A lot of ink has been spilled in the last 72 hours regarding the historic developments involving Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Our quick summary of the facts and law is below. Cadwalader will continue to monitor these developments closely and will update you with additional insights.

The March 2023 banking crisis has been an unexpected “stress test” for dealing with liquidity issues.

When state regulators closed Silicon Valley Bank this past Friday, many startups understandably faced severe liquidity issues triggered by the sudden and unexpected loss of access to their deposits.

In the Chapter 15 case of Three Arrows Capital, Ltd., the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that Rule 45 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule 45”) authorizes service of subpoenas to U.S. nationals or residents who are in a foreign country through alternative means to personal service, including via email and Twitter.

On Sunday evening, March 12, 2023, the US Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board (Federal Reserve) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released a joint statement announcing various actions to stabilize the US banking system, in light of the widely publicized failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank (Signature Bank), each of which was closed by their respective state chartering authorities, with the FDIC appointed as receiver.

On Sunday, March 12th, the Treasury Department, the FDIC, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) (the Agencies) announced that the New York Department of Financial Services had appointed the FDIC as receiver for Signature Bank, which was closed on March 11th.  Subsequently, the FDIC announced that it had transferred substantially all of the assets and all of the deposits of Signature Bank to the newly created Signature Bridge Bank, N.A.  Early on March 13th, the FDIC announced a similar transfer of assets and deposits to Silicon Valley Bank, N.A., another n

Silicon Valley Bank, the 16th largest bank in the US, was shut down on Friday by US regulators. Founded in 1983, Silicon Valley Bank has played an integral role in the technology sector, lending capital to tech start-ups with high growth potential.

How will the Silicon Valley Bank collapse impact tech firms

The impact of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse on tech start-ups is expected to be significant as many will struggle to survive without access to capital to pay business expenses.

An all too typical fact pattern involves a small-time ne’er-do-well infringing on the rights of a much bigger corporation. When the corporation is forced to bring a lawsuit, the “little guy” infringer cries poverty and seeks a settlement. An oft-used tactic of corporations is to settle the matter quickly (and before too much in attorneys’ fees has been incurred) for a relatively modest sum (or even no money at all) while also including a mechanism by which any breach of the settlement agreement triggers the filing of an agreed judgment for a large sum of money.

In a unanimous decision Bartenwerfer v Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the breath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s discharge provision – and exceptions thereto – and held that a debt resulting from fraud (even where the debtor was not directly involved) is, nevertheless, nondischargeable. While the Court’s principles provide a roadmap for analyzing potentially nondischargeable claims, it also expands what was originally thought to be a “narrow” exception to discharge.

Airlines throughout the world were unable to fully trade during the pandemic-related lockdowns and their subsequent travel restrictions, creating significant liquidity constraints during       2020–22.  As a result, a number of major international airlines—including Aeroméxico, Avianca, LATAM, Norwegian Air Shuttle, SAS and Virgin Australia—were forced to file for bankruptcy protection or insolvency administration, and many airline lessors were forced to agree to defer lease rental payments from their airline customers.

The U.S. Supreme Court does not like bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors. It really doesn’t.

An example from a couple years ago is Fulton v. City of Chicago, where the U.S. Supreme Court finds a way to declare: