As discussed in previous installments of this White Paper series, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the “Bill”)¹ proposes a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework in an effort to bring stability to the digital asset market. One area of proposed change relates to how digital assets and digital asset exchanges would be treated in bankruptcy. If enacted, the Bill would significantly alter the status quo from a bankruptcy perspective

OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY

FTX has warned its investors, customers and the crypto-world that they may have to file for bankruptcy protection without rescue financing to address its immediate liquidity crisis. Unlike the bankruptcy cases of Celsius and Voyager, FTX’s case, should it file, will likely involve many institutional investors with secured and unsecured claims.

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.

Are customers’ digital assets held by exchange platforms in so-called “Custodial” and “Withhold” accounts property of the bankruptcy estate? This may be coined the golden question in the recent crypto bankruptcy chronicles, and at a status conference held Oct. 7, 2022, Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn of the Southern District of New York scheduled Dec. 7 and Dec. 8 as tentative dates to hear oral arguments on the issue.

Could bankruptcy protection be on the horizon for individuals and companies actively involved in the cannabis industry? Potentially yes, following President Biden’s October 6, 2022 request for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the administrative process to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).

On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its much-anticipated decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp, 2022 SCC 41, addressing a key intersection of insolvency and arbitration law—whether and in what circumstances a contractual agreement to arbitrate should give way to the public interest in the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership.

TODAY, THE EAGERLY-AWAITED JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS MADE BY OFFICE-HOLDERS OF A NUMBER OF FAILED ENERGY SUPPLIERS. 

The impact of this judgment will be felt much wider than just within the applicants' insolvent estates and it is relevant to any office-holder or unsecured creditor of a failed energy supplier.

Can a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) complete, but still remain in place and bind creditors?

The simple answer is yes; but it does require (a) the terms of the CVA to be carefully drafted to allow notice of completion to be filed before the end of the CVA term; (b) compliance with the terms of the CVA, and (c) careful consideration of the position of the supervisors, creditors and company.

The case is Wells v. McCallister, Case No. 21-1448 in the United States Supreme Court.

The question presented is:

• whether a debtor’s homestead exemption, existing on the date of bankruptcy filing, can vanish if the debtor sells the homestead during the bankruptcy and does not promptly reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.

The Petition for writ of certiorari explains:

Introduction

In the recent case of Atlas Equifin Pte Ltd v Electronic Cash and Payment Solutions (S) Pte Ltd (Andy Lim and others, non-parties) [2022] SGHC 258 (“Atlas Equifin”), the Singapore High Court had the opportunity to consider the unexplored issue of whether shareholders/ contributories have legal standing to oppose a creditor’s winding up application.

Facts