Section 303(i) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the court to award the debtor sanctions on account of an improper filing of an involuntary petition against it. But can a non-debtor third-party obtain such a relief? Yes, says the Bankruptcy Court In In re Vascular Access Centers, L.P., No. 19-17117 (AMC), 2022 WL 17366463 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2022).

Background

The Southern District of New York vacated a bankruptcy court’s judgment holding a debtor’s business competitor (C) “in contempt for violation of the [Bankruptcy Code’s] automatic stay…and assessing sanctions” of $19.2 million. In re Windstream Holdings, Inc., 2022 WL 5245633, *1 (2) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 6, 2022).

Just weeks after the “implosion” of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, credit services provider BlockFi filed for Chapter 11 protection with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, indicating that it is burdened with billions of dollars of estimated liabilities and more than 100,000 creditors.

The unique circumstances of the last few years (and hard-charging investors) have forced many borrowers without adequate near-term liquidity to engage in more creative and aggressive liability-management transactions. These transactions have often taken the form of "uptiering" financings.

The recent decision in Re Astora Women’s Health LLC illustrates the importance of cross-border recognition of insolvency processes, highlighting the benefits of a joined-up global approach which recognises that modern business do not stop for international borders.

With Astora hot off the presses and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the horizon the team at SPB have taken stock of the cross-border recognition framework from the perspective of the UK and the US.

Astora

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for United States cooperation and coordination with insolvency proceedings abroad, often affording foreign debtors wide-ranging relief and expansive rights through the United States Bankruptcy Court system. Not all proceedings in foreign jurisdictions are eligible — in order to be so, a proceeding must constitute a “foreign proceeding” under the Bankruptcy Code.

The massive FTX bankruptcy has rattled the crypto industry. While it may take some time for investors, investigators, and customers to learn what happened in the lead up to FTX’s demise, it seems already clear that many FTX customers will lose cryptocurrency and other digital assets (“Tokens”) they had deposited in FTX trading accounts. News reports suggest that those losses are the result of FTX’s related trading arm, Alameda Research, having borrowed FTX customer deposits using FTX’s proprietary token as collateral at an inflated valuation.

Richard J Cooper, Lisa M Schweitzer, Jessica A Metzger and Richard C Minott, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary

Gregg Galardi, Daniel Anderson, Matthew Czyzyk, Janice Ng, Natalie Blanc and Emily Ma, Ropes & Gray

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary

The market for crypto assets has recently experienced significant tumult as evidenced by the bankruptcy filings of several significant crypto players, including Three Arrows Capital, Voyager Digital, Celsius Networks, FTX and, most recently, BlockFi. These bankruptcy cases give rise to numerous issues for investors holding crypto assets, which can be mitigated with proper diligence and planning. In addition, there are several estate planning and trust-specific considerations that should be addressed when holding crypto assets (or determining whether to invest in crypto assets).