crypto Archives - The National Law Forum

Supreme Court Says When It Comes to Deciding Arbitration Clauses: “I Am the Law”

On May 23, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that when parties have two conflicting contracts – one that sends disputes to arbitration and one that sends disputes to the courts – a court, not an arbitrator, must decide which contract controls. This decision is important as arbitration provisions continue to rise in popularity and situations like the one the Supreme Court encountered are not uncommon.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase Inc., v. Suski, et. al., stems from a dispute regarding two separate contracts between Coinbase, a leading cryptocurrency exchange platform, and respondents, users of Coinbase. The first contract concerned the Coinbase user agreement, which included an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause. The delegation clause provided that “[a]ll such matters shall be decided by an arbitrator and not by a court or judge.” The second contract concerned the official rules of a sweepstakes Coinbase offered, where respondents entered for a chance to win Dogecoin. The official rules contained a forum selection clause, which provided: “[t]he California courts (state and federal) shall have sole jurisdiction of any controversies regarding the [sweepstakes] promotion and the laws of California shall govern the promotion.” Thus, the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause, which sent all disputes to arbitration, and the official rules’ forum selection clause, which sent all disputes to California courts, provided for different procedural vehicles for disputes.

Respondents brought suit against Coinbase in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for claims under the Coinbase user agreement and the official rules. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration based on the Coinbase user agreement, and the District Court denied the motion, reasoning that deciding which contract governed was a question for the court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari, and was tasked to decide, when two such contracts exist, who should decide the arbitrability of a contract-related dispute between the parties – an arbitrator or the court?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court, began the Court’s analysis by noting that the Supreme Court has “previously addressed three layers of arbitration disputes: (1) merits, (2) arbitrability, and (3) who decides arbitrability. This case involves a fourth: What happens if parties have multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability?”. Justice Jackson wrote that “[b]asic legal principles establish the answer. Arbitration is a matter of contract and consent, and we have long held that disputes are subject to arbitration if, and only if, the parties actually agreed to arbitrate those disputes. Here… a court needs to decide what the parties have agreed to.” So, if there is a contract at dispute without an arbitration clause, even if there is another contract that requires arbitration, the matter will need to be decided by a court.

Coinbase argued that the user agreement’s delegation provision should have been isolated and severed from the contract and the Ninth Circuit should have considered only arguments specific to that provision. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, reasoning that if a party challenges the validity of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court also declined to heed Coinbase’s warning that its ruling would “invite chaos by facilitating challenges to delegation clauses.” To this argument, the Supreme Court replied that such chaos will not follow because disputes with one contract that mandates arbitration will go to arbitration absent a successful challenge, and situations with two contracts – one sending the dispute to arbitration and one sending the dispute to the courts – will be handled by a court.

This is an important decision in the dispute resolution space because it makes clear that even though a company may have an arbitration provision in one contract, that arbitration provision will not necessarily carry the day if there are subsequent contracts that provide for different results. As companies continue to increasingly use arbitration provisions in their contracts, they must be careful to be consistent in any future contracts or agreements.

Death, Taxes, and Crypto Reporting – The Three Things You Cannot Escape

The IRS released a draft of Form 1099-DA “Digital Asset Proceeds from Broker Transactions” in April which will require anyone defined as a “broker” to report certain information related to the sale of digital assets. The new reporting requirements will be effective for transactions occurring in 2025 and beyond. The release of Form 1099-DA follows a change in the tax law.

In 2021, Congress amended code section 6045 to define “broker” to include any “person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person.” This is an expansion of the definition of a “broker.” The language ‘any service effectuating transfers of digital assets’ is oftentimes construed by many in the tax practitioner community as a catch-all term, in which the government could use to determine many people involved in digital asset platforms aa “brokers.”

The IRS proposed new regulations in August 2023 to further define and clarify the new reporting requirements. Under the proposed regulations, Form 1099-DA reporting would be required even for noncustodial transactions including facilitative services if the provider is in a “position to know” the identity of the seller and the nature of the transaction giving rise to gross proceeds. With apparently no discernible limits, facilitative services include “services that directly or indirectly effectuate a sale of digital assets.” Position to know means “the ability” to “request” a user’s identifying information and to determine whether a transaction gives rise to gross proceeds. Under these proposed regulations and the expanded definition of “broker,” a significant number of transactions that previously did not require 1099 reporting will now require reporting. There has been pushback against these proposed regulations, but the IRS appears determined to move forward with these additional reporting requirements.

The Future of Stablecoins, Crypto Staking and Custody of Digital Assets

In the wake of the collapse of cryptocurrency exchange firm FTX, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ratcheted up its oversight and enforcement of crypto firms engaged in activities ranging from crypto staking to custody of digital assets. This is due in part to concerns that the historically free-wheeling and largely unregulated crypto marketplace may adversely impact U.S. investors and contaminate traditional financial systems. The arguments that cryptocurrencies and digital assets should not be viewed as securities under federal laws largely fall on deaf ears at the SEC. Meanwhile, the state of the crypto economy in the United States remains in flux as the SEC, other regulators and politicians alike attempt to balance competing interests of innovation and investment in a relatively novel and untested asset class.

Is Crypto Staking Dead?

First, what is crypto staking? By way of background, it’s necessary to understand a bit about blockchain technology, which serves as the underpinning for all cryptocurrency and digital asset transactions. One of the perceived benefits of such transactions is that they are decentralized and “peer-to-peer” – meaning that Person A can transact directly with Person B without the need for a financial intermediary to approve the transaction.

However, in the absence of a central authority to validate a transaction, blockchain requires other verification processes or consensus mechanisms such as “proof of work” (which in the case of Bitcoin mining ensures that transactions are valid and added to the Bitcoin blockchain correctly) or “proof of stake” (a network of “validators” who contribute or “stake” their own crypto in exchange for a chance to validate a new transaction, update the blockchain and earn a reward). Proof of work has come under fire by environmental activists for the enormous amounts of computer power and energy required to solve complex mathematical or cryptographic puzzles to validate a transaction before it can be recorded on the blockchain. In contrast, proof of stake is analogous to a shareholder voting their shares of stock to approve a corporate transaction.

Second, why has crypto staking caught the attention of the SEC? Many crypto firms and exchanges offer “staking as a service” (SaaS) whereby investors can stake (or lend) their digital assets in exchange for lucrative returns. This practice is akin to a person depositing cash in a bank account in exchange for interest payments – minus FDIC insurance backing of all such bank deposits to protect investors.

Recently, on February 9, 2023, the SEC charged two crypto firms, commonly known as “Kraken,” for violating federal securities laws by offering a lucrative crypto asset SaaS program. Pursuant to this program, investors could stake their digital assets with Kraken in exchange for annual investment returns of up to 21 percent. According to the SEC, this program constituted the unregistered sale of securities in violation of federal securities laws. Moreover, the SEC claims that Kraken failed to adequately disclose the risks associated with its staking program. According to the SEC’s Enforcement Division director:

“Kraken not only offered investors outsized returns untethered to any economic realities but also retained the right to pay them no returns at all. All the while, it provided them zero insight into, among other things, its financial condition and whether it even had the means of paying the marketed returns in the first place.”¹

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Kraken has agreed to pay a $30 million civil penalty and will no longer offer crypto staking services to U.S. investors. Meanwhile, other crypto firms that offer similar programs, such as Binance and Coinbase, are waiting for the other shoe to drop – including the possibility that the SEC will ban all crypto staking programs for U.S. retail investors. Separate and apart from potentially extinguishing a lucrative revenue stream for crypto firms and investors alike, it may have broader consequences for proof of stake consensus mechanisms commonly used to validate blockchain transactions.

NY DFS Targets Stablecoins

In the world of cryptocurrency, stablecoins are typically considered the most secure and least volatile because they are often pegged 1:1 to some designated fiat (government-backed) currency such as U.S. dollars. In particular, all stablecoins issued by entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) are required to be fully backed 1:1 by cash or cash equivalents. However, on February 13, 2023, NY DFS unexpectedly issued a consumer alert stating that it had ordered Paxos Trust Company (Paxos) to stop minting and issuing a stablecoin known as “BUSD.” BUSD is reportedly the third largest stablecoin by market cap and pegged to the U.S. dollar.

The reasoning behind the NY DFS order remains unclear from the alert, which merely states that “DFS has ordered Paxos to cease minting Paxos-issued BUSD as a result of several unresolved issues related to Paxos’ oversight of its relationship with Binance in regard to Paxos-issued BUSD.”²The same day, Paxos confirmed that it would stop issuing BUSD. However, in an effort to assuage investors, Paxos stated “All BUSD tokens issued by Paxos Trust have and always will be backed 1:1 with U.S. dollar–denominated reserves, fully segregated and held in bankruptcy remote accounts.”³

Separately, the SEC reportedly issued a Wells Notice to Paxos on February 12, 2023, indicating that it intended to commence an enforcement action against the company for violating securities laws in connection with the sale of BUSD, which the SEC characterized as unregistered securities. Paxos, meanwhile, categorically denies that BUSD constitute securities, but nonetheless has agreed to stop issuing these tokens in light of the NY DFS order.

It remains to be seen whether the regulatory activity targeting BUSD is the beginning of a broader crackdown on stablecoins amid concerns that, contrary to popular belief, such coins may not be backed by adequate cash reserves.

Custody of Crypto Assets

On February 15, 2023, the SEC proposed changes to the existing “custody rule” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. As noted by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the custody rule was designed to “help ensure that [investment] advisers don’t inappropriately use, lose, or abuse investors’ assets.”⁴The proposed changes to the rule (referred to as the “safeguarding rule”) would require investment advisers to maintain client assets – specifically including crypto assets – in qualified custodial accounts. As the SEC observed, “[although] crypto assets are a relatively recent and emerging type of asset, this is not the first time custodians have had to adapt their practices to safeguard different types of assets.”⁵

A qualified custodian generally is a federal or state-chartered bank or savings association, certain trust companies, a registered broker-dealer, a registered futures commission merchant or certain foreign financial institutions.⁶ However, as noted by the SEC, many crypto assets trade on platforms that are not qualified custodians. Accordingly, “this practice would generally result in an adviser with custody of a crypto asset security being in violation of the current custody rule because custody of the crypto asset security would not be maintained by a qualified custodian from the time the crypto asset security was moved to the trading platform through the settlement of the trade.”⁷

Moreover, in a departure from existing practice, the proposed safeguarding rule would require an investment adviser to enter into a written agreement with the qualified custodian. This custodial agreement would set forth certain minimum protections for the safeguarding of customer assets, including crypto assets, such as:

Implementing appropriate measures to safeguard an advisory client’s assets⁸
Indemnifying an advisory client when its negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct results in that client’s loss⁹
Segregating an advisory client’s assets from its proprietary assets¹⁰
Keeping certain records relating to an advisory client’s assets
Providing an advisory client with periodic custodial account statements¹¹
Evaluating the effectiveness of its internal controls related to its custodial practices.¹²

The new proposed, cumbersome requirements for custodians of crypto assets appear to be a direct consequence of the collapse of FTX, which resulted in the inexplicable “disappearance” of billions of dollars of customer funds. By tightening the screws on custodians and investment advisers, the SEC is seeking to protect the everyday retail investor by leveling the playing field in the complex and often murky world of crypto. However, it still remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the proposed safeguarding rule will emerge after the public comment period, which will remain open for 60 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

¹ SEC Press Release 2023-25 (Feb. 9, 2023).

