Introduction and Background

Judge Martin Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling last week in the Celsius Network bankruptcy case addressing whether customer deposits on a cryptocurrency exchange or platform are property of the debtor or property of the customer. The answer, not surprisingly, depends on the Terms of Use governing the account in question. In this case, the Court found that the terms clearly and unambiguously provided that ownership of cryptocurrency assets deposited into “Earn Accounts” resides with Celsius.

In a January 5, 2023 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the panel held the Just Energy bankruptcy court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the debtor’s suit to recover Winter Storm Uri payments made to ERCOT. The Fifth Circuit found the underlying issue—i.e., the propriety of ERCOT and PUCT’s pricing—to be precisely the type of controversy that should be decided in the manner carefully prescribed by the Texas legislature, and not be second-guessed by the bankruptcy court.

We are again reminded that the clear terms of a written contract—even if they might yield a surprising result—will govern. For those who don’t bother to read the “clickwrap” terms and conditions when, for example, signing up for the new online game or entrusting millions in crypto currency, those controlling terms may surprise. Parties in any transaction cannot just assume that the “boilerplate”—whether a make-whole in a note, a subordination provision in a credit agreement, or terms and conditions in a customer agreement—will be acceptable.

Cryptocurrency in Celsius’ Earn Accounts belongs to the bankruptcy estate, and not to the depositors who placed it there, according to a January 4 memorandum opinion from Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

Preference avoidance provisions are a crucial part of the Bankruptcy Code—contained, primarily, in § 547 & § 550.

States also have a preference avoidance statute—for insiders. It’s in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA)” or in its predecessor, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA)).

The insider preference statute appears to be rarely-used and, apparently, little-known. It reads like this:

Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a means for resolving mass tort claims

Under Section 101(54) of the bankruptcy code, any means of disposing with an interest in property is considered a transfer, and therefore, under certain circumstances, may be avoided as a preference or fraudulent transfer. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit addressed the scope of the provisions. The Third Circuit recently held that prepetition lease termination did not give rise to a transfer.

Background

As 2022 drew to a close, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved a settlement between PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals and SFJ Pharmaceuticals over their ill-fated drug development financing partnership. This court approval ended a legal saga that began two years ago, when PhaseBio, a public biopharmaceutical company developing a novel drug to control bleeding in certain patients, entered into an agreement with SFJ, a company that finances and supports drug development, to fund up to $120 million to advance PhaseBio’s pivotal Phase III trial for the drug.

On January 4, 2023, Judge Glenn of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a much-awaited decision in the Celsius Network LLC (along with its affiliated debtors, “Celsius” or the “Debtors”) chapter 11 cases relating to the ownership of crypto assets deposited by customers in the Celsius “Earn” rewards program accounts.