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).
FTX sounded like the perfect American success story. A twentysomething philanthropic MIT graduate had managed in four years to create one of the largest and most trusted crypto exchange platforms.
Elizabeth McColm, Brian Bolin and Grace Hotz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
On October 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a long-awaited ruling on whether Ultra Petroleum Corp.
When a debtor files for bankruptcy, it’s axiomatic that all creditors, wherever located, must immediately cease their efforts to collect on debts owed to them by that debtor, right? Not necessarily so, says the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, insofar as those creditors and their collateral are located outside of the United States.
In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming. Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors. The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms. These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms.
Every now and then we get a bankruptcy opinion declaring a rule with broad application that, (i) may make sense is specific situations, but (ii) is a terrible result for others.
Here’s an Exhibit A opinion for such a proposition: Reinhart Foodservice LLC v. Schlundt, Case No. 21-cv-1027 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin, (Doc. 12, issued October 27, 2022).
The Facts
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to sell assets of the bankruptcy estate "free and clear" of "any interest in property" asserted by a non-debtor is an important tool designed to maximize the value of the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently examined whether such interests include "successor liability" claims that might otherwise be asserted against the purchaser of a debtor's assets. In In re Norrenberns Foods, Inc., 642 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Ill.
Last month, Judge Caproni of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling stating that if a commercial lease does not require a landlord to hold a security deposit in trust and if there is no state statute generally requiring landlords to do so, the security deposit may not be recoverable by the tenant when the landlord files for bankruptcy. See 10FN Inc. v. Cerberus Business Finance LLC, 21-5996 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2022).