²NY DFS Consumer Alert (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/alerts/Paxos_and_Binance.

³ Paxos Press Release (Feb. 13, 2023) found at https://paxos.com/2023/02/13/paxos-will-halt-minting-new-busd-tokens/.

⁴ SEC Press Release 2023-30 (Feb. 15, 2023).

⁵ SEC Proposed Rule, p. 79.

⁶ SEC Fact Sheet: Proposed Safeguarding Rule.

⁷ SEC Proposed Rule, p. 68.

⁸For instance, per the SEC, this could require storing crypto assets in a “cold wallet.”

⁹ Per the SEC, “the proposed indemnification requirement would likely operate as a substantial expansion in the protections provided by qualified custodians to advisory clients, in particular because it would result in some custodians holding advisory client assets subject to a simple negligence standard rather than a gross negligence standard.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 89.

¹⁰ Per the SEC, this requirement is intended to “ensure that client assets are at all times readily identifiable as client property and remain available to the client even if the qualified custodian becomes financially insolvent or if the financial institution’s creditors assert a lien against the qualified custodian’s proprietary assets (or liabilities).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 92.

¹¹ Per the SEC, “[in] a change from the current custody rule, the qualified custodian would also now be required to send account statements, at least quarterly, to the investment adviser, which would allow the adviser to more easily perform account reconciliations.” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 98.

¹² Per the SEC, the proposed rule would require that the “qualified custodian, at least annually, will obtain, and provide to the investment adviser a written internal control report that includes an opinion of an independent public accountant as to whether controls have been placed in operation as of a specific date, are suitably designed, and are operating effectively to meet control objectives relating to custodial services (including the safeguarding of the client assets held by that qualified custodian during the year).” See SEC Proposed Rule, p. 101.

Article By Anjali C. Das of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Who Owns the Crypto, the Customer or the Debtor?

Whose crytpo is it? With the multiple cryptocurrency companies that have recently filed for bankruptcy (FTX, Voyager Digital, BlockFi), and more likely on the way, that simple sounding question is taking on huge significance. Last week, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Chief Judge Martin Glenn) attempted to answer that question in the Celsius Network LLC bankruptcy case.

The Facts of the Case

Celsius and its affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors”) ran a cryptocurrency finance platform. Faced with extreme turbulence in the cryptocurrency markets, the Debtors filed Chapter 11 petitions on July 13, 2022. As part of their regular business, the Debtors had allowed customers to both deposit cryptocurrency digital assets on their platform and earn a percentage yield, as well as take out loans by pledging their cryptocurrencies as security. One specific program offered by the Debtors was the “Earn” program, under which customers could transfer certain cryptocurrencies to the Debtors and earn “rewards” in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens. On the petition date, the Earn program accounts (the “Earn Accounts”) held cryptocurrency assets with a market value of approximately $4.2 billion. Included within the Earn Accounts were stablecoins valued at approximately $23 million in September 2022. A stablecoin is a type of cryptocurrency designed to be tied or pegged to another currency, commodity or financial instrument.

Recognizing their emerging need for liquidity, on November 11, 2022, the Debtors filed a motion seeking entry of an order (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption that the Debtors owned the assets in the Earn Accounts and (b) permitting the sale of the stablecoins held in the Earn Accounts under either section 363(c)(1) (sale in the ordinary course of business) or section 363(b)(1) (sale outside the ordinary course of business) of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion generated opposition from the U.S. Trustee, various States and State securities regulators and multiple creditors and creditor groups. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors objected to the sale of the stablecoins under section 363(c)(1) but argued that the sale should be approved under section 363(b)(1) because the Debtors had shown a good business reason for the sale (namely to pay ongoing administrative expenses of the bankruptcy cases). On January 4, 2023, the court issued its forty-five (45) page memorandum opinion granting the Debtors’ motion.

The Court’s Decision

Although the ownership issue may appear complex given the nature of the assets (i.e., cryptocurrency), the bankruptcy court framed the issue into relatively straightforward state law questions of contract formation and interpretation. The court first analyzed whether there was a valid contract governing the parties’ rights to the cryptocurrency assets in the Earn Accounts. Under governing New York law, a valid, enforceable contract requires an offer and acceptance (i.e., mutual assent), consideration and an intent to be bound. The court found that all three elements were satisfied. The Debtors required that all customers agree to and accept “Terms of Use.” The Terms of Use was set up as a “clickwrap” agreement that required customers to agree to the terms and prevented the customers from advancing to the next page and completing their sign up unless they agreed to the Terms of Use. Under New York law, “clickwrap” agreements are sufficient to constitute mutual assent. The court also found that consideration was given by way of allowing the customers to earn a financing fee (i.e., the rewards in the form of payment of in-kind interest or tokens). Finally, the court noted that no party had presented evidence that either the Debtors or the customers lacked intent to be bound by the contract terms. Accordingly, the court held that the Terms of Use constituted a valid contract, subject to the rights of customers to put forth individual contract formation defenses in the future, including claims of fraudulent inducement based on representations allegedly made by the Debtors’ former CEO, Alex Mashinsky.

