The recent implosion of crypto firm FTX and its affiliates provides a case study for potential crypto exposure under traditional insurance policies. The FTX debacle is described herein is an introduction to a series of four articles on the potential liability exposure and coverage: Silent Crypto for D&O and Corporate Liability Insurance (Part I), Silent Crypto Exposure for Accountants (Part II), Silent Crypto Exposure for Lawyers (Part III), and Crime and Custody Coverage for Crypto Assets (Part IV).
One of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges—FTX Trading Ltd.—and many of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy earlier this month.1 While the full impact of the FTX bankruptcy is not yet clear, various responses from the executive branch and federal and state regulators indicate that, in the short term, agencies will continue to use their existing authorities to seek information about the practices of crypto market participants and to enforce existing rules to protect customers and avoid further market contagion.2 The following statements may indicate what market
We are heading into the holiday season. It’s a Wonderful Life will be on television. And cryptocurrency bankruptcies will be in the news. Yesterday, BlockFi filed for bankruptcy. What does a seventy year old Frank Capra movie – about a bank run in a small town during the Great Depression – tell us about the latest crypto platform’s liquidity crisis? Will depositors get their money back? Is there any insurance for the creditors?
During the run on the bank scene, George Bailey – played by James Stewart – explains the nature of banking to the small town depositors in Bedford Falls.
On August 15, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued final guidelines, outlining the tiered approach it will use when evaluating the growing requests from fintech firms and cryptocurrency companies for access to master accounts.
BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 21 • NO. 5 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2022 1 IN THIS ISSUE 1 Texas District Court: Bankruptcy Sale Break-Up Fee Satisfied Both Business Judgment Test and Administrative Expense Standard 2 Lawyer Spotlight: Gregory M.
In a move signaling the end of 6 years of litigation, the bankruptcy trustee for the holding company of failed mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”) negotiated a settlement agreement with the FDIC regarding the ownership of nearly $60 million of tax refunds. If approved by the bankruptcy court, the settlement would resolve one of the most highly publicized tax refund disputes involving the FDIC, a number of which arose in the wake of 2008’s financial crisis.
In FDIC v. AmTrustFinancial Corporation, the Sixth Circuit considered the results of the very first trial in the nation under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(o). Section 365(o) is an infrequently litigated provision of the Bankruptcy Code that requires a party seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to fulfill “any commitment . . .
The FDIC has recently appealed a loss it suffered at trial on the question of whether the debtor in bankruptcy (the holding company of a failed bank) made a “commitment” to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank under Section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code. After a week-long bench trial with an advisory jury, the Northern District of Ohio rejected the FDIC’s claim that a commitment had been made by the holding company to the Office of Thrift Supervision. The FDIC brough
In its fifth trip to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Sentinel Management Group’s bankruptcy case recently explored complex issues bankruptcy practitioners often encounter in large chapter 11 cases with financial services debtors.
This past Saturday, October 11, 2014, marked an important day in the too-big-too-fail regulatory and industry initiative. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA) announced on Saturday that 18 major global banks (G-18) have agreed to sign a new ISDA Resolution Stay Protocol, developed in coordination with the Financial Stability Board, to support cross-border resolution and reduce systemic risk.