The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (“UKJT”) is one of six taskforces that make up the LawTech Delivery Panel established by the UK government, the judiciary and the Law Society of England and Wales as a collaborative discussion forum to promote the use of technology in the UK’s legal sector.

In May 2019 the UKJT issued a public consultation seeking to identify the principle issues over which there is perceived to be confusion regarding the status of cryptoassets and smart contracts under the law of England and Wales.

In Re SCL Group Ltd (& others) [2019] EWHC 954 (Ch), the High Court considered a range of allegations concerning the administrators to the Cambridge Analytica group and whether they should be appointed as liquidators following a failed sale process.

Central to the case were allegations of misconduct and potential bias against a particular creditor. The claims were rejected. But, the case contains useful observations about the role of administrators and their duties:

In a recent report by INSOL International, only 5% of insolvency practitioners (“IPs”) said that they had a “comprehensive or practical/working or understanding” of crypto-currency.

So with over 4,000 types of cryptocurrency now available and as payment technology continues to develop, we look at some issues facing IPs, including

• • How to identify cryptocurrency
  • How to categorise it
  • How to take control of it and sell it; and
  • What value does it have

What are cryptocurrencies?

L’affaire Cambridge Analytica aura au moins permis de faire progresser le droit : un tribunal anglais estime que l’administrateur d’une société n’est pas, en règle, coresponsable de traitement avec la société dont il a la charge, et que la liquidation n’y change rien.

Cambridge Analytica ?

L’affaire Cambridge Analytica (autrement appelée affaire Facebook) fut, en 2018, un scandale mondial.

One of a business’s greatest concerns with data storage and backup is security, that is, how can you make sure your data is safe both internally and externally if using cloud solutions? Many businesses do not use cloud based solutions because of the perceived security risks. 

In the present fi nancial climate, customers are increasingly asking for business critical software or other assets to be transferred to the customer should the supplier become insolvent, for the legitimate reason that the customer needs security of supply. Two recent Court of Appeal cases remind us that customers who outsource to and contract with potentially vulnerable service providers need to take account of the “anti-deprivation principle” when doing this.

In the matter of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC [2009] EWHC 442 (Ch), Mr Justice Lewison granted an application for the transfer of personal data in the possession of the joint provisional liquidators of a UK subsidiary to the trustee in bankruptcy of its parent company in the US, Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The application was granted on the basis that it was necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.

Consumer Protection

Vacationers Beware: Timeshare Exit Companies May Be Scammers, not Saviors

The Bankruptcy Protector recently discussed notable non-bankruptcy provisions that must be consulted to ensure compliance with privacy issues. In this post, we discuss notable Bankruptcy Code provisions and Bankruptcy Rules on these issues.

Section 101(41) of the Bankruptcy Code—Personally Identifiable Information

Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).