Digital Assets

Subscribe to Digital Assets via RSS

Back in 2013, the first cryptocurrency matter hit our desks. That was the beginning of the exponential growth of our digital assets practice. Recognizing the importance of the area, we launched this blog, Blockchain and the Law. In our first cluster of posts, we covered topics such as cryptocurrency taxation, blockchain and privacy, and issues surrounding initial coin offerings (or ICOs), one of the hottest issues at that time and a practice that still garners SEC scrutiny in 2022 (interestingly, there is still no consensus around when a digital asset, outside of Bitcoin, which is considered a commodity, is a “security”).

Today, blockchain-based innovations continue apace, continuously offering new opportunities (and raising challenges). In the push toward Web3 – with its decentralized, permissionless, tokenized core – there are a variety of new technologies and innovations, from DeFi to DAOs to NFTs to fan tokens to the Merge to the metaverse.  We have been privileged to work with many of the most dynamic clients in helping them build businesses around these advances.

We were thrilled to host a three-day symposium from September 19-21, 2022 to highlight some of the hottest legal and business issues affecting digital assets, featuring a full slate of discussions among our attorneys and guests from the industry.  At the symposium, we programmed virtual panels across a range of topics: SEC enforcement and securities regulation of digital assets, asset manager considerations surrounding digital assets, employee compensation and benefits issues, cryptocurrency AML considerations, digital assets in bankruptcy, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and sports and media trends and issues in Web3.  The final day of the event culminated in an in-person reception and a “Voices from the Industry” panel featuring an eclectic group of executives from across the digital asset space talking about issues that are top of mind.  In the span of a few days, we learned a lot.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently rejected a proposed settlement of a securities class action involving purchasers of digital tokens due to concerns about whether the lead plaintiff had adequately represented the class for settlement purposes.  Judge Lewis A. Kaplan held in Williams v. …

With the enduring popularity of certain NFTs and the promise of their use in the Metaverse and beyond, the hype around the new technology has been accompanied by rising concerns over NFTs being the centerpiece of traditional financial crimes like money laundering and wire fraud.  For example, on June 30th, 2022 the Justice Department indicted six individuals in four separate cryptocurrency fraud cases, which altogether involved over $130 million of investors’ funds. These indictments include allegations of a global Ponzi scheme selling unregistered crypto securities, a fraudulent initial coin offering involving phony associations with top companies, a fraudulent investment fund that purportedly traded on cryptocurrency exchanges, and the largest-known Non-Fungible Token (NFT) money laundering scheme to date.

On July 5, 2022, cryptocurrency brokerage Voyager Digital filed for chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court, citing a short-term “run on the bank” due to the “crypto winter” in the cryptocurrency industry generally and the default of a significant loan made to a third party as the reasons for its filing.  At Voyager’s first day hearing on July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court asked the critical question of whether the crypto assets on Voyager’s platform were property of the estate or its customers.  Voyager asserted the crypto assets were assets of the estate pursuant to the terms of its customer agreements, but the question of ownership was more problematic in the context of a liquidation.  In that context, Voyager’s plan of reorganization proposes to resolve any mystery of ownership by delivering the reorganized company to its customers.

On July 13, 2022, cryptocurrency lender Celsius Network filed for chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court.  Celsius had frozen customer withdrawals on June 12, 2022 and, at the time of its chapter 11 filing, indicated that it would not be requesting court authority to allow customer withdrawals.  Celsius noted in a press release that customer claims would be addressed through the chapter 11 process.

Voyager’s and Celsius’ chapter 11 bankruptcy filings highlight the question of whether crypto assets held by an exchange, or similar platform, may be considered property of a bankruptcy estate and, therefore, not recoverable by the customer, who would then likely be an unsecured claimholder of the debtor.

While some commentators have suggested that crypto assets might be considered property of the exchange’s bankruptcy estate, existing common law, existing provisions of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 8, and proposed amendments to the UCC recognize that if the arrangement and relationship between the exchange and its customers is one that is characterized as “custodial,” the crypto assets held by the exchange should remain property of the customer and, hence, not subject to dilution by general unsecured claimholders.

There have been a number of developments swirling around stablecoins in the past month, including, earlier this week, the recent introduction in the U.S. Senate of a bill (the “Responsible Financial Innovation Act”) that would put in place a regulatory framework for digital assets and enact certain requirements and consumer protections surrounding stablecoins. The topic of stablecoins’ utility and risk has been in the headlines and on the minds of both legislators and state and federal financial regulators. In a timely move, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), released its “Guidance on the Issuance of U.S. Dollar-Backed Stablecoins” meant to set foundational criteria for USD-backed stablecoins issued by DFS-regulated entities on the issues of redeemability, assets reserves and attestations about such reserves. The NYDFS is the first state regulator to release such guidance. With the fate of Congressional action on stablecoins this year uncertain (and equally uncertain whether federal agencies or banking regulators will step in to offer certain guardrails), it will likely be left to the states (and the industry itself) to establish certain baselines that offer consumer protection and stability without harming innovation. Given NYDFS’s experience in the virtual currency space and its prominence, its latest guidance may be influential to other regulators around the country. 

In the first two instalments of our series we examined the progress of English law to provide a secure and certain legal infrastructure for cryptoasset investment and management. In particular, we looked at how recent English case law has addressed the following questions:

(1) Are cryptoassets property and (2) Can cryptoassets be held on trust? (see Part 1 here)  (3) Where are cryptoassets located for the purposes of securing jurisdiction over claims and remedies? (see Part 2 here).

To recap, a line of recent cases has now made clear that English law recognises cryptocurrencies as property. Although there is no direct English decision on this point yet, there appears to be no reason why cryptocurrencies could not be held on trust. In terms of the location of cryptocurrencies, and therefore securing jurisdiction of the English courts, whether that is the place where the person or company who owns them is domiciled, or where they are resident probably remains open for debate.

In this third (and final) part of the series, we preview potential legal initiatives which are designed to continue building the legal infrastructure for digital assets in the UK, including initiatives such as the UK Law Commission’s Digital Assets Project and the UK Jurisdictional Taskforce’s (UKJT) Digital Dispute Resolution Rules.

In the first part of this series of articles, we examined the progress of English law to shape and build an infrastructure to support the development of a secure and certain environment for investment in digital assets. We considered how recent English case law has addressed the questions of whether cryptoassets are property, and whether they can be held on trust.

In this second instalment, we review jurisdictional issues relating to digital assets.

Where are cryptoassets located?

Where assets are located in the eyes of the law is relevant to questions of what governing law applies to them, the Court’s determination of its own jurisdiction (including the appropriate forum for a claim to be resolved) and questions of service of court documents outside the jurisdiction. Crypto-disputes raise questions of where cryptocurrency exchanges are located, the identification and location of defendants, and where cryptoassets (which have no traditional physical form) are situated.

The law of the jurisdiction in which property which is subject to litigation is located is referred to as the lex situs of the property. In general terms, Courts determine the lex situs of land and chattels based on their (physical) location, and in respect of enforceable personal rights over property (known as choses in action) where they are recoverable or can be enforced. Given their intangible nature, determining the lex situs of cryptoassets is a question the English Courts have needed to grapple with sooner or later.

The Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown (unreported, 21 December 2020) case presented an opportunity to do so. It suggested that for the purposes of English law the lex situs of cryptocurrency is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled.[1] This approach was followed in Fetch.ai Ltd and another v Persons Unknown Category A and others[2] as part of the Court’s consideration of whether to grant permission for the claimants to serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction. (In that case, the claimants were then able to obtain a worldwide freezing order and proprietary injunctive relief against unknown fraudsters, among other orders.)