In August 2022, Michael Redman, Salina Brindle and Emily Tillett directed questions concerning cryptocurrency insolvency trends to a group of respected experts in the space.
What are some of the key insolvency trends that you are currently seeing?
Rose Kehoe: One of the key trends we are seeing is within the digital asset space. The collapse of TerraUSD in May was the beginning of the crypto winter.
What made this event unique is that TerraUSD stablecoin operates on the basis of pure decentralized finance (DeFi), i.e., someone wrote a block of code and then let the code go. In pure DeFi, when you enter a smart contract to buy or sell, you are essentially transacting on the blockchain—where there is no centralized authority such as an individual or corporate entity. From a litigation perspective this makes it hard to determine where to direct the claim because there is no identifiable person or entity to bring a claim against.
What I didn't realize when Terra first collapsed was that a lot of the exchanges had large reserves of Terra and so the impact has been significant. From that point in time, there was a contagion effect across digital assets market, with many platforms facing financial difficulties. The market is not yet stabilized and there is an increased level of counterparty risk for borrowing and lending platforms.
Emma Thompson and Richard Beard: The potential start of a crypto winter has coincided with a spate of insolvencies in the “cryptosphere”, such as the bankrupt crypto lending platform Celsius, which was placed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New York due to the challenging market conditions. A&M was retained by Celsius Network to assist management assess the company’s cash flows to manage liquidity, prepare for the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing and development of a business plan/ framework to successfully reorganize the business.
Given the ongoing challenges in the crypto space and a possible reduction in the level of investment in crypto assets (given falling disposable incomes), it could well be that there are more insolvencies of this type.
A&M have also been appointed as official liquidators of the Invictus Group, which offers a wide range of crypto investment products targeted at retail investors, including a tokenized, closed-end venture capital fund designed to provide token holders with early-stage exposure to the blockchain industry. Our role involves most of the disciplines offered as part of a restructuring, specifically Stakeholder/ Tokenholder management as well as assisting to deal with shareholder disputes plus a forensic investigation to assist with an asset recovery and realization strategy.
In times of hardship, fraudulent activity tends to increase, so there could be more contentious insolvencies and cases where crypto features as an asset class as investors have attempted to diversify their investment portfolio throughout the pandemic and more generally over recent years as crypto has become more widely understood as an investment opportunity.
Litigation in the cryptosphere is generally regarded as nascent but rapidly developing. How is innovation playing a role in managing these kinds of claims?
Emma Thompson and Richard Beard: In the UK there is a recognition that there are gaps in the legislation when considering certain issues or disputes that may arise given the advancement of technology in crypto and other areas. Plans are afoot to address this and to pass new legislation to ensure that the UK legal system does not lose out in dealing with disputes to other jurisdictions such as Singapore and Dubai. The market is already seeing interesting and novel uses of technology coming into play. For example, both the US and UK courts have seen service of proceedings by non-fungible token (NFT). (In the US: LCX AG, v John Does Nos. 1 – 25; In the UK: D’Aloia v. (1) Persons Unknown (2) Binance Holdings Limited and others.) This provides a way in which legal proceedings can be commenced when you do not know the natural corporate identity that is the beneficial owner of a pseudo-anonymous crypto wallet address. Such remedy will be crucial when looking to make recoveries.
Specialist insolvency practitioners and investigators will have to be innovative and aware of the latest developments involving technology, software and crypto as an asset class so they are best placed to work through any and all scenarios. The continuing rapid development of blockchain forensic tools that allow mapping of fund flows and wallet attribution are keeping pace with the ever-advancing fraud typologies—most recently the focus has been on cross-chain bridge mapping or “demixing” tumbled tokens.
