Cryptoassets & Insolvency: Legal, Regulatory and Practical Considerations Shearman & Sterling 21 July 2022 Part I: Introduction and Background 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. This has fueled a prolific expansion of cryptofocussed businesses (e.g.

INTRODUCTION:

What do Ukraine, Sri Lanka, and Ghana have in common? They’ve all guaranteed bonds that once traded at a sizeable discount to their sovereign counterparts.

I. Introduction

Proceedings against personal guarantors find their origin in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the co-extensive liability of a surety. It has long been considered that a surety’s liability to pay the debt is not removed by reason of the creditor’s omission to sue the principal debtor. Such a creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the principal debtor before suing the surety, and a suit may be maintained against the surety even though the principal debtor has not been sued.

Voyager Digital Assets Inc., along with two of its affiliates, filed bankruptcy petitions in the Southern District of New York on July 5, 2022. The filing is significant—it followed months of an extreme downturn in the cryptocurrency sector which led to the collapse of Three Arrows Capital, a Singaporean cryptocurrency hedge fund (that borrowed $350 million and 15,250 Bitcoins from Voyager).

There have been several so-called "uptier" transactions over the last several years, where lenders have provided "rescue financing" to a distressed company senior in priority to existing debt. While there has been significant commentary about whether such financings are contractually permitted, there have been few decisions analyzing challenges to such transactions.¹ In Bayside Capital Inc. v. TPC Group Inc.

On July 5, 2022, cryptocurrency brokerage Voyager Digital filed for chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court, citing a short-term “run on the bank” due to the “crypto winter” in the cryptocurrency industry generally and the default of a significant loan made to a third party as the reasons for its filing. At Voyager’s first day hearing on July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court asked the critical question of whether the crypto assets on Voyager’s platform were property of the estate or its customers.

DAOs, or decentralized autonomous organizations, are the latest trend in crypto. DAOs have the potential to disrupt the traditional economic system, but, they also raise significant issues of securities, tax, bankruptcy corporate law. Over the last few months, our Fintech group has issued a series of client alerts exploring these issues. You can find our complete collection below.

Much discussion has been had recently about the fact that cryptocurrencies (tokens and coins) do not fit neatly into a generally accepted financial asset classification. The value of most cryptocurrencies is not pegged to any tangible commodity or fiat currency.

开曼群岛法例中的新设重组制度，大有可能受到一众审慎董事垂青 – 尤其鉴于许多公司正面对种种宏观经济状况及困难。且看康德明开曼群岛合伙人 Jonathon Milne、律师 Rowana-Kay Campbell 及香港合伙人林宛萱如何剖析其原因。

开曼群岛《公司法》第 V 部将于今年修订，当中所订立的公司重组制度，可谓万众期待。

新制度将赋予董事一项新增法定权力，董事可藉此在相关公司陷入财政困难并有意向债权人提出还款方案时，向开曼群岛法院提出呈请以委任具适合资格的重组主任。

对于在责任上须要考虑债权人利益的董事而言，上述新增权力意义重大。

本文将参照最新典据，探讨董事有何责任须考虑债权人利益，以及该等责任会因何种情况而触发。

关于新制度下的其他生效变更，请见《新设重组主任制度概览》一文。