By Charlyn Cruz and Sam Laycock
A highly anticipated judgment has been passed down from the High Court, allowing for service via Non-Fungible Token (NFT) on a defendant as the sole means of service. Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Ors  EWHC 340 (KB) concerns Ms. Lavinia Osbourne, who sought to restrict the movement of two NFTs, which were misappropriated from her cryptoasset wallet in 2022. In the judgment, Mr Healy-Pratt (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) expanded on the comments made by Lavender J in his January 2023 judgment relating to the same case. Continue reading “High Court judgment handed down in highly anticipated case – Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Ors ”
The recent case of Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association For BSV & Ors  EWHC 667 (Ch) considered, amongst other things, the potential fiduciary duties owed to crypto owners by developers of crypto software. This judgment originated from an application from the Second to Twelfth, and Fifteenth and Sixteenth Defendants who challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. In this case, it was found that the Defendants did not owe a duty to help the Claimant recover its assets. At first glance, this seems like bad news for victims of crypto fraud. However, if you go beyond the substantive judgment and look at the judge’s obiter comments, the legal developments following the judgment (including the permission to appeal), and the details of the subsequent settlement of the claim, it is arguable that this judgment provides possible scope for an additional strategy for the recovery of crypto assets in the future. Continue reading “The Call of Duty (of Care) – the Potential Ramifications of the Tulip Trading case”
By Sam Pearse
The UK Government has launched a Consultation regarding cryptoassets, focussing on whether unregulated cryptoassets should fall within the financial promotions regime, thereby affording protection for consumers. There is no immediate impact on cryptoasset businesses, but the regulatory landscape is changing.
The UK Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 sets out restrictions on the communication of invitations or inducements to engage in investment activity, such as investing in securities. In brief terms, only those persons who are authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) may make such communications, or persons who are making a communication which as been authorised by an authorised person. Incidentally, the ‘approved communications’ exemption is also being reviewed by HM Treasury and our article about that can be found here.
At its core, the restriction on financial promotion is intended to protect consumers from being mis sold products, whether by virtue of being provided with insufficient information or by fraudulent activity or investing in immature or inadequate market infrastructures. Continue reading “UK Government Consultation on the Promotion of Cryptoassets”