Key takeaways

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

The bankruptcy of the Mt. Gox cryptocurrency exchange in 2014 was a pivotal moment in cryptocurrency history. It demonstrated the vulnerabilities of early cryptocurrencies and saw the worst fears of the industry become a reality. However, in the years since it has also provided an excellent example of the successful tracing and recovery of a variety of asset classes. Creditors have recently received the first distributions from the recovered assets of Mt Gox, in stark contrast to the initial claims that access to the assets had been lost forever.

Background

EIOPA Consultation on the new Proportionality Framework under Solvency II

www.mathweswown..mcoamthesoPna.gceom1

Overview

In August this year, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ("EIOPA") published a public consultation ("Consultation") on the new proportionality framework proposed in the Provisional Agreement on amendments to the Solvency II Directive ("Provisional Agreement").

In an opinion issued on Sept. 20 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge David T. Thuma held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent a bankruptcy court from determining whether the automatic stay applies to pending state court litigation. See In re Shook, Case No. 24-10724-t7 (Bankr. N.M. Sept. 20, 2024) [ECF No. 54].

In a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the US Court of Appeals recently handed bankruptcy trustees a significant power by ruling in TheLovering Tubbs Trust v. Hoffman (In re O’Gorman) that a trustee can avoid intentionally fraudulent transfers under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, even if no creditor suffered harm as a result.

If the agreement between a creditor and debtor refers disputes to arbitration, what limits should be placed on the creditor to pursue winding-up proceedings based on an unpaid debt under that agreement? Should a court simply stay the winding-up proceedings to allow the debt to be disputed in arbitration?

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

One of the main advantages for a debtor to seek protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is the stay of proceedings that prevents creditors faced with a default in payment from taking any action against the debtor. This allows the debtor, among other things, to reorganize itself or dispose of some or all of its assets under the court’s supervision. Be that as it may, there are exceptions.

In many of the recent insolvencies of digital asset companies, liquidators have been appointed over companies in which digital assets have been fraudulently transferred from wallets controlled by an insolvent company into other unidentified wallets in foreign jurisdictions.

The anonymity of cryptoassets causes serious difficulties for insolvency practitioners in identifying the third parties who received funds and the location of the digital wallets.