Independent Examiner in FTX Bankruptcy Case
Firm Serves as Counsel to the Examiner
It’s been a hard year for cryptocurrency. The values of most cryptocurrencies, including major coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have continued to tumble. In fact, the price of one stablecoin, which is a form of cryptocurrency tied to another currency, commodity or financial instrument, de-pegged from its cryptocurrency token and entered into a downward spiral. Ultimately, the stablecoin and the crypto token it was pegged to collapsed, erasing $18 billion of value with it. In addition, one major cryptocurrency exchange platform recently warned investors that, in the event of bankruptcy, its users’ assets may be treated as property of the estate, which would leave users in the unfortunate position of being treated as unsecured creditors. This revelation caused that entity’s stock to plummet.
Then, the bankruptcy filings actually started.
First, Three Arrows Capital filed in the British Virgin Islands for the appointment of joint provisional liquidators who will be charged with the liquidation of the company’s assets. Three Arrows Capital is an investment firm that focused on trading cryptocurrency. Because the company was so heavily invested in crypto, the plunging value of those assets resulted in the company defaulting on its loan obligations.
On July 6, 2022, the filing of Three Arrows Capital caused one of its major lenders, Voyager Digital Holdings, to file for Chapter 11. Voyager Digital is a cryptocurrency brokerage firm that allows customers to buy, sell and trade crypto on its platform. The company also provides custodial services, allowing customers to store their cryptocurrency on its platform, and furnishes loans to counterparties, usually in the form of a specific cryptocurrency. At the time of filing, Voyager Digital’s loan to Three Arrows Capital was one of its largest outstanding loans.
The snowball has only continued to grow. On July 13, 2022, Celsius Network filed Chapter 11. The New Jersey-based company is a cryptocurrency-based finance platform that enables users to pay expenses, make purchases or otherwise monetize their crypto investments by first transferring the crypto to Celsius and then borrowing government-issued currency (or other digital assets) against those assets.
Each company’s first day filings state that their respective bankruptcies were the result of macroeconomic factors such as COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine as well as the so-called “crypto-winter.” In Celsius’ case, the overall economic environment spooked investors into withdrawing their crypto assets from the platform. The withdrawal was massive and rapid, similar to a run on the bank, and it forced Celsius to pause all withdrawals, swaps and transfers between accounts about a month prior to the filing–a move that infuriated many of its users.
Celsius’ trading pause was intended to preserve assets and, in its first day filings, Celsius defends the move by arguing that the pause will facilitate a fairer reorganization process. Celsius’ filings also note that other companies have put in place similar limits and pauses on withdrawals. Regardless of the justifications, Celsius’ decision brings to the forefront a question that will be critical in every crypto bankruptcy—who holds the title to the crypto assets held by these firms and platforms?
Notably, Voyager Digital has categorized its customers as creditors with unsecured claims, and has taken the position that crypto assets in customer accounts are the company’s property. In response, the judge questioned whether Voyager, instead of filing Chapter 11, should instead be liquidating as a broker-dealer with protected customer accounts.
Unfortunately, courts addressing this issue will have little guidance from the existing regulatory framework because, although multiple bills have been introduced in Congress, all efforts to definitively classify crypto-assets have stalled. The most recent legislation proposed assigning the bulk of oversight to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), but both the CFTC and the Securities Exchange Commission have exercised some level of regulatory oversight.
Instead, courts addressing this question may rely on existing principles and analogous case law in different industries. Courts may also insist on making individual, fact specific decisions by evaluating how each customer used the bankruptcy platform and the underlying customer contracts. For example, when using a certain Celsius service, users agree to (i) transfer all right and title to their crypto to Celsius and (ii) allow Celsius to invest or use the crypto within its full discretion.
The interconnected nature of the crypto industry has never been more aggressively on display than when these entities started falling like dominos. Soon, we may see additional entities file for bankruptcy, and the strategy for any filing will be guided by what happens in these cases. Depending on how these cases unfold, other entities may need to seek forms of relief outside of court, including rescue financing or loan forbearances. Crypto investors should watch these cases closely.
We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws. On June 5, the Supreme Court decided the case, ruling that the scheme violated the uniformity requirement, but remanding to the Fourth Circuit to consider the appropriate remedy.
The case arises from the fact that 88 of the 94 judicial districts in the United States operate with U.S. Trustees, while six operate with Bankruptcy Administrators. The two programs have separate funding sources: the U.S. Trustee program, which is under the auspices of the Department of Justice, is funded by debtor-paid fees while the Bankruptcy Administrator program, which is under the auspices of the federal judiciary, is funded by the judiciary’s general budget. In 2017, Congress enacted a law temporarily raising fees in U.S. Trustee judicial districts as of January 1, 2018. The Judicial Conference did not match this fee increase in Bankruptcy Administrator districts until September 2018, and then only as to cases filed on or after October 1, 2018. The result was that debtors that filed bankruptcy cases before October 2018, but whose cases were still pending as of January 2018 or later, owed different fees depending on the judicial district of filing.
