FTX. Blockfi. Voyager. Celsius Network. Genesis. Silvergate Capital Corp. Whether due to alleged corporate fraud or the waterfall effect of a downward spiraling industry, as the past year has unfolded more and more cryptocurrency giants—previously touted by pundits and celebrities as sound new age investments—have filed for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Small business owners commonly guaranty certain obligations of their businesses. This stages a potential domino effect if the business is unable to satisfy its obligations. A failed business triggers a creditor to pursue the personal guaranty of the business owner, which can cause the business owner to file a bankruptcy petition if they do not have the ability to satisfy the guaranty. In those scenarios, the guaranty liability is a primary cause of the business owner’s bankruptcy and discharging that guaranty liability is the primary goal.
Debtors in possession or other estate representatives are required to pay U.S. Trustee fees during the pendency of the case. It is often assumed that other entities to whom estate property is transferred must also pay such fees until the case is closed. But as a couple of recent cases illustrate, it may be possible with careful drafting to curtail the reporting and payment of such fees once assets are transferred to a liquidating trust.
For at least the past decade, federal bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited cannabis businesses from seeking protection under federal bankruptcy law, regardless of whether a cannabis business is legally operating under state law.
In a decision that once again evidences the Fifth Circuit’s strong stance on the finality of asset sales in bankruptcy absent a stay of the applicable order, on March 8, 2023 the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas published a memorandum opinion and order affirming a bankruptcy court’s exercise of Bankruptcy Code provisions to strip subrogation rights of certain sureties (the “Sureties”) against an asset purchaser.
“Creative destruction” occurs when something new kills off whatever existed before it.
IPhone Example
Just think, for example, of all the creative destruction that the iPhone has wrought! It has destroyed businesses that provided telephones and phone books, cameras and film, audio recordings and players, newspapers and newsstands, and related services.
Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.
The fallout from Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) closure continues to unfold, with SVB’s parent company – SVB Financial Group – filing for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on Friday, March 17th.
In legal parlance, the term “standing” embraces several discrete doctrines that govern the capacity of a party to sue and appear before a particular court. These concepts' fluidity should not obscure their importance: a party’s standing is a perpetual jurisdictional question, open to review throughout the lifespan of a particular case or matter and at every appellate level.
Types of Standing
Two Generally Applicable Forms
As many parties expected, on March 17, 2023 SVB Financial Group (“SVB Financial” or the “Debtor”) the holding company for Silicon Valley Bank, commenced a case under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the Southern District of New York. Judge Martin Glenn has been assigned to the chapter 11 case. Neither Silicon Valley Bank, currently in FDIC receivership, nor its successor Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (“SV Bridge Bank”), were included in the chapter 11 filing.