Danielle Haston: Much of the civil litigation related to digital assets involves tracking funds flows, either to evidence a fact pattern that proves or defends the claims, or to identify the final destination of funds to be recovered. Blockchain analytics tools are commonly used to do this, as manual reconstruction of transactions using the native information is extremely time consuming and difficult. This is largely due to the lack of publicly (free) available information to establish which cryptocurrency services operate the addresses that the funds have moved between, and whether they are legitimate businesses or illicit organizations. The starting point is the data that blockchain analytics companies like Chainalysis have compiled, which allow users to quickly trace out a financial investigation in crypto, visualize any structuring that may have been used to try and obscure the trace and see where funds ended up. However, as digital assets and criminals evolve, innovation is key. For example, Chainalysis has developed the ability to "de-mix" transactions after they have been through a tumbling service and trace funds across blockchains after they have been moved from one kind of digital asset into another (chain hopping). New tools have also been developed specifically for tracing DeFi and NFT contracts, which are traditionally more complicated to visualize in the same way as straightforward transactions due to the number of different steps one smart contract may process in a single transaction. This means innovation is essential to managing crypto litigation because, without constant development within blockchain analytics tools, the ability to evidence cases and follow funds could be out of date within months.
Rose Kehoe: Typically, we find that there is a lack of financial information in crypto related matters. In the insolvency cases that I’ve been involved with, this has consistently been the case, meaning you must rely on the cooperation of directors or former management in identifying relevant and useful data and in piecing it together in order to be effective in the administration. Blockchain analytics and data forensics technology using new technologies has come in at the investigations stage where company records may be lacking and is useful in interpreting data that is independently verifiable. We have extracted hundreds of millions of lines working with tech experts from a well-known exchange to extract transactional information from back-end systems. We then work with our forensics investigations team to reconstruct the financial information.
It is possible through blockchain analytics to ‘follow the money’ and trace where the funds may have gone. Theoretically it is possible to identify where funds withdrawn through microtransactions may have coalesced into a single destination wallet tens or even hundreds of thousands of transactions later. There are however practical considerations to this and so it is important to work with experienced technology experts in interpretation of the results.
Technology has also developed for claims processing. For example, in one case in which we had 14,000 creditors we received permission from the BVI Court to have the creditors lodge their claims through an online claims portal. So, there's technology in almost every aspect of the work, we work with cyber experts, data forensics experts, blockchain analytics and build bespoke solutions such as the online claims portal. We are currently working in a distribution of claims in crypto which will also require the use of technology.
James Drury: We have recently seen in the UK (D'Aloia v Person Unknown & Others [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch)) and US courts granting permission for service of proceedings by NFT on the blockchain. This is a really creative way to utilize digital assets as a conduit for service, especially in circumstances where you have not been able to identify the person(s) behind a wallet address that has been used to perpetrate a fraud. The “service NFT” was sent to an anonymous defendant by airdrop.
The New York Supreme Court said that this “is an example of how innovation can provide legitimacy and transparency to a market that some believe is ungovernable.”
As the use of digital assets continues to increase worldwide, the BVI’s nexus to multiple exchanges, token issuers and projects suggests it will be a key jurisdiction for disputes in the sector. The ChainSwap matter, which is a landmark case in the BVI, is a welcome decision which demonstrates that the BVI courts are on top of the issues posed by digital asset fraud and offers a variety of tools to overcome them. There are of course key variables in any crypto recovery case and every case is likely to differ in terms of complexity of the tracing exercise and the practical and legal steps that should be taken to achieve recovery. The methods used by wrongdoers to obfuscate transfers of digital assets and obstruct tracing exercises are becoming far more sophisticated. Legal advisors and forensic experts need to adapt their tracing and recovery tools and techniques to keep pace.
Cryptocurrency exchanges are intangible by nature and, therefore, not confined to a single country’s borders. Given this, how high is the jurisdictional hurdle in crypto claims?
Danielle Haston: It’s worth looking at cryptocurrency exchanges by category. There are traditional exchanges that are centrally controlled by one organization. Although their operations are usually borderless, the larger, more established ones are incorporated as a business in one or more jurisdictions and, where they are not, they usually have a jurisdiction they can be tied to (e.g., location of servers or administrators). Decentralized exchanges, on the contrary, allow users to swap between hundreds of trading pairs without an intermediary and do not take custody of funds.
In the case of claims involving centralized exchanges, we have already seen case law allowing for service of information provision orders, freezing orders, asset preservation orders, etc. The courts have become more comfortable with jurisdiction.