Having found a valid contract to presumptively exist, the court turned its attention to what the Terms of Use provided in terms of transfer of ownership. In operative part, the Terms of Use provided:

In consideration for the Rewards payable to you on the Eligible Digital Assets using the Earn Service … and the use of our Services, you grant Celsius … all right and title to such Eligible Digital Assets, including ownership rights, and the right, without further notice to you, to hold such Digital Assets in Celsius’ own Virtual Wallet or elsewhere, and to pledge, re-pledge, hypothecate, rehypothecate, sell, lend or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such Digital Assets, separately or together with other property, with all the attendant rights of ownership, and for any period of time, and without retaining in Celsius’ possession and/or control a like amount of Digital Assets or any other monies or assets, and use or invest such Digital Assets in Celsius’ full discretion. You acknowledge that with respect Digital Assets used by Celsius pursuant to this paragraph:

You will not be able to exercise rights of ownership;
Celsius may receive compensation in connection with lender or otherwise using Digital Assets in its business to which you have no claim or entitlement; and
In the event that Celsius becomes bankrupt, enters liquidation or is otherwise unable to repay its obligations, any Eligible Digital Assets used in the Earn Service or as collateral under the Borrow Service may not be recoverable, and you may not have any legal remedies or rights in connection with Celsius’ obligations to you other than your rights as a creditor of Celsius under any applicable laws.

Based on this language, the court held that the Terms of Use unambiguously transferred ownership of the assets in the Earn Accounts to the Debtors. Central to the court’s decision was that under the Terms of Use customers had granted the Debtors “all right and title to such Digital Assets, including ownership rights.” Based on this language, the court found that title and ownership of the cryptocurrency held in the Earn Accounts was “unequivocally transferred to the Debtors and became property of the Estate on the Petition Date.”

Finally, the court found that the Debtors had shown that they needed to generate liquidity to fund the bankruptcy cases, and that additional liquidity would be needed early this year. Accordingly, the court held that the Debtors had shown sufficient cause to permit the sale of the stablecoins outside of the ordinary course of business in accordance with section 363(b)(1).

Implications

Given the turbulent nature of the cryptocurrency market and the likelihood of further cryptocurrency bankruptcy filings, the court’s ruling is sure to have significant implications. First, unless it is reversed on appeal, the opinion means that the Debtors’ Earn program customers do not own the funds in their digital accounts and will instead be relegated to the status of unsecured creditors with a highly uncertain recovery. Second, the opinion underscores the Wild West nature of crypto and the fact that unlike deposits at a federally insured financial institution, deposits at cryptocurrency exchanges are not similarly insured and may be at risk. Third, customers or account holders in other cryptocurrency exchanges or businesses should carefully review the applicable terms of use to determine if those terms transferred ownership of their digital assets to their cryptocurrency counterparty. It is likely a fair assumption that such other terms of use transferred ownership in the same way that the Celsius Terms of Use did, in which case customers must remain vigilant of the financial health of their cryptocurrency counterparty. Finally, all parties engaging in on-line business transactions, including those outside of cryptocurrency, are on notice that clickwrap agreements commonly found in such transactions are, at least under New York law, enforceable. In short, those agreements mean something, and the fact that a party did not read the terms before agreeing to them through a “click” is likely not going to be a viable defense to the enforcement of those terms.

For more Bankruptcy Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

NFT Endorsed by Celebrities Prompts Class Action

Since the early days of the launch of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) non-fungible tokens (NFTs), several celebrities have promoted the NFTs. On Dec. 8, 2022, plaintiffs Adonis Real and Adam Titcher brought a lawsuit against Yuga Labs, creators of the BAYC, alleging that Yuga Labs was involved in a scheme with the “highly connected” talent agent Greg Oseary, a number of well-known celebrities, and Moonpay USA LLC, a crypto tech company. According to the complaint:

Yuga Labs partnered with Oseary to recruit celebrities to promote and solicit sales of BYAC;
Celebrities promoted the BAYC on their various platforms;
Oseary used MoonPay to secretly pay the celebrities; and
The celebrities failed to disclose the payments in their endorsements.

According to the complaint, as a result of the various and misleading celebrity promotions, trading volume for the BYAC NFTs exploded, prompting the defendants to launch the ApeCoin and form the ApeCoin decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Investors who had purchased the ApeCoin allegedly lost a significant amount of money when the value of the coins decreased.

This case highlights the potential risks that may arise in connection with certain endorsements. In addition to the FTC, the SEC also has issued guidance on requirements in connection with promotional activities relating to securities, which may include digital assets, such as tokens or NFTs. Under SEC guidance, any paid promoter, celebrity or otherwise, of a security, including digital assets, must disclose the nature, scope and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. This would include tv/radio advertisements and print, in addition to promotions on social media sites.

Article By Barbara A. Jones, William B. Mack, and India L. Sneed of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Quantifying Cryptocurrency Claims in Bankruptcy: Does the Dollar Still Reign Supreme?

In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming. Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors. The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms. These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms. Some of these funds allegedly were commingled or rehypothecated, leaving customer accounts severely underfunded when liquidity crunches arose at the various entities. The total amount of such claims is estimated to be in the billions — that is, if these claims ultimately are measured in United States Dollars (“USD”).

Crypto-watchers and bankruptcy lawyers alike have speculated how customer claims based on digital assets such as cryptocurrencies should be valued and measured under bankruptcy law. Given the volatility of cryptocurrency prices, this determination may have a significant effect on recoveries, as well as the viability of the “payment-in-kind” distribution mechanics proposed in Voyager, Celsius, and BlockFi. A number of creditors appearing pro se in these proceedings have expressed a desire to keep their mix of cryptocurrencies through these proposed “in-kind” distributions.