In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court concluded that this system of different fees was unconstitutional. The Court first rejected the government’s argument that the relevant law was about the administration of bankruptcy cases, not about the substance of the debtor-creditor relationship, and therefore the uniformity requirement did not apply. The Court reasoned that neither the language of the clause nor the Court’s previous decisions drew such a distinction. In response to the government referencing other examples where bankruptcy procedure varies across districts, the Court explained that these examples involved uniform laws that gave courts local discretion, rather than laws mandating one policy for certain districts and another one for other districts.
Having concluded that the uniformity requirement did apply, the Supreme Court proceeded to hold that the fee scheme violated that requirement. The Court explained that Court precedent permitted Congress some flexibility in responding to regional problems, but Congress could not simply arbitrarily treat similarly situated debtors differently based on geography. In response to the government’s argument that the disparate treatment sought to resolve the specific problem of a shortfall of funds for the U.S. Trustee program, the Court noted that the difference between U.S. Trustee districts and Bankruptcy Administrator districts was itself established by Congress, so could not be a basis for disparate treatment.
The parties disputed whether the appropriate remedy was to refund the fees paid or to increase the fees for debtors who had previously paid less in the Bankruptcy Administrator program. The Court remanded to the Fourth Circuit to consider the appropriate remedy.
A Delaware bankruptcy court recently held that Texas’s “trust fund doctrine” remains applicable for companies that have not availed themselves of Texas’s formal dissolution process. Nonetheless, fiduciary claims by a chapter 7 debtor were dismissed because the debtor failed to assert such claims derivatively.
After a 2015 transaction between Our Alchemy, LLC (“Our Alchemy”) and ANConnect, LLC (“ANConnect”) ended in litigation, Our Alchemy filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in Delaware. Its trustee then filed an adversary proceeding against ANConnect and its managers for fraudulent transfers of ANConnect’s assets and associated breaches of fiduciary duties. The transfers at issue occurred while ANConnect was winding down operations. In re: Our Alchemy, LLC, 16-11596 (JTD), 2022 WL 2309796, at *1 (Bankr. D. Del. June 27, 2022).
ANConnect moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were time barred and Our Alchemy lacked standing. The court granted in part and denied in part (as factually dependent) ANConnect’s motion with respect to the statute of limitations.
As to standing, Our Alchemy relied on Texas’s trust fund doctrine (the “Doctrine”). Our Alchemy argued that under the Doctrine, “standing exists for creditors of a Texas corporation (and by extension an LLC) to sue officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty when an entity is insolvent and ceases business operations.” The Doctrine is an equitable remedy “established principally to permit a court of equity to marshal and distribute a corporation’s assets upon its insolvency and dissolution in much the same way as would a modern bankruptcy court.”
ANConnect responded that the Doctrine “has been supplanted by Texas statutory law.” The court disagreed.
The court analyzed a Texas Supreme Court opinion from 1981, which “recognized that beginning in 1879, the Texas legislature began enacting remedial statutes that embodied the trust fund doctrine.” Id. at *7 (discussing Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corp., 620 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1981)).
Under these remedial statutes, the legislature had given creditors of a dissolved corporation ‘the same broad measure of relief which equity would have afforded in the absence of legislation. . . . The effect of these statutes was to supplant the equitable trust fund theory by declaring a statutory equivalent. In Texas, recognition of the trust fund theory, as applied to dissolved corporations, did not exist apart from these statutes.
Id. Despite the Texas Supreme Court’s explanation, numerous Texas state courts and federal courts applying Texas law have continued to recognize the Doctrine. How does one remedy the seeming incongruity?
The court answered that, per the Texas Supreme Court, “the statutory enactments supplanted the trust fund doctrine ‘as applied to dissolved corporations,’” but the Doctrine still applies “unless a company has undertaken the [statutory] process of dissolution.” “To hold otherwise would be fundamentally unfair to the creditors of a company that ceases business operations, distributes its assets to its shareholders or members but never seeks the protection of dissolution” (which obligates a company to deposit funds to cover all liabilities with the Texas Secretary of State).
Because Our Alchemy did not allege that ANConnect filed for dissolution in accordance with Texas law, the Doctrine still applied. However, Our Alchemy brought only direct, and not derivative, fiduciary duty claims. And as the Fifth Circuit recognized in In re Mortgage America Corp., if an action is to be brought under the Doctrine, “it must be brought on behalf of all those similarly situated. [A] single creditor, acting on its own behalf, does not have standing.” 714 F.2d 1266, 1271 (5th Cir. 1983). Thus, the “failure of [Our Alchemy’s] Trustee to bring the claims derivatively [was] fatal to the Trustee’s standing argument,” and Our Alchemy’s fiduciary claims were dismissed.
Normally, plaintiffs like Our Alchemy could amend their complaint to remedy the pleading deficiency recognized by the court. However, Our Alchemy devoted just a single footnote to requesting leave to amend, and offered no substantive argument. Accordingly, the court denied Our Alchemy’s request for leave as procedurally improper.


Partner
Mr. Lowenthal, Chair of the firm’s Business Reorganization and Creditors' Rights Practice, has earned recognition as a skilled advocate in the bankruptcy, creditors' rights, and corporate restructuring arena. He represents creditors' committees, trade creditors, indenture trustees, and bankruptcy trustees and examiners in domestic and international cases.
Mr. Lowenthal recently served as counsel to the court-appointed Examiner in the chapter 11 cases of FTX Trading Ltd. and its affiliates. In this position, he investigated issues critical to the FTX bankruptcy cases, including potential conflicts of interest and fraudulent transfers, that were summarized in two publicly filed reports.
Mr. Lowenthal also represents U.S. and non-U.S. business entities in a wide range of complex litigation issues, including creditors’ rights disputes, purchases of intellectual property assets, and distressed debt acquisitions and restructuring. He has achieved numerous favorable results for clients in trial and appellate courts as well as commercial arbitration. Recently, he successfully defended former executives of a failed European bank against allegations that they had defrauded investors.
A regular speaker on bankruptcy law topics, Mr. Lowenthal recently presented for the American Bankruptcy Institute, the Practising Law Institute, INSOL International, INSOL Europe, and the Association of Corporate Counsel. Most recently, Mr. Lowenthal was a member of INSOL Europe’s 2023 Amsterdam Congress Technical Committee. He has been recognized by JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards as one of the top ten authors in the Bankruptcy category from 2023-2026. Mr. Lowenthal has received Martindale-Hubbell’s highest rating of "AV Preeminent" based on both peer and client reviews and has been named to The Best Lawyers in America in the area of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law. He has also been named by Super Lawyers in the areas of bankruptcy: business and business litigation. Lastly, Mr. Lowenthal has been named to the 2022-2026 editions of the Lawdragon 500 Leading U.S. Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers guide.
Representative Matters
Represented court-appointed Examiner in chapter 11 cases of FTX Trading Ltd., including assisting him with various investigations summarized in two publicly filed reports.
Represented foreign administrators of a global alternative energy company in its chapter 15 cross-border bankruptcy case, successfully petitioning the court for the return of over $28 million held in a U.S. bank account.
Representing noteholders of a Brazilian company in a lawsuit arising from a debt default.
Representing the Oversight Committee for a post-confirmation liquidating trust in the Southern District of Texas.
Representing the Indenture Trustee for a series of unsecured notes in connection with an Italian insolvency proceeding and a related chapter 15 case.
Represented a bidder in a competitive auction to acquire the assets of a chapter 11 debtor.
Lead counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of multi-state real estate developer with liabilities in excess of a billion dollars. The Bankruptcy Court praised the “remarkable results” achieved through the “extraordinary efforts” of Patterson Belknap attorneys in this case.
Representing an international financial institution as Indenture Trustee in cross-border insolvency cases pending in Grand Cayman and Hong Kong.
Represented an Indenture Trustee and Co-Chair of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on over $5 billion of unsecured debt in one of the largest, most complex cases ever filed in Delaware, the Energy Future Holdings Corp. cases.
Represented an Indenture Trustee in the Nortel Networks Inc. cross-border cases, a set of insolvency cases filed in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.
Represented an Indenture Trustee on bonds governed by New York law in an insolvency case in London.
Represented an Indenture Trustee on $1.7 billion of unsecured debt in the Washington Mutual, Inc. case.
Representing a former member of the Board of Directors in The Weinstein Company Holdings bankruptcy case.
Represented an international law firm in a proceeding before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court relating to conflicts of interest in a Chapter 11 representation.
Represented the winning bidder in an auction to acquire the assets and intellectual property from a Chapter 7 debtor over the objection and competing bid of the debtor’s secured lender.
Special litigation counsel to an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to investigate fraudulent conveyance claims.
Conducted an internal investigation of a multi-national law firm following its role in a large Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
Representing the Post-Confirmation Trustee in the Tarragon Corporation case.
Special litigation counsel to a Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy of an employee leasing company.
Represented an Indenture Trustee in the Nortel Networks Inc. cross-border cases, a set of insolvency cases filed in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.
Represented the Liquidating Trust Board in the TerreStar Networks Inc. case.
Represented the Trust Oversight Committee in the Disney retail store chain case.
Represented Harrison J. Goldin, an Examiner in the Enron Corp. case, in an investigation of many of Enron's special-purpose-entity transactions.
Representing international creditors, including entities in the U.K., the Netherlands, and Germany, in the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. case.
Represented a Scottish aviation company in the Hawker Beechraft Corporation case.
Defending a reinsurance company in a fraudulent conveyance lawsuit brought by creditors of Tribune Company in U.S. Federal Court.
Representing a Mexican creditor in the Stanford International Bank Ltd. case.
Obtained a favorable result on behalf of the largest private bank in Brazil in connection with the Chapter 15 case of a Brazilian company.
Represented the Retiree Committee in the U.S. Airways, Inc. case, including serving as trial counsel on the debtor’s motion to eliminate retiree benefits.
Won a crucial decision of first impression for financial institutions whose security interests were challenged by the bankruptcy trustee in The Bennett Funding Group, Inc. case, a case that stemmed from an alleged $1 billion Ponzi scheme.
Represented the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the STAR Telecommunications, Inc. case.
MEMBERSHIPS: American Bar Association; Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Committee of the New York City Bar Association; American Bankruptcy Institute; Board of Editors, The Bankruptcy Strategist; INSOL International; INSOL Europe (2023 Amsterdam Congress Technical Committee); Turnaround Management Association and the New York Institute of Credit.
Virginia Business, "Speyside Bourbon Cooperage to lay off 52 in Atkins," (March 4, 2026)
Law360, "PrimaLend to Seek OK for Ch. 11 Bidding in Market Test," (January 6, 2026)
Bloomberg Law, "Bankruptcy in 2026 to Be Guided by Policy Change, Fraud Scrutiny," (January 2, 2026)
Law360, "4 Shocking Moments in Bankruptcy History," (April 17, 2024)
Law360, "Bankruptcy Issues To Watch In 2024" (January 1, 2024)
Law360, "Purdue's High Court Case Puts Bankruptcy Pragmatism On Trial" (December 1, 2023)
Turnarounds & Workouts, "Key Issues in WeWork" (November 2023)
Forbes, "FTX Examiner Compromise Would Bring Investigation With Limited Scope" (February 7, 2023)
Forbes, "FTX’s Ray, Battling To Avoid Outside Probe, Faces Court Bout With Trustee" (February 4, 2023)
Barron's, "FTX U.S. Customers’ Funds Might Take Years to Recover: Experts" (December 2, 2022)
Bloomberg Law, "Bankruptcy Lawyers Gird for Onslaught of Battered Companies" (March 23, 2020)
Oil Express, "Despite Court Ruling, Possible Sale of CITGO Likely a Long Way Off" (August 1, 2019)
Westlaw Journal, "Attorneys weigh impact of high court’s bankruptcy contract rejection ruling" (June 20, 2019)
Bloomberg Law, "Cloud Peak Shareholders Want Say in Bankruptcy Reorganization" (May 22, 2019)
Law360, "Justices Save TM Licensees From Contract Conundrum" (May 21, 2019)
World Intellectual Property Review, "SCOTUS Examines TM Licensing Post-Bankruptcy" (February 21, 2019)
Reuters, "Gymboree Files for Chapter 11 as More Retailers Restructure Debt" (January 18, 2019)
The New York Times, "PG&E Bankruptcy Could Deal Blow to Its Solar-Power Suppliers’ Finances" (January 17, 2019)
Los Angeles Times, "PG&E to file for bankruptcy as wildfire costs hit $30 billion. Its stock plunges 52%" (January 14, 2019)
Bloomberg Law, "2019 Outlook: Plenty of Restructuring Work Ahead" (December 31, 2018)
Oil Price Information Service,"Deal Keeps Venezuela in Control of CITGO" (November 26, 2018)
Chicago Tribune, "Whirlpool to Sears: We want our appliances back" (October 29, 2018)
Private Debt Investor, "Sears files for bankruptcy, TSLX a creditor in the case" (October 16, 2018)
Los Angeles Times, "Bankruptcy gives Sears the opportunity to stay alive, its chairman says" (October 15, 2018)
Chain Store Age, "Sears’ Bankruptcy: Experts weigh in" (October 15, 2018)
Associated Press, “Nation’s largest mattress retailer files for bankruptcy” (October 5, 2018)
Daily Mail, “Mattress Firm files for bankruptcy and plans to close up to 700 stores amid exploding competition from online retailers like Amazon and Casper” (October 5, 2018)
Chain Store Age, “Mattress Firm files for Chapter 11, closing up to 700 stores” (October 5, 2018)
Financial Times, “Sears’ survival hangs in balance as investors weigh rescue plan” (September 26, 2018)
Legal Newsline, "Federal judge joins others, says bankruptcy court not allowed to impose punitive sanctions" (January, 2018)