With truly decentralized exchanges, the jurisdictional importance is far less significant in civil asset recovery cases. If the exchange is operating based on code, the assets will have already been redirected or swapped according to what the code provides. They can't undo the code or reverse a transaction to undo payment to a specified address. So instead with a decentralized exchange you can trace the funds through it and follow the funds until they hit a centralized exchange where determining jurisdiction may be easier.
James Drury: I cannot comment on the legal perspective but from a practical aspect, as an insolvency practitioner and investigator, we have found crypto exchanges to be amenable to helping and extremely responsive.
In matters we have worked on, when corresponding with exchanges, we received responses from senior legal counsel within a couple of hours. This was before we had any court order. There was of course a limit to what could be shared without an order, but it was certainly not met with silence or a fractious response. The reality is that exchanges are making a significant enough amount of money from custody and transaction fees that they don’t need or want fraudulent activity being on/off ramped through them.
Rebecca Belgrave: In cases involving the theft and dissipation of crypto assets, obtaining information from exchanges that have received stolen funds or interacted with the perpetrator is often the first step to unlocking the fraud. The exchange may possess information about the perpetrator's identity, where they are based, and where the stolen funds are now. In England, victims of fraud can seek disclosure of this kind of information from non-parties under the Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust jurisdictions. However, until recently there was a level of uncertainty around whether such orders could be served on entities based outside of the jurisdiction. An interim decision in the well-known crypto case of Ion Science v Persons Unknown (unreported) indicated that claimants may be permitted to serve a Bankers Trust disclosure order outside of the jurisdiction but not a Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order. This presented challenges for victims seeking disclosure from foreign entities such as crypto exchanges where the information sought was aimed solely at identifying bad actors rather than tracing assets.
In a positive development, from October 1, 2022, the Practice Direction 6B of the Civil Procedure Rules will be amended to include a new gateway for service of English proceedings out of the jurisdiction. This will include applications for disclosure to obtain information regarding what has become of the property of a claimant and the true identity of a defendant or a potential defendant. This is welcome news and will make it easier to litigate issues that arise in cryptocurrency cases. It should also reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of the information-gathering stage of the proceedings, which hopefully will encourage more victims to engage with the legal process to try to recover stolen funds.
Given the current volatility in the value of crypto, what measures have you found to mitigate the risk of damage or prejudice over what could be a multi-year piece of litigation?
Emma Thompson and Richard Beard: Available options to mitigate risk include any of the following: Transfer to a stablecoin to mitigate volatility; realization of digital assets in tranches to prevent “running through an order book” or causing a tank in value; distributions to be made natively (i.e., in token form); or otherwise hedging a position. There are many derivatives available that can hedge exposure of major tokens.
Crypto assets can also be held in cold storage (on a hard drive for which only designated individuals will hold the private key), which is not registered to a third-party entity name through an exchange. Another way of holding crypto assets in cold storage is through a paper wallet or more likely a hardware wallet (each with appropriate recovery keys stored securely and separately from the wallet). A further protective measure could be to set up multi-signature approvals within devices/wallets where two or more people are required to sign in before assets can be moved. Any option where the private key is held better ensures full control over the crypto assets (and assuming the blockchain supports this option—the vast majority do). There is risk associated with holding these assets, as with most other asset classes, but provided the appropriate steps are taken to identify and secure the assets these risks can be mitigated.
A receivership or other official appointment is often used, but given the esoteric nature of crypto, what offers the best protection for creditors?
Rose Kehoe: It comes down to old-fashioned principles of identifying, securing and safekeeping assets. Day one, you go in as the liquidator and ask management where the assets are. Once you've identified the assets, then you take over control of the assets. Establishing ownership by the company and the nature of claims over the crypto assets is the interesting part which may depend on where and how the assets are held and in our experience on the basis of legal analysis of the terms and conditions that customers have entered into.
Where, for example, customers’ funds are held for trading and have been comingled in a single account controlled by the company the nature of claims over these assets would be general creditor claims and the assets would form part of the liquidation estate. We have adjudicated valid trust claims where funds have been held in a single wallet controlled by an individual and where it has been possible to determine a proprietary claim exists.
