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

As well as the Deka Legal Bake, last week witnessed the publication of the updated ASHE and a further judgment on the subject of jurisdiction, which seems to be a growth area in satellite litigation, perhaps unsurprisingly given the effect of Exit Day.

A common yet contentious liability management strategy is an “uptier” transaction, where lenders holding a majority of loans or notes under a financing agreement seek to elevate or “roll-up” the priority of their debt above the previously pari passu debt held by the non-participating minority lenders. In a recent decision in the Boardriders case, the minority lenders defeated a motion to dismiss various claims challenging an uptier transaction.

Introduction

When a company is being wound up or is in judicial management, the Court may – upon the application of the liquidator, the judicial manager, or a creditor – order the production of documents or information relating to the company, as well as the attendance of the company's officers and the people holding the relevant books and records. This facilitates the obtaining of documents or information for the purpose of determining the reasons for the company's demise.  

On November 11, 2022, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange FTX Trading Ltd. filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 22-11068). The company reports $10 to $50 billion in both assets and liabilities and intends to place an additional, approximately 130 affiliates into bankruptcy.

This week’s, TGIF considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in Westgem Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2022] WASCA 132, handed down on 4 November 2022 in favour of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd and Lloyds Banking Group (Financiers).

Key takeaways

Cryptocurrency exchange FTX has filed for bankruptcy in the USA after the proposed bail-out by rival exchange, Binance, fell through earlier this week.

With rising insolvency rates, driven in particular by the number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations reaching record highs, the decision in the recent Court of Appeal case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] EWCA Civ 1319 serves as a timely reminder for directors of the personal risks involved in re-using the name of a liquidated company.

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: