In this episode of The Crypto Exchange, Ethan Ostroff welcomes Deb Kovsky and Alex Rovira, partners in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Bankruptcy and Restructuring practice, to explore the GENIUS Act’s approach to stablecoin insolvency. The discussion highlights the complexities and gaps within the current regulatory framework.
On June 24, Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC), Subcommittee on Digital Assets Chair Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) released a set of guiding principles for the development of comprehensive market structure legislation for digital assets. These principles, described in more detail below, aim to provide a foundational framework for discussions and negotiations with industry participants, legal and academic experts, and government stakeholders. This announcement comes on the heels of the House Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services both favorably reporting to the House the CLARITY Act (discussed here), which aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets in the United States. and the recent passage by the U.S. Senate of the GENIUS Act, a landmark effort to establish a comprehensive federal framework for the payment stablecoins (discussed here).
On June 17, the U.S. Senate voted 68-30 to pass S.1582, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, known as the GENIUS Act (the Act). This represents a landmark effort by the U.S. Congress to establish a comprehensive federal framework for the regulation of payment stablecoins. Passed with bipartisan support in the Senate, the Act aims to provide regulatory clarity, enhance consumer protection, and safeguard national security in the rapidly growing stablecoin sector.
On Tuesday, June 10, the House Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services both favorably reported to the House H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act (as amended). Both committees gave overwhelmingly bipartisan support for the bill with the Committee on Agriculture voting 47-6 and the Committee on Financial Services voting 32-19. Both
After years of uncertainty and regulation by enforcement, the U.S. may finally be moving toward a more comprehensive framework for the regulation of digital assets. On June 4, 2025, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing on American Innovation and the Future of Digital Assets: From Blueprint to a Functional Framework. The hearing followed Committee Chairman French Hill’s introduction of H.R. 3633 — the CLARITY Act of 2025 (the Act) — on May 30, 2025. The Committee is expected to continue its markup of the Act at its June 10, 2025, Full Committee Markup hearing.
We are pleased to share with you our latest publication, “Navigating Change: First 100 Days under the Trump Administration,” authored by our Digital Assets + Blockchain team. This retrospective examines the pivotal developments in the digital assets industry during the initial phase of the Trump administration.
What happens to funds recovered by the trustee after the final plan payment is made in a chapter 13 case? According to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Iowa, absent a plan provision providing otherwise, those funds revert to the debtors.
The debt purchaser in In re McIntosh argued that because it was enforcing a debt that was not listed correctly on the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules, it was entitled to assume the debt had not been discharged. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida disagreed and entered an award of sanctions in the total amount of $64,686.93 — including $10,000 for emotional distress and over $21,000 in punitive damages.
This article was republished on insideARM on February 6, 2024.
On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin after the First Circuit barred the Lac du Flambeau Band from seeking to collect on a $1,600 debt obligation to the tribe’s lending arm, Lendgreen, after the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
The Supreme