FTX. Blockfi. Voyager. Celsius Network. Genesis. Silvergate Capital Corp. Whether due to alleged corporate fraud or the waterfall effect of a downward spiraling industry, as the past year has unfolded more and more cryptocurrency giants—previously touted by pundits and celebrities as sound new age investments—have filed for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Small business owners commonly guaranty certain obligations of their businesses. This stages a potential domino effect if the business is unable to satisfy its obligations. A failed business triggers a creditor to pursue the personal guaranty of the business owner, which can cause the business owner to file a bankruptcy petition if they do not have the ability to satisfy the guaranty. In those scenarios, the guaranty liability is a primary cause of the business owner’s bankruptcy and discharging that guaranty liability is the primary goal.

Debtors in possession or other estate representatives are required to pay U.S. Trustee fees during the pendency of the case. It is often assumed that other entities to whom estate property is transferred must also pay such fees until the case is closed. But as a couple of recent cases illustrate, it may be possible with careful drafting to curtail the reporting and payment of such fees once assets are transferred to a liquidating trust.

A crash in the cryptocurrency industry started this past spring, causing a significant number of cryptocurrency exchanges and related entities to seek bankruptcy protection, including the recent filing of one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges, FTX. The volatility in the industry continues, with the subsequent filing of the cryptocurrency firm BlockFi and the crypto-mining company Core Scientific.

Crypto Basics

As has been widely reported, Congress recently reauthorized the $7.5 million debt threshold for subchapter V small business debtors, making subchapter V available to a significantly larger number of struggling businesses. With this change, the other requirements for a debtor to be eligible to elect subchapter V, takes on new importance.

On June 6, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441. At issue in the case was whether a temporary fee increase for funding of the U.S. Trustee (UST) program was constitutional. These fees were paid by debtors in chapter 11 cases pending or filed between 2018 to 2021. The Court ruled that the fee increase was not constitutional because the increase did not apply uniformly to all cases, thereby violating the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution. According to the Executive Office of the U.S.

Three scholars published a new analysis of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 consumer bankruptcy filings that is likely both the broadest and the most targeted study of consumer bankruptcy filing since Teresa A. Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren and Jay Lawrence Westbrook published The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt. The new study by Professors Pamela Foohey, Robert M. Lawless and Deborah Thorne is titled

In the Summer 2021 edition of the Restructuring Report, I wrote about legislative efforts to reform the Bankruptcy Code to place limits on the use of third party releases in bankruptcy plans of reorganization.

In the First, Sixth (in some districts within the circuit), Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits an appeal from a bankruptcy court order may go either to the district court, as elsewhere in the country, or, uniquely to those five circuits, to a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The BAP is a three-judge panel selected from bankruptcy judges in the circuit but not the same district. Under the statute, presumptively the appeal goes to the BAP but the appellant may elect to go to the district court.

Court watchers have kept a close eye on the In re: Purdue Pharma LP chapter 11 bankruptcy case, and for good reason. It is one of the largest cases to test a question that has divided the Circuit Courts of Appeals: can a debtor in its chapter 11 plan include releases from liability for non-debtor third parties over the objection of creditors? Although the debate over the answer has been stewing for some time now, a December 2021 decision from the Southern District of New York may finally cause the pot to boil over.