After a pause in 2022, there has been much talk of the continuation, or resumption, of a wave of retail bankruptcy cases as we begin 2023. 2022 was highlighted by Revlon’s filing (discussed here: Revlon May Signal Another Wave of Retail Bankruptcies | Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer (retailconsumerproductslaw.com)). Revlon pointed to a number of issues that led to its filing, including most prominently, supply chain issues. Severe impediments in the supply chain – whether the inability to source product or the costs and delays in received goods — have been cited by many debtors since Revlon since as a leading cause of their distress. And it may get much worse before it gets better, particularly for companies that source, directly or indirectly, from China.Continue Reading Continued Pain in the Retail Sector: Coming Enforcement of Forced Labor Laws
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 Bankruptcy Code defines a “foreign proceeding” as “a collective judicial or administrative proceeding in a foreign country… under a law relating to insolvency or adjustment of debt in which proceeding the assets and affairs of the debtor are subject to control or supervision by a foreign court, for the purpose of reorganization or liquidation.” It is generally understood that the definition should be interpreted liberally. Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York tested the limits of Chapter 15, providing important guidance regarding the eligibility of proceedings that do not involve “insolvency or the identification, classification, or satisfaction of debt.” See In re Global Cord Blood Corporation, Case No. 22-11347 (December 5, 2022).Continue Reading A Line in the Sand: Caymans Proceeding Ineligible for Chapter 15
Over a decade after Lehman’s insolvency, the English High Court handed down a key judgement in Grant v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd  on 11 October 2022. The judgement provides commentary on when certain Events of Default have occurred and are “continuing”.
Although the court addressed these issues in the context of interest rate swaps entered into pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement (the “Transactions”) and the impact of Lehman’s UK entity, LBIE, coming out of administration, the judgement may have implications beyond the derivatives market, for example in the context of financing agreements, corporate documentation, and distressed debt trading, as well as cross-border restructuring or insolvency situations.Continue Reading When Is an Event of Default “Continuing”?
The purchase and sale of assets by a debtor is governed by Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. So-called “363 sales” are typically attractive from a buyer’s perspective (and may be a primary reason for a bankruptcy filing). Perhaps the most important benefit afforded to buyers in 363 sales is the ability to acquire assets “free and clear” of claims and interests of third parties. Section 363(f)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor can sell property free and clear of any interest in such property when a third party “could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.” But what constitutes an “interest” remains the subject of some debate, particularly as it relates to successor liability claims. One category of successor liability claims that may arise in traditionally unionized industries are the claims of pension funds that are triggered by a participant’s withdrawal. “Withdrawal liability” arises under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (“MPPAA”) and may, at times, be asserted against a purchaser of the participant’s assets, typically where it had notice of the claim at the time of the acquisition and where there exists a “substantial continuity” in the business operations following the purchase.Continue Reading Successor Liability and Section 363: A Broad Interpretation of an “Interest in Property”
On September 14, Crowell partners Rick Hyman and Gregory G. Plotko, together with Dawn Haghighi, General Counsel of PVC Murcor, published an article on the Association of Corporate Counsel’s ACC Docket, “Your Counterparty Filed Chapter 11 – Make Sure to Check These 10 Boxes.” The article provides valuable insight for in-house counsel who find themselves dealing with a bankrupt counterparty, and are unsure of their next steps. For the full article, view it here on the web, and remember to subscribe and check back soon for more posts on Restructuring Matters.
In our February 14, 2022 post, we highlighted certain consequences regarding the treatment of a merchant cash advance (“MCA”) transaction as a “loan” rather than a “true sale” of receivables or future receivables and the implications of such treatment to an MCA provider. Among the takeaways was that a court’s characterization of an MCA transaction as a loan opens an MCA provider up to a host of potential claims by cash advance recipients (“customers”) and their successors (e.g., bankruptcy trustees) that are not otherwise available if the transaction is treated as a true sale.Continue Reading Merchant Cash Advance Redux: Loan vs True Sale – New York Federal Courts Weigh In
In a matter of first impression relating to an important bankruptcy claims administration issue, Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, recently denied the ability of a court appointed claims agent to sell and profit from providing direct access to publicly available claims register information. The unsuccessful purchaser of such information was XClaim Inc. (“Xclaim”), a relatively new venture that is seeking to develop a web-based claims trading platform. Pursuant to an “access agreement” with the claims agent (which Judge ordered to be disclosed to the public), Xclaim sought exclusive access to creditor data in a digital format that is compatible with Xclaim’s platform – presumably to immediately utilize such data to solicit creditors and drive them to their claims trading website. In exchange for providing direct access and related services, the claims agent would have received a processing fee equal to 10% of the commission collected for each transferred claim.
The issue of claims agents entering into these access agreements with Xclaim was first revealed in the Pareteum case, where Judge Lisa G. Beckerman inquired whether that claims agent had a contractual relationship with Xclaim and questioned the legitimacy of such an arrangement. The issue was then raised again in the Voyager and Celsius bankruptcy cases, but those claims agents agreed to carve out the access arrangement with Xclaim and therefore avoided the issue altogether. While Judge Lane passed no judgement on the morality of such a venture, he found that the arrangement specifically violated numerous section of Federal law including 28 U.S.C. § 156(c), 28 U.S.C. § 1930(e) and SDNY Bankr. Local Rule 5075-1. Those rules and regulations govern the ability of a claims agent to act as the Clerk of the Court in providing non-exclusive access to the public claims register as well as proscribing and limiting the fees that may be charged for performing these quasi-Clerk services. Judge Lane found that Xclaim’s fee arrangement could not be reconciled with the applicable rules and regulations including the proscribed fees that may be charged.
Judge Lane’s ruling can be found in the record of the hearing held on July 20, 2022 in the In re Madison Square Boys & Girls Club, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding, Case No. 22-10910-shl.
The first week of July has brought with it a flurry of activity in the digital asset markets – but not the type of activity that investors in the space likely hoped for.
On June 27th, Three Arrows Capital, Ltd. (“3AC”) commenced a liquidation proceeding in the British Virgin Islands, followed on July 1st by a Chapter 15 case in the Southern District of New York. Chapter 15 generally provides for recognition by a US court of an insolvency proceeding in a non-US jurisdiction. The company, a proprietary trading fund, is now under the control of joint liquidators tasked with stabilizing the estate, preserving and winding up its assets, investigating claims and pursuing causes of action under the laws of BVI. Should the BVI proceeding be recognized as a “foreign main proceeding,” the case will provide the liquidators some stability through the enforcement of the automatic stay over the firm’s US assets, preserving the status quo.
On the heels of 3AC’s filing, on July 5th, Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc. and certain affiliates (“Voyager”) commenced Chapter 11 cases in the Southern District of New York. Voyager operates a brokerage that allowed customers to trade digital assets, earning “rewards” on their investments, and also offered custodial services. It estimated both its assets and liabilities as between $1-10 billion. Similar to Celsius Network (discussed here), Voyager operated with little regulation and made loans and investments in other platforms in order to generate yield. One of its largest loans was to 3AC – a loan of 15,250 BTC and $350 million USDC (the “3AC Loan”). On July 1st, facing a “run on the bank,” Voyager restricted further withdrawals by its customers as Celsius Network had done weeks earlier.
Unlike 3AC’s filing, however, Voyager did so with a plan in hand, filing its proposed plan of reorganization shortly after filing its case. Generally, the plan provides that customers will receive (a) digital assets purchased by, or on behalf of customers and held by the company on the petition date (although it is unclear which or how many coins will be available for distribution), (b) stock in the reorganized Voyager, (c) existing tokens that had been issued by Voyager, and (d) recovery, if any, on account of the 3AC Loan (with the appointment of a litigation agent to pursue recovery). The plan allows some flexibility to exchange stock for coins. According to the plan, 100% of the new stock of a reorganized Voyager, subject to dilution for management, will be distributed to the customers. The company says that it will continue to market the business to third-party investors during the bankruptcy case with the hope of increasing value to its creditors.
Voyager’s bankruptcy case will raise issues of first impression. For example, the plan does not appear to distinguish between the claims of those customers with digital assets earning “rewards” on the trading platform from those with assets purportedly maintained in custodial accounts. As discussed here, there may be arguments that assets held in custodial accounts are not properly property of the estate. The plan also treats the claims of account holders separately from those of general unsecured creditors who are entitled to a share of the “Claims Allocation Pool,” a term left undefined in the filed plan. The plan also treats customers differently than it does a claim on account of an unsecured loan from Alameda Ventures Ltd. (which is proposed to receive no recovery). As can be expected, the first plan of reorganization in a Chapter 11 of a cryptocurrency platform incorporates standard existing legal frameworks to address creditor recovery and rehabilitation of the estate, such as conversion to equity and use of litigation trusts. It will be interesting to see how these frameworks perform in the digital assets space. Other issues may arise if there continues to be volatility in the value of digital assets (if, for example, BTC is at $20,000 when the plan is solicited but later increases dramatically in value before voting or confirmation).
Given the unsettled markets, other cryptocurrency funds, platforms and exchanges may follow the paths of 3AC and Voyager in the near future. It will also be informative to track the comparative path of Voyager vs. Celsius Network, which as of July 7th, has not filed for bankruptcy. Novel issues will arise and important lessons will be learned from these and other cases and we will continue to follow them closely as they develop.
Celsius Networks (“Celsius”) became the latest cryptocurrency platform to raise market temperatures by halting all withdrawals, swaps and transfers from and between its customers’ accounts on June 12, 2022. Celsius touted a next wave of “unbanking,” operating a lending platform allowing the holders of digital assets the opportunity to earn a significantly high returns on those assets. Due, in part, to the lack of regulation, Celsius, and other firms like it, retain wide discretion to use of their customers’ assets and, among other things lend those assets to other platforms at higher rates, enter into complex swap and option transactions that bet on price movements, enter into repo or other lending arrangement to increase yield, or invest in other cryptocurrency projects, all without regulatory constraint. Indeed, it was this broad discretion that led, in part, to the downfall of a similarly situated platform, Cred, Inc., and its ultimate bankruptcy discussed here on Crypto Digest.Continue Reading Celsius Networks’ Warnings Highlight Crypto Bankruptcy Risks
Given the recent media coverage and growing concerns among investors over the risks associated with a bankruptcy filing of a cryptocurrency exchange, it feels timely to highlight some issues that arose in the Chapter 11 cases of Cred Inc. and certain of its affiliates (collectively, “Cred”) also discussed on Crypto Digest.Continue Reading Lessons from Recent Cryptocurrency Bankruptcy Case: Cred, Inc.