On September 22, 2022, Compute North Holdings, Inc. and certain affiliates filed bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The company describes itself as “a leader in data centers, focused on delivering sustainable, cost-effective infrastructure for customers in the blockchain, cryptocurrency mining and distributed computing space.” SeeDeclaration of Harold Coulby, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Debtors (Doc. 22).

As another Irish Court year will soon commence, now is an opportune time to look back at some of the more interesting insolvency and restructuring judgments to have been delivered in the Superior Courts during the last 12 months.

The judgments explored below will prove of relevance and importance to practitioners and clients navigating distressed corporates and assets over the coming weeks and years. Please do get in touch with your Walkers Ireland Insolvency and Dispute Resolution contact or any of the contacts listed below with any comments or queries.

In New York, it is a standard practice to name all tenants residing in a building when foreclosing upon the property.

On June 21, 2022, Congress and the President (i) extend the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility, and (ii) adjust other Subchapter V rules.[Fn. 1]

One of the adjustments is this:

平素は格別のご高配を賜り、厚く御礼申し上げます。 このたび、森・濱田松本法律事務所では、各分野の近時のリーガルニュースを集めて、 Client Alert 2022 年 9 月号（Vol.105）を作成いたしました。実務における一助となれば 幸いに存じます。

A February 16, 2021 decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held, in In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, 520 F. Supp. 3d 390, that lenders who received almost $900 million mistakenly wired to them by Citibank (the administrative agent for a $1.8-billion syndicated seven-year term loan to Revlon [2016 Loan]) were entitled to keep the money.

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.

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment in an action concerning “piecemeal exemptions” to California’s usury law.

由于涉及股权回购/现金补偿责任与违约责任，违约金条款在对赌协议中表现得比较复杂。本文将在前述两种分类方法的基础上，结合司法案例具体分析违约金条款在对赌协议中的适用情况。

违约金是民商法中一种常见的违约责任形式。《民法典》第585条第1款就违约金作出了如下规定：

当事人可以约定一方违约时应当根据违约情况相对方支付一定数额的违约金，也可以约定因违约产生的损失赔偿额的计算方法。

显然，《民法典》将约定违约金的性质定位为，合同当事人预先约定的、由一方违约导致另一方损失的损害赔偿额。换言之，约定违约金的基本功能是补偿守约方损失而非惩罚违约方，更不是让守约方通过约定违约金获利。通过后文的案例，我们将看到约定违约金的这一性质定位是如何影响法院判决的。

对赌协议中的违约金条款通常有如下两种表现形式：融资方违反股权回购/现金补偿义务的违约金，融资方违反其他义务的违约金。

以投资方要求股权回购为例，前者表现为，根据对赌协议的约定，股权回购条件成就且投资方向融资方主张回购时，如果不履行或者逾期履行股权回购义务，则融资方需要按照应付但未付款项的一定比例支付逾期违约金。

On August 11, 2022, a two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. has observed that the time limit of 45 (forty-five) days prescribed under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act”) is provided for quick enforcement of the security.

Brief Facts & Procedural History