However, a crypto-centric approach to valuing claims and making distributions raises a number of issues for consideration. For example, measuring customer claims in cryptocurrency and making “in-kind” distributions of these assets could lead to creditors within the same class receiving recoveries of disparate USD value as the result of the fluctuation in cryptocurrency prices. Moreover, as has been discussed in the Celsius proceedings, the administrative burden associated with maintaining, accounting for, and distributing a wide variety of cryptocurrencies as part of a recovery scheme would likely prove complex. Equity holders also might challenge the confirmability of a plan where valuations and recoveries are based on cryptocurrency rather than USD, as a dramatic rise in cryptocurrency values could return some value to equity.

Like most issues at the intersection of insolvency and cryptocurrency, there is little precedent to guide creditors through the uncertainties, but a recent dispute in the Celsius bankruptcy proceedings as to whether a debtor is required to schedule claims in USD, or whether cryptocurrency claims can be scheduled “in-kind,” may serve as a preview of things to come.

I. General Background

Celsius Network (“Celsius” and, together with its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession, the “Debtors”), self-described as one of the “largest and most sophisticated” cryptocurrency-based finance platforms and lenders that claimed over 1.7 million users worldwide,¹ filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 13, 2022.² On October 5, 2022, the Debtors filed their schedules of assets and liabilities (“Schedules”). Each Debtor’s schedule of unsecured creditors’ claims (Schedule E/F) lists the claims of the Debtors’ customers by the number of various forms of cryptocurrency coins and account types, rather than in USD.³

On October 25, 2022, a group of beneficial holders, investment advisors, and managers of beneficial holders (collectively, the “Series B Preferred Holders”) of the Series B Preferred Shares issued by debtor Celsius Network Limited filed a motion seeking entry of an order directing the Debtors to amend their Schedules to reflect customer claims valued in USD, in addition to cryptocurrency coin counts.⁴

II. Arguments

a. Series B Preferred Holders

Broadly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a),⁵ the Series B Preferred Holders sought to have the Debtors amend their Schedule E/F to “dollarize” creditors’ claims, i.e., value customer claims in their dollar value as of the petition date. As filed, the Series B Preferred Holders asserted that the Debtors’ schedules were “improper, misleading, and fail[ed] to comply” with the Bankruptcy Rules “because they schedule[d] customer claims in cryptocurrency coin counts, rather than in lawful currency of the United States as of the Petition Date.”⁶ The Series B Preferred Holders asserted that such amended schedules are essential to the Debtors’ ability to structure, solicit, and confirm a plan of reorganization under the requirements of Section 1129, including whether “(i) claims are impaired or unimpaired, (ii) holders of similarly situated claims are receiving the same treatment, and (iii) the plan meets the requirements of the ‘absolute priority rule.’”⁷ In support of their arguments that USD valuation of a customer’s claim should be required, the Series B Preferred Holders relied on provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules, Bankruptcy Code, and Official Forms. The Series B Preferred Holders stressed that the motion “takes no position regarding the form of distribution customers” should receive under the Debtors’ plan, but rather that the Debtors must “add the [USD] amount of each customer claim in Schedules E/F to the cryptocurrency coin counts.”⁸

The Series B Preferred Holders also asserted that the requirement to denominate claims in USD is consistent with Section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that when a debtor or party-in-interest objects to a claim, the court determines the amount of the claim in USD as of the debtor’s petition date.

b. Debtors’ Response

The Debtors had previously indicated that they were not seeking to dollarize its customers’ claims; rather, the Debtors represented that they intend to return cryptocurrency assets to its customers “in kind.”⁹ The Debtors stated that they interpreted Bankruptcy Rule 9009(a)(1)-(2) and General Order M-386, dated November 24, 2009 (the “General Order M-386”) to allow the Debtors to remove the dollar symbol when scheduling claims regarding cryptocurrency coin counts.¹⁰ This approach, the Debtors argue, lessens confusion for its customer case and decreases administrative expense for the estate.¹¹

Further, the Debtors argued that the Series B Preferred Holders’ reliance on Section 502(b) was misplaced because the application of such section is inapplicable at this stage of the proceedings where no claims objection has taken place.¹²

The Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) agreed with the Debtors’ approach, stating that it “makes sense” for account holders to validate their scheduled claims by cryptocurrency type and that it wished to be consulted on the petition date prices used by the Debtors if they filed an amendment to the schedules.¹³

III. Analysis

a. Bankruptcy Code & Rules & Forms

Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b)(1) requires that a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities must be “prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms.”¹⁴ The relevant official form that a debtor must use to prepare its schedule of assets and liabilities is Official Form 206, which contains a USD symbol to denote the amount of liabilities that a debtor must list.¹⁵ Specifically, Official Form 206 provides:

As seen above, Official Form 206 does “hardwire” a dollar sign (“$”) into the boxes provided for claim amounts. Bankruptcy Rule 9009 states that the official forms are to “be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided in the rules, [or] in a particular Official Form.”¹⁶ Bankruptcy Rule 9009 permits “certain minor changes not affecting wording or the order of presenting information,” including “expand[ing] the prescribed areas for responses in order to permit complete responses” and “delet[ing] space not needed for responses.”¹⁷ Lastly, General Order M-386 permits “such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”¹⁸ The introduction to General Order M-386 states that standard forms were adopted to “expedite court review and entry of such orders” and that courts will expect use of the standard forms “with only such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”¹⁹

b. Section 502(b)

Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b) provides that if there is an objection to a claim, the court “shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the [petition] date . . . .”²⁰ This “prevents the value of a claim from fluctuating by setting the claim as of the petition date and converting it to the United States dollars.”²¹ Acknowledging the “novel phenomenon” of dollarizing claims in cryptocurrency, the Series B Preferred Holders analogize this to cases where courts have required claims asserted in or based on in foreign currency or amounts of gold should be valued in USD. However, these cases were decided in the context of a claims objection. The Celsius Debtors argued that these cases have limited utility in the context of a motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a).²²

IV. The Court’s Order

Ahead of the hearing regarding the motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules, the Debtors and the Series B Preferred Holders were able to consensually resolve the motion and filed a revised proposed order prior to the hearing on the motions on November 15.²³ The Debtors agreed to amend their schedules by filing a conversion table within three days of the entry of the order, in consultation with the UCC and Series B Preferred Holders, that reflects the Debtors’ view of the rate of conversion of all cryptocurrencies listed in the Debtors’ schedules to USD as of the petition date. The idea is that the conversion table could be used by customers as a reference for calculating the USD value of their claim, to the extent needed for filing a proof of claim. The conversion table is not binding – the order preserves the rights of all parties to contest the conversion rates and does not require a party-in-interest to file an objection that is not stated in USD “solely on the basis that such claims should be reflected in [USD].”²⁴ The order also requires the Debtors to file updated schedules “dollarizing” its account holders’ cryptocurrency holdings to the extent required by any future court order or judicial determination.

On November 17, 2022, the court entered the revised proposed order.²⁵

V. Cash Is Still King?

Other bankruptcy courts have taken similar approaches as the Celsius court in this issue. An earlier cryptocurrency case, In re Cred Inc., the debtors did not schedule cryptocurrency claims in USD, but included a conversion table in their filed schedules, which set forth a conversion rate to USD as of the petition date.²⁶ Debtors in other cases, such as Voyager Digital, scheduled the amounts of their customer claims as “undetermined” and listed them in Schedule F in cryptocurrency.²⁷ BlockFi, which filed for bankruptcy on November 28, 2022, already has filed a proposed plan that would distribute its cryptocurrencies to its customers in–kind in exchange for their claims against the BlockFi debtors.²⁸ To date, neither BlockFi nor FTX have filed their schedules, and it remains to be seen whether they will follow the pattern established in Celsius and Voyager.

For creditors and equity holders, whether claims are measured in USD or the applicable cryptocurrency is only the beginning of what will likely be a long and contentious road to recovery. It remains to be seen whether any of these debtors will be able to confirm a viable restructuring plan that relies on any sort of “in-kind” distribution of cryptocurrencies. Further issues are likely to arise in the claims resolution process even further down the road as claimants and liquidation trustees (or plan administrators) wrestle with how to value claims based on such a volatile asset, subject to ever-increasing regulatory scrutiny. However, for the time being, the bankruptcy process continues to run on USD.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Declaration of Alex Mashinsky, CEO of the Debtors ¶¶ 1, 9, 20, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 23].

² Id. at ¶ 131.

³ Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 974]; see also Schedule E/F, Case No. 22-10967 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10970 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10968 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10965 [Docket No. 6]; Case No. 22-10966 [Docket No. 7]; Case No. 22-10964 [Docket No. 974]; Case No. 22-10969 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22- 10971 [Docket No. 5].

⁴ Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1183].

⁵ “On motion of a party in interest, after notice and a hearing, the court may order any . . . schedule . . . to be amended and the clerk shall give notice of the amendment to entities designated by the court.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009(a).

6 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules ¶ 1.

⁷Id. ¶ 3 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 1123(a)(2)-(4), 1129(a)(1), 1129(b)).

⁸ Series B Preferred Holders’ Reply ¶ 10, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1334].

⁹ See 8/16/22 Hr’g Tr. at 35:5-7 (“The company is not seeking to dollarize claims on the petition date and give people back a recovery in fiat.”); id. at 42:11-16 (“[The UCC is] pleased that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . an in-kind recovery is absolutely critical.”).

¹⁰ General Order M-386 is a resolution of the Board of Judges for the Southern District of New York, which provides for “a standard form for orders to establish deadlines for the filing of proofs of claim . . . in chapter 11 cases” to “thereby expedite court review and entry of such orders.”

¹¹ Debtors’ Objection to Series B Preferred Holders’ Motion ¶ 9, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1304].

¹² Id. ¶ 12 (citing In re Mohr, 425 B.R. 457, 464 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio)).

¹³ Id. at 42:12-16 (“We are pleased to hear that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . receiving an in-kind recover is 16 absolutely critical.”); UCC Statement and Reservation of Rights ¶ 6, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1303].

¹⁴ Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(1).

¹⁵ See Official Form 206, Part 2, Line 4 (using the USD sign into Form 206 for scheduling the debtor’s liabilities).

¹⁶ Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9009(a).

¹⁷ Id.

¹⁸ General Order M-386 ¶ 9.

¹⁹ General Order M-386 ¶ 2 (unnumbered, preliminary statement).

²⁰ 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).

²¹In re Aaura, Inc., No. 06 B 01853, 2006 WL 2568048, at *4, n.5 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2006).

²² In re USGen New Eng., Inc., 429 B.R. 437, 492 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010) (using the exchange rate in effect on the petition date, in the context of a claims objection, to convert the claim to USD), aff’d sub nom. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. USGen New Eng., Inc., 458 B.R. 195 (D. Md. 2011); Aaura, 2006 WL 2568048, at *5 (“Section 502(b) converts Aaura’s obligation to repay the obligation in gold into a claim against the estate in dollars, but it makes this transformation only as of the petition date, not retroactive to the date on which Aaura first became liable.”); Matter of Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 88 B.R. 597, 608 n.19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (noting Section 502(b) refers to the petition date as “the appropriate date for conversion of foreign currency claims”), aff’d sub nom. In re Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); ABC Dev. Learning Ctrs. (USA), Inc. v. RCS Capital Dev., LLC (In re RCS Capital Dev., LLC), No. AZ-12-1381-JuTaAh, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4666, at *38-39 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 16, 2013) (same).

²³ Notice of Proposed Order, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1342].

²⁴ Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.

