The crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?
This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.
A GLOBAL LEGAL MEDIA & NISHLIS LEGAL MARKETING PUBLICATION THE US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW 2022 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Israel’s Unicorn Success Story SNNOVATION The US-Israel Legal Review 2022 1 Contents THE US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW 2022 2 WELCOME FROM THE PUBLISHERS Global Legal Media and Nishlis Legal Marketing 4 ECONOMIC HEADWINDS, A HOT WAR AND A TRADE WAR: THE IMPACT ON ISRAEL’S COMPANIES With rising interest rates, rising inflation and reduced growth forecasts, how has that reality been faced by corporate clients and start-ups? Arnon, Tadmor-Levy provide some answers.
The crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?
This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.
The crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?
This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.
Demand for virtual currency services, including custody services, has soared in the past several years. Like their counterparts in traditional finance, these custodians are stewards of retail and institutional customer funds and serve an important and valuable function. However, as evidenced by a number of headline-grabbing failures during the lingering crypto winter, inadequate disclosures and poor custodial practices can seriously harm retail and institutional customers alike.
In Worthy Lending LLC v. New Style Contractors. Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that a security interest includes a lender’s right to force the borrower’s account debtors to remit payments directly to the lender, regardless of whether an event of default exists. Further, the court clarified that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not provide a distinction between a security interest and an assignment.
What does it mean to own something? When should the law acknowledge that somebody really owns something, even if they don't formally own it?
And when will courts recognize the economic reality that one person — say, a judgment debtor — in truth owns something, notwithstanding that person's painstaking efforts to keep formal legal title in the hands of others?
The law has long recognized doctrines to disregard the existence, or pierc the veil, of corporate entities to which a debtor has transferred assets.
In a ground-breaking decision for the Cayman Islands as a restructuring centre, the Cayman Islands court has handed down judgment sanctioning four highly complex inter-linked schemes of arrangement.
The schemes result in the compromise of US$3.69 billion of New York law governed debt for the Cayman Islands registered parent of the Ocean Rig group and three of its Marshall Islands incorporated subsidiaries.
On September 8, 2022, a three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) reversed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) when it determined that lenders of a syndicated loan facility to Revlon, Inc.