On our case matter, Torque, the Liquidators obtained a BVI Court ruling that recognized crypto assets as property which was a first in that jurisdiction.
Emma Thompson and Richard Beard: It depends on the situation. In a case where the loss of value has been so significant an insolvency procedure will likely be required and depending on the domicile of the legal entity, this may take the form of a liquidation (e.g., Three Arrows in BVI), receivership appointment or a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (e.g., Celsius Network, Voyager).
In cases of crypto liquidations, it’s extremely important that any recovery for customer creditors is sent to the correct recipient so that the courts and regulators can have assurance that distributions are not being returned to bad actors. A detailed review of the customer base through due diligence is paramount, particularly in respect of those that may get a liquidation return or dividend.
Administration in the UK and Chapter 11 in the US are focused on business rescue or reorganization and are more appropriate where the underlying business has value and can be saved by selling it as a going concern, or if certain assets can be sold or refinanced to enable the business to be restructured. In theory these options should offer better protection for all creditors in that to justify not liquidating, the returns to creditors should be better than they would be in a liquidation scenario. Rescuing the business as a going concern should also allow for better returns to creditors over a longer period, eventually seeing the business return to solvency and continued trading.
James Drury: This is an interesting question and one that we have deliberated for some time especially in a receivership appointment whereby there is a shareholder dispute, a common scenario involving BVI entities which have been set up as a joint venture. Where a dispute arises in these circumstances, perhaps by the founding members and the BVI entity is the token issuer, how does a receiver step into that scenario where the community supporting that project has full visibility on the tokens?
Any movement of the founder tokens to a third-party wallet, perhaps custodianed by the receiver, will raise serious concerns, which could have the unintended consequence of driving the price of those tokens down.
The creditor position needs to be approached carefully based on the specific facts of the insolvency. Many of those suffering from the first wave of this “crypto winter” have been highly leveraged funds where the hedges were directional and either provided an insufficient hedge or no hedge at all in light of the unexpected movement of crypto currency particularly where it was “pegged” to the performance of a fiat currency or basket. This was similar to hedge funds in the global financial crisis where certain funds were unable to meet margin calls when yield curves inverted or changed beyond an expected “norm”.
In any formal insolvency of a crypto fund or project, access to the information and the wallets (including private keys) is extremely important. Without the cooperation of directors and senior personnel, significant cost will be incurred, which ultimately reduces any potential distribution to creditors from asset realizations.
The current trend shows that Singaporean moratoriums are being used to hold the ring and provide space to prepare restructuring plans—however the extent to which investors are comfortable without a seat at the table is yet to be seen. We anticipate that one way to resolve this would be a light touch appointee in the offshore jurisdiction of the incorporation, which is often offshore in Cayman or BVI, to provide oversight and comfort to those that may not be receiving information. Again, this was frequently the case in the last financial crisis, where investors in funds were unable to get comfortable with the actions of management. The appointment of an independent officer of the court will provide those whose business model has been adversely impacted by the “crypto winter” with the time and space to create a plan and with the additional oversight and capacity that a financial advisor like us can bring may help to reassure investors and provide effective oversight.
Our experience has shown us that being proactive with these decisions will provide greater comfort and protection to directors and stakeholders. For instance, being able to discuss restructuring options and choosing an expert advisor as part of an organized strategy is often preferable to an uncontrolled freefall, winding up or multi part litigation being imposed by a creditor or state/government receiver, where the costs of the process are likely to be more than a planned process that would likely be in the best interests of the collective stakeholders.
Interpath has been at the forefront of regulatory change and have assisted some of the regulators with the drafting of their rules on virtual currencies which means we understand the regulations well.
Recent case developments have helped establish cryptocurrency as "property”. How do you see these developments creating a better scenario for victims of crypto fraud?