²⁵ Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1099 Directing the Debtors to Amend Their Schedules in Certain Circumstances, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1387].

²⁶ Schedules at 12, In re Cred Inc., Case No. 20-128336 (JTD) (Bankr. D. Del. 2021) [ECF No. 443].

²⁷ Schedules, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., Case No. 22-10943 (MEW) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2022) [ECF No. 311].

²⁸ Joint Plan of Reorganization § IV.B.1.a, In re BlockFi Inc., Case No. 19361 (MBK) (Bankr. D.N.J. 2022) [ECF No. 22].

Article By Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

CFPB Investigates Crypto Lender

On December 1, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) made public an administrative order denying Nexo Financial LLC’s (Nexo) petition to modify the Bureau’s civil investigative demand. The order represents the first publicly known Bureau investigation of a digital asset company, in this case, over Nexo’s “Earn Interest” crypto lending product.

The Bureau served Nexo with a civil investigative demand in late 2021 seeking further information about whether Nexo products were subject to federal consumer financial law, and in particular Nexo’s compliance with the Consumer Financial Protection Act and regulations under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Nexo sought to set aside the civil investigative demand and argued that, because the SEC had taken the position that other crypto lending products were securities, the Bureau was estopped from investigating it under provisions of federal law that preempt the Bureau from regulating securities products.

The Bureau rejected Nexo’s line of reasoning. According to the Bureau order, “Nexo Financial is trying to avoid answering any of the Bureau’s questions about the Earn Interest Product (on the theory that the product is a security subject to SEC oversight) while at the same time preserving the argument that the product is not a security subject to SEC oversight.” The order continues, “This attempt to have it both ways dooms Nexo Financial’s petition from the start.” The Bureau also found that Nexo’s petition was not timely filed.

As we recently noted, the Bureau has been increasing its attention to the digital asset sector. The Nexo order includes a lengthy discussion about the breadth of its jurisdiction and ability to investigate potential violations of law. As the crypto winter persists, we expect to see the Bureau continue to explore ways to assert its authority to regulate elements of the digital asset sector.

Article By Scott H. Kimpel of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Federal Reserve Issues Latest Financial Stability Report

At the end of last week, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) issued its semi-annual Financial Stability Report.

In a statement issued with the report, FRB Vice Chair Lael Brainard stated that over the past six months, “household and business indebtedness has remained generally stable, and on aggregate households and businesses have maintained the ability to cover debt servicing, despite rising interest rates.” She also noted that “[t]oday’s environment of rapid synchronous global monetary policy tightening, elevated inflation, and high uncertainty associated with the pandemic and the war raises the risk that a shock could lead to the amplification of vulnerabilities, for instance due to strained liquidity in core financial markets or hidden leverage.”

The Report notes that the FRB’s monitoring framework “distinguishes between shocks to, and vulnerabilities of, the financial system,” and “focuses primarily on assessing vulnerabilities, with an emphasis on four broad categories and how those categories might interact to amplify stress in the financial system.” The four categories of vulnerabilities are (1) valuation pressures, (2) borrowing by businesses and households, (3) leverage within the financial sector, and (4) funding risks. The overview of the Report notes that since the May report was released, “the economic outlook has weakened and uncertainty about the outlook has remained elevated, noting that “[i]nflation remains unacceptably high in the United States and is also elevated in many other countries.”

Related to the funding risk vulnerability (and perhaps showing some prescience to our lead story on FTX this week), the Report noted that stable coins remained vulnerable to runs. The Report included a highlighted discussion of digital assets and financial stability noting trouble and volatility in the crypto market in the spring of this year. That discussion noted that the “[t]he turmoil in the digital asset ecosystem did not have notable effects on the traditional financial system because the digital assets ecosystem does not provide significant financial services and its interconnections with the broader financial system are limited.” However, the report noted that as digital assets grow, so too will the risks to financial stability, and cited the October FSOC Report on Digital Asset Financial Stability Risks and Regulation in addressing those risks and regulatory gaps.

The Report identified several near-term risks that “could be amplified” through the four financial vulnerabilities, including high inflation, geopolitical risks (noting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), market fragilities, and possible shocks caused by a cyber event.

Article By Daniel Meade of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more finance and financial institutions legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

OFAC Offers Guidance in the Wake of Tornado Cash Sanctions

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) updated its “frequently asked questions” (FAQs) Tuesday, providing guidance relating to the sanctions against Tornado Cash, the Ethereum “mixer” it blacklisted in August, following allegations that North Korea used Tornado Cash to launder stolen digital assets. The updated information from OFAC comes as a welcome snippet of communication, allowing for clarity on the scope of the action taken against Tornado Cash, as well as providing guidance for U.S. persons affected by the blacklisting who, through no fault of their own, were caught up in federal action.

The updated FAQs provide guidance on four points: (1) the ability to withdraw funds from wallets associated with the Tornado Cash blacklist; (2) whether the OFAC reporting obligations apply to “dusting” transactions; (3) whether U.S. persons can engage in transactions involving addresses implicated in the blacklist without a license; and (4) what, more generally, is prohibited in the wake of the OFAC blacklisting of Tornado Cash.

(1) Withdrawing Funds

If a U.S. person sent virtual currency to Tornado Cash, but did not complete the mixing transaction or otherwise withdraw such virtual currency prior to August 8, 2022 (the effective date of the OFAC blacklist), such person can request a specific license from OFAC to engage in transactions involving that virtual currency (assuming such person conducts the contemplated transactions within U.S. jurisdiction).

In order to obtain this license, such persons will need to provide, “at a minimum, all relevant information regarding these transactions with Tornado Cash, including the wallet addresses for the remitter and beneficiary, transaction hashes, the date and time of the transaction(s), as well as the amount(s) of virtual currency.”

