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.

Following its acquisition of the Regal cinema chain in the US in 2018, Cineworld, with its English-incorporated parent company, London premium listing and status as a household name in the UK cinema industry, became a truly transatlantic business. Add that to its businesses in Central and Eastern Europe and Israel, and Cineworld is one of the largest cinema chains in the world, operating in 10 countries with 672 sites and 8,181 screens.

The United States Supreme Court agreed today to review a Fourth Circuit decision that denied an insurer standing to object to an asbestos producer’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan, on the basis that the insurer’s interests were not affected by the plan. The case provides the high court with an opportunity to resolve a recurring issue in mass tort bankruptcies which has split the circuits.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

In Chapter 11 cases, one of a vendor’s best shots at getting paid its pre-petition debt is being designated as a “critical vendor”.

In connection with the Zachry Holdings Chapter 11 case filed in the Southern District of Texas on May 21, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court made disturbing comments regarding treatment of critical vendors.

In contrast to a case under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which centralizes a company’s debt adjustment efforts in the U.S. and provides for expansive oversight and supervision by a U.S. court, a Chapter 15 recognition proceeding is an ancillary proceeding in which the U.S. court acknowledges the foreign proceeding and gives it effect under applicable U.S. law.

This article was originally published on May 17, 2023, and was updated on August 23, 2023.

Subchapter V of chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which took effect in 2020, has undergone significant developments since its enactment, as courts continue to interpret its provisions, intended to streamline the chapter 11 process for smaller debtors in bankruptcy. Recent data and judicial decisions have given greater context to not only the popularity of Subchapter V, but also its substantive boundaries, with some of these key developments discussed below.

On July 28, 2023, Judge Michael Kaplan of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion granting motions to dismiss LTL Management LLC’s second chapter 11 case, finding that it was filed in bad faith due to a lack of imminent and immediate financial distress. See In re LTL Mgmt., LLC, No. 23-12825 (MBK), 2023 WL 4851759 (Bankr. D.N.J. July 28, 2023). Judge Kaplan’s decision follows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s dismissal of LTL’s first chapter 11 bankruptcy case in January 2023.

Until recently, the nature of ownership of assets on deposit with a third party was not controversial. If a local bank branch goes bankrupt, the cash or other assets deposited with the bank belonged to individual depositors/customers, safely out of the reach of the bank’s creditors, reinforced by numerous federal and state regulations, and bankruptcy case law.

But what happens if the asset that’s been deposited is cryptocurrency, held by a third-party, non-bank custodian?

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.