpected challenges involved in dealing with cryptocurrency.

On March 12, 2023 the New York State Department of Financial Services appointed the FDIC as receiver for Signature Bank. The FDIC created a bridge bank, Signature Bridge Bank (“Bridge Bank”), and transferred all deposits and substantially all of Signature Bank’s assets to the Bridge Bank. No consents or other restrictions on transferring rights and obligations of Signature Bank are applicable for the transfer to the Bridge Bank. The receivership is governed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”). Under the FDIA, the FDIC succeeds to the rights and powers of Signature Bank.

Sam Bankman-Fried is scheduled to be tried on eight charges starting on 3 October 2023, and US District Judge Lewis Kaplan has allowed for a second trial on 11 March 2024 on a further five charges that include bribing Chinese officials and committing financial fraud. The charges centre around the alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud crypto investors and customers in FTX and Alameda Research.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.