In the recent decision of FamilyMart China Holding Co v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33 (FamilyMart),[1] the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) found that, although an arbitral tribunal does not have the power to determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company nor to make a winding u

How did we get here?

The crypto markets were rocked again last week by the collapse and bankruptcy of FTX and Alameda Research. Within a few short days, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and his companies went from a stabilizing force for markets and acting as an industry leader to causing one of the greatest disruptions in digital asset market history.

The recent crash in cryptocurrency prices has erased nearly $2 trillion in market value and forced three large firms into bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY): Three Arrows Capital, Voyager Digital, and Celsius Network.

The cryptocurrency hedge fund Three Arrows Capital was the first domino to fall. It suffered heavy losses on trades connected to the collapse of the Terra algorithmic stablecoin, which in turn triggered margin calls and subsequent defaults on over $1 billion in loans.

In a comprehensive judgment published on 23 April 2020, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, comprising Moses JA, Martin JA and Rix JA, has provided welcome clarification of the interplay between a contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes arising between shareholders and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to determine whether a company should be wound up on the just and equitable ground.