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.

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.

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.

When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.

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.

Subchapter V Filings Increase 81% Year-Over-Year in April

Section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Title 11) protects the rights of intellectual property (IP) non-debtor licensees. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor –in-possession, or a trustee (e.g., a software vendor) to: (a) assume, (b) assign, or (c) reject certain executory contracts – which would typically include software licenses. A debtor in possession’s decision to assume, assign, or reject an executory contract is subject to court approval, certain deadlines and other requirements detain Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.