Danielle Haston: Having certainty over the classification of digital assets means that claimants can better predict what remedies will be available to them. The treatment of crypto as property in these cases has allowed very helpful and sensible case law to be developed rapidly to assist victims of fraud. It should also mean that the courts will feel comfortable with continuing to afford claimants the benefit of the well-established proprietary remedies at the subsequent stages of these cases as they develop, despite the subject of the litigation concerning a very new asset class. We have already seen other countries such as Canada, Singapore, New Zealand and the BVI adopt the classification of digital assets being considered property. This will only build the international certainty and consistency and facilitate more international cooperation, which is vital with assisting victims of fraud involving a borderless asset class.
Emma Thompson and Richard Beard: The establishment of crypto assets as property in the UK is a positive development and should help those involved in cases of crypto fraud. As the UK judiciary becomes more familiar with crypto cases, legal remedies should be more widely available for recovery actions against this newer asset class (e.g., proprietary injunctions). This is helpful given the quantum of some of these issues, which can be very significant.
It's also important for cryptocurrency to be widely recognized and accepted as a property asset class. Once the world becomes more educated regarding crypto assets generally and accepts that it should be regarded as property, victims should be more likely to report potential fraud of crypto assets. In addition, recovery experts should be better able to ensure their internal processes are geared towards identifying potential crypto assets and/or losses in an estate. Recent case developments serve to effectively normalize crypto assets as property and provide new gateways for its recovery and return to victims.
James Drury: In 2021, the BVI Commercial Court determined how crypto assets should be characterised under BVI law and how such assets should be treated by a liquidator in an insolvent winding up (Philip Smith and Jason Kardachi (in their capacity as joint liquidators) v Torque Group Holdings Limited). Justice Wallbank, in following decisions from numerous other courts in Commonwealth jurisdictions, held that crypto assets should be treated as its “assets or 'property". Just as the English Court had in the case of AA v Persons Unknown, the BVI Commercial Court relied on the guidance given by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce in a Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts which stated that cryptoassets are to be treated as "property" at common law and for the purposes of the English Insolvency Act.
With this important precedent, Interpath, with assistance from its legal advisors, recently obtained judgment from the BVI Commercial Court in ChainSwap v Persons Unknown. This is the first decision of its kind in the BVI, whereby a blockchain-services provider that was the victim of two crypto hacking attacks obtained a freezing injunction against unknown hackers. The court also permitted the applicant to serve the respondents outside the jurisdiction by alternative methods and issued a letter of request to the Croatian authorities seeking its assistance in obtaining information that would reveal the identity of the hackers (this was prior to the NFT decisions).
This matter saw hackers seeking to obfuscate the source of the stolen tokens by using Tornado Cash (a mixer or "tumbler"). The court was satisfied that ChainSwap had, with the assistance of a report from Interpath, established a good arguable case that it had identified the wallet that had received the tokens out of Tornado Cash, which then appears to have "off-ramped" using a centralized exchange in Croatia. The decision demonstrates how the court can adapt familiar remedies to deal with novel challenges.
With the use of these important case developments, Interpath assisted in successfully recovering a significant portion of the stolen crypto.
Rebecca Belgrave: It is now well established that in general the court will treat cryptocurrency assets as property under English law. This means that, as with other asset classes, the English court can grant proprietary injunction orders over stolen crypto assets in aid of tracing claims and has repeatedly demonstrated that it will do so.
More generally, since the early decision in AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), there have been several other important developments which show the wide-ranging remedies available to the victims of cryptocurrency theft. For example, over the past few years, the court has shown its willingness to grant proprietary and freezing orders against “persons unknown”. This is especially important in the world of cryptocurrency, recognizing that the anonymity associated with crypto transactions means victims rarely know the identities of the perpetrators at the outset of proceedings. By granting disclosure orders aimed at identifying the fraudsters whilst simultaneously issuing freezing and/or proprietary injunctions against “persons unknown” (such as happened in Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] (unreported, 21 December 2020), victims can secure the freezing of assets, including crypto assets moved into accounts held with exchanges, even before the identities of the defendants are determined. The English court may also grant a gagging order alongside orders for disclosure from third parties to help ensure that bad actors are not tipped off before they have been served with proceedings.
