Virtually every business—regardless of its size, nature (manufacturing, service, professional, tech) or particular industry—is currently suffering significant distress as a result of the unprecedented shutdown of huge portions of the U.S. (and global) economy. It is therefore clear that the number of businesses (and individuals) who will seek bankruptcy protection in the coming months will be enormous.

In a recent report by INSOL International, only 5% of insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) said that they had a “comprehensive or practical/working or understanding” of crypto-currency.

So with over 4,000 types of cryptocurrency now available and as payment technology continues to develop, we look at some issues facing IPs, including

• • How to identify cryptocurrency
  • How to categorise it
  • How to take control of it and sell it; and
  • What value does it have

What are cryptocurrencies?

The recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Provider Meds, L.L.C. is a stark reminder to chapter 7 trustees that they have an affirmative obligation to examine a debtor’s assets. A trustee’s failure to conduct a sufficient and timely examination may deprive the estate of significant value.

On February 6, 2018, the District Court for the District of Montana refused a debtor’s request to change the venue of a post-petition “related to” police/regulatory action commenced by a federal agency in district court. The decision will have important implications on how “related to” litigation is treated for venue purposes—especially in the context of police and regulatory actions.

On August 4, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14359 (3d Cir.

In Nortel Network’s (“Nortel”) chapter 11 case, In re: Nortel Networks Inc., et al., United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 09-10138(KG), Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross recently reduced the Indenture Trustee’s counsel fees by $913,936.00 in response to heavily litigated objections to the fees by noteholders, Solus Alternative Asset Management LP (“Solus”) and PointState Capital LP (“PointState”) (collectively the “Objecting Noteholders”).

In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

Is there any downside to a debtor filing a motion to estimate a claim? Or, is an estimation motion simply procedural in nature? As the debtors recently discovered in In re SC SJ Holdings LLC, a motion to estimate a claim before a bankruptcy court may not always lead to a significantly reduced claim, and may impact plan confirmation.

The Facts

The nearly $350 billion loan program made available to small businesses by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was tapped out in less than two weeks. In response to this overwhelming demand, on Friday, April 24, 2020, an additional $320 billion was funded into the loan program, and the second round of applications for small businesses requesting these loans will open on Monday, April 27, 2020.

In Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. PG&E, 549 U.S. 443 (2007), the Supreme Court held that bankruptcy law does not disallow a post-petition unsecured claim for attorney’s fees to the extent such claim is authorized by a pre-petition contract and not otherwise expressly disallowed. That pronouncement should have stopped all future litigation over the issue. That has not been the case.