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”
In this digital age, the data held by an organisation can be one of its most important commodities. Threat actors (also known as malicious actors) recognise this and as such, cyberattacks have been on the rise. In particular, ransomware attacks have increased in frequency – studies have found that more than three-quarters of UK businesses were affected by ransomware in 2021. This is to be expected, not least because an organisation can still experience significant disruption, even where it is not the target of a ransomware incident (for example, it could be that an organisation further up or down the supply chain may have been affected).
So what should a company do when their data is being held captive? Should they submit to the demands of the threat actor and simply pay? Or should they refuse to back down, on moral grounds (amongst other things)?
The global pandemic continues to challenge us, with various measures ranging from further lockdowns to restrictions on in-person meetings. The judicial machinery, including that in the arbitration world, has continued to function throughout the pandemic notwithstanding the difficulties of embracing innovative processes and new technology.
In January 2021, Vijay Bange wrote an article examining the challenges of using technology in formal dispute resolution proceedings. Whilst technology has of course been used in international arbitration and high court litigation (particularly in the Technology & Construction Court) for quite some time, that use has been somewhat limited with parties, their legal counsel, and the tribunal often preferring in-person hearings and hard copy papers. 2021 however saw a dramatic rise in the use of technology in dispute resolution proceedings. This was almost certainly borne out of necessity as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than necessarily by choice or organic progression. If disputes were to continue to be resolved, parties had no option but to get to grips with remote hearings, electronic bundles and virtual breakout rooms. Whilst some inevitably faced technological and logistical stumbling blocks, the move to virtual hearings and electronic working proved largely successful with many disputes being resolved expeditiously along the way. In fact, the move towards technology was so successful that many people are now opting to use technology out of choice and not simply out of necessity. Continue reading “Using Technology in Arbitration: Necessity or Choice?”