Bankruptcy

The intersection of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency was involved in a recent decision where the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dismissed claims against an alleged participant in a scheme that induced investors to fund over $30 million in an artificial intelligence company designed to generate revenue from enhanced cryptocurrency mining.

Bankruptcy courts typically scrutinize transactions that attempt to shift the jurisdiction or activities of a debtor, prior to filing for bankruptcy, on the basis that such actions may thwart creditor expectations or accomplish other improper objectives.

Bankruptcy filings with personal injury claims can pose complex challenges where self-insured retention obligations of the debtor under its insurance policies are unfulfilled as of the filing date.

Plaintiff attorneys are grappling with the fear of the rise of big companies utilizing bankruptcy court to skirt large final or anticipated judgments. The most recent and high-profile example is Johnson & Johnson’s alleged attempt to utilize this move in its talc bankruptcy litigation.

The Fifth Circuit recently addressed a new fact pattern and issue concerning the Barton doctrine: whether a receiver appointed in a state court action could be sued in a subsequent bankruptcy case of the debtor absent court permission.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York converting a debtor’s Subchapter V case to a Chapter 7 case. In particular, the district court found that the bankruptcy court’s decision to convert was not an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the serious conflicts of interest that existed between the debtor and the potential target of significant fraudulent transfer claims held by the debtor’s estate.

A ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge in New York denying attorney’s fees to a debtor’s counsel sends a startling reminder to attorneys and clients alike. The Chapter 11 process is not intended to be a safe harbor for a debtor solely to delay creditors or circumvent other legal proceedings.

The bankruptcy bar and courts are attempting to determine the breadth and depth of the Purdue ruling both as to what constitutes consent under a plan of reorganization and whether Purdue applies to other bankruptcy proceedings, including a sale of assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, free and clear of claims, and approval of settlements. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently faced these issues.