On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

This week’s TGIF considers Manda Capital Holdings Pty Ltd v PEC Portfolio Springvale Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 381, a recent Victorian Supreme Court decision that focused on the effect of COVID-19 on the property market, through the lens of a mortgagee’s duties under section 420A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key takeaways

In the years since its independence, Ukraine's public and private sectors have faced one crisis after another. Notwithstanding different factors causing distress and incomparable peculiarities of each, restructuring has always remained one of the key mechanisms to make it through these difficult periods and get back on track. This includes the current crisis due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even in the present unprecedent environment, inaction is not a solution.

Part I: Introduction and Background Cryptoassets & Insolvency 2 Introduction Cryptoassets have emerged from relative obscurity to become an increasingly significant and mainstream presence: in just five years the global market cap for cryptocurrencies rose from around $15bn to over $3tn at its peak in November of last year.

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).

The Express Grain Terminals, LLC (“Express Grain”) bankruptcy is a case study for grain farmers and their crop production lenders. Near the end of corn harvest and during the peak of soybean harvest, many grain farmers in the Mississippi Delta discovered that they faced potential financial ruin as a result of the bankruptcy filing by Express Grain¹ on September 29, 2021 (the “Petition Date”).

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:

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

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.

In a decision last month in Whyte v. SemGroup Litig. Trust (In re Semcrude L.P.), No. 14-4356, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7690 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that proving that a debtor was left with unreasonably small capital will not turn on either hindsight or a “speculative exercise” based on what might have happened if certain things were known at the time.