OFAC indicates that they will embrace a favorable licensing policy towards such applications, so long as the contemplated transactions did not involve conduct that it deems to be otherwise sanctionable, and that licensing requests can be submitted by visiting the following link: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/ofac-license-application-page.

(2) “Dusting” Transactions

Dusting is the act of sending unsolicited and nominal amounts of virtual currency or other digital assets to third parties. This can be done in order to cause consternation on the part of the recipient, particularly in a situation where there is confusion as to the legality of receiving such funds or actions.

OFAC indicates that it has been made aware of Dusting involving virtual currency or other virtual assets from Tornado Cash, and indicates that while, technically, OFAC’s regulations would apply to these transactions, to the extent that these Dusting transactions have no other sanctions associated with them other than Tornado Cash, “OFAC will not prioritize enforcement against the delayed receipt of initial blocking reports and subsequent annual reports of blocked property from such U.S. persons.”

In short, while not a desirable transaction to take place, OFAC does not intend to pursue action against persons simply because they are the target of Dusting.

(3) Engaging in Transactions With Tornado Cash

OFAC clarified that, without explicit license from OFAC, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transaction involving Tornado Cash, including any transaction done via currency wallet addresses OFAC has identified as part of the blacklist.

Specifically, “[i]f U.S. persons were to initiate or otherwise engage in a transaction with Tornado Cash, including or through one of its wallet addresses, such a transaction would violate U.S. sanctions prohibitions, unless exempt or authorized by OFAC.”

(4) Further Tornado Cash Guidance

Referencing FAQs 561 and 562, OFAC reemphasized their authority to include as identifiers on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) specific virtual currency wallet addresses associated with blocked persons, and that such SDN List entry for Tornado Cash included as identifiers certain virtual currency wallet addresses associated with Tornado Cash, as well as the URL address for Tornado Cash’s website.

While the Tornado Cash website has been deleted, it remains available through certain Internet archives, and accordingly OFAC emphasized that engaging in any transaction with Tornado Cash or its blocked property or interests in property is prohibited for U.S. persons.

Interacting with open-source code itself, in a way that does not involve a prohibited transaction with Tornado Cash, is not prohibited. By way of example, “U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from copying the open-source code and making it available online for others to view, as well as discussing, teaching about, or including open-source code in written publications, such as textbooks, absent additional facts. Similarly, U.S. persons would not be prohibited by U.S. sanctions regulations from visiting the Internet archives for the Tornado Cash historical website, nor would they be prohibited from visiting the Tornado Cash website if it again becomes active on the Internet.”

While this update to FAQs come as a welcome bit of clarity, Web3 investors, entrepreneurs, and users should continue to tread carefully when engaging with opportunities and technologies on the periphery of Tornado Cash and the accompanying OFAC action. When questions arise, it is important to seek out informed counsel, to discuss the risks of proposed actions and how best to mitigate that risk while working to pioneer new and emerging technologies.

Article By David A. Lopez-Kurtz of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

For more finance and cryptocurrency legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Federal Reserve Doubles Down on Oversight of Crypto Activities for Banks

The Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”) issued Supervision and Regulation Letter 22-6 (“SR 22-6”), providing guidance for FRB-supervised banking organizations (referred to collectively herein as “FRB banks”) seeking to engage in activities related to cryptocurrency and other digital assets. The letter states that prior to engaging in crypto-asset-related activities, such FRB banks must ensure that their activities are “legally permissible” and determine whether any regulatory filings are required. SR 22-6 further states that FRB banks should notify the FRB prior to engaging in crypto-asset-related activities. Any FRB bank that is already engaged in crypto-asset-related activities should notify the FRB promptly regarding the engagement in such activities, if it has not already done so. The FRB also encourages state member banks to contact state regulators before engaging in any crypto-asset-related activity.

These requirements send a clear message to FRB banks and in fact to all banks that their crypto-asset related activities are considered to be risky and not to be entered into lightly.

Indeed, the FRB noted that crypto-asset-related activities may pose risks related to safety and soundness, consumer protection, and financial stability, and thus a FRB bank should have in place adequate systems, risk management, and controls to conduct such activities in a safe and sound manner and consistent with all applicable laws.

SR 22-6 is similar to guidance previously issued by the OCC and FDIC; in all cases, the agencies require banks to notify regulators before engaging in any kind of digital asset activity, including custody activities. The three agencies also released a joint statement last November in which they pledged to provide greater guidance on the issue in 2022. Further, in an August 17, 2022 speech, FRB Governor Bowman stated that the FRB staff is working to articulate supervisory expectations for banks on a variety of digital asset-related activities, including:

custody of crypto-assets
facilitation of customer purchases and sales of crypto-assets
loans collateralized by crypto-assets, and
issuance and distribution of stablecoins by banking organizations

Interestingly, SR 22-6 comes a few days after a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the OCC requesting that the OCC withdraw its interpretive letters permitting national banks to engage in cryptocurrency activities and a day after Senator Toomey sent a letter to the FDIC questioning whether it is deterring banks from offering cryptocurrency services.

Although past guidance already required banks to notify regulators of crypto activity, this guidance likely could discourage additional banks from entering into crypto-related activities in the future or from adding additional crypto services. In the end, it could have the unfortunate effect of making it more difficult for cryptocurrency companies to obtain banking services.

Article By Grant F. Butler, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, Anthony R.G. Nolan, and Judith E. Rinearson of K&L Gates

For more finance and banking legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Tag: crypto

Supreme Court Says When It Comes to Deciding Arbitration Clauses: “I Am the Law”

Like this:

Death, Taxes, and Crypto Reporting – The Three Things You Cannot Escape

Like this: