When a debtor files for bankruptcy, it’s axiomatic that all creditors, wherever located, must immediately cease their efforts to collect on debts owed to them by that debtor, right? Not necessarily so, says the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, insofar as those creditors and their collateral are located outside of the United States.

Since we last discussed the then-novel restructuring mechanism known as the reverse vesting order (RVO) in 2020, insolvency professionals have been seeking, and courts have been approving, this facilitative remedy with greater frequency.

In the recent decision of Chin v Beauty Express Canada Inc. (“Chin”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the impact of an employee’s service with a prior employer on the employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice of termination.

In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming. Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors. The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms. These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms.

In the recent case of LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2954, the High Court of England and Wales made orders directed at a number of cryptocurrency exchanges requiring them to provide information in relation to misappropriated crypto assets.

Shareholders are among the many who have lost money in the multi-billion euro insolvency of the former DAX30 payment provider Wirecard and its allegedly fraudulent business practices. Wirecard had to file for insolvency after assets worth €1.9bn could not be found. Collectively, the shareholders claimed around €7bn in damages for intentional capital markets law violations by former Wirecard executives. Unsurprisingly, the shareholders are now trying to minimise their losses and secure at least partial payment on their claims from the insolvency estate.

In a recent decision Chandler -v- Wright [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch) - Mr Justice Edwin Johnson in the High Court has found that myriad claims against the former directors of the retailer BHS fall to be struck out in the context of the high-value, complex litigation being brought by the joint liquidators of the BHS companies against the former directors of those companies.

Every now and then we get a bankruptcy opinion declaring a rule with broad application that, (i) may make sense is specific situations, but (ii) is a terrible result for others.

Here’s an Exhibit A opinion for such a proposition: Reinhart Foodservice LLC v. Schlundt, Case No. 21-cv-1027 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin, (Doc. 12, issued October 27, 2022).

The Facts

Background

Under Dutch law, the directors of a (private) company can be held personally liable by the trustee for the bankruptcy deficit. Liability can arise when the directors have manifestly performed their management duties improperly and if it is reasonable to assume that bankruptcy was declared as a result. Section 2:248(4) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) contains a list of grounds for reducing the amount of the directors’ liability.

Decision

Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).