Ion Science is also notable as the first case in which the court granted a third-party debt order in relation to cryptocurrency. Third party debt orders offer victims a method of enforcing money judgments, allowing the recovery of sums from a third party. In this case, the claimant obtained a third-party debt order against a cryptocurrency exchange where there was a debt payable from the exchange to the underlying fraudster. This offered the victim a route to making recoveries even in circumstances where the fraudster itself had not engaged in the proceedings.
In a further very recent and interesting development, the Court of Appeal in England will hear Tulip Trading's case relating to the legal duties owed by blockchain developers (Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association or BSV [2022] EWHC 667 (Ch)). The claim relates to Tulip's assertion that it cannot access over £3 billion of funds held in addresses on four Bitcoin networks because it lost the private keys associated with the addresses following a hack. Tulip brought the action to argue that duties exist and oblige the developers to make a systemic change to the software to reinstate Tulip's access and control over the Bitcoin held on the networks. At first instance, the Court found in favor of the developers, finding that the claimant had failed to show there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of existence of duties. However, the case will now be considered by the Court of Appeal. If they find that the judge at first instance was wrong in his decision, the case will proceed to a full trial. If the claimant ultimately wins, the decision will significantly expand the potential routes available to those looking to recover cryptocurrency where they have lost the ability to access private wallets.
The Court of Appeal's decision to hear the appeal is the latest in a series of rulings by the English court demonstrating its willingness to engage with the digital space and to hold wrongdoers in this arena to account. Other cases of note include D'Aloia v Persons Unknown & Others [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch), where the court agreed to grant alternative service by e-mail and NFT airdrop, and to recognize a claim against the cryptocurrency exchanges as constructive trustees, as well as the decision in Osbourne v (1) Persons Unknown and (2) Ozone Networks Inc trading as Opensea [2022] EWHC 1021 (Comm), in which the court held there was a realistically arguable case that NFTs are to be treated as property.
How will the increased availability of legal finance capital and products such as monetization help distressed companies or insolvency practitioners recover value for creditors involved in digital currencies?
Emma Thompson and Richard Beard: The availability of third-party funding could enable businesses (and individuals) that may not have available funds to pursue a restructuring of the business or an investigation or litigation to recover digital assets that may have been diverted away from them.
The same applies to insolvency practitioners who have been appointed to advise a distressed business or in relation to an insolvent estate where there are no immediately realizable assets or cash available to pursue recovery of missing digital assets.
Cross border or borderless investigations and litigation that involve persons unknown can be time consuming and costly and so may not be possible to do thoroughly if there is limited funding in the estate. The increasing availability of legal finance capital should allow insolvency practitioners to pursue value for the estate which otherwise may not have been pursued.
Danielle Haston: As with traditional financial fraud, the claimants are either victims who have already suffered significant financial loss, or professionals like insolvency practitioners who are appointed to investigate fraud, typically where there are no funds left in an estate to cover those costs. Without access to legal finance and insurance products, this category of litigation is going to be stifled at the first hurdle, which leaves victims without access to justice and undermines the crypto ecosystem as a whole. The good news is that thanks to the transparency and immutability of the blockchain, and the power of blockchain analysis tools like Chainalysis Reactor, which allow investigators to trace funds despite the use of obfuscation techniques such as the use of mixers and chain hopping, litigation funders and insurers should find that financial investigations involving crypto are often quicker and easier, with evidence of funds flows being better preserved than with traditional financial investigations.
James Drury: We have already started to see increased interest by funders in this space—whether that is buying claims in some of the larger bankruptcy or liquidation processes or an interest and desire to support investigators and insolvency practitioners fund actions against perpetrators of fraud.
As crypto and digital assets become more widely adopted, the opportunities for all will likely become greater too. I believe the funding market has the creativity, capacity and appetite to play a pivotal role in allowing insolvency practitioners to recover value in such scenarios.
Moderators
Salina Brindle is a Vice President in Burford’s asset recovery business and is based in London, with a focus on insolvency. Prior to joining Burford, she was an associate at Moon Beever Solicitors (now Wedlake Bell), where she focused on contentious insolvency matters.
Michael Redman is a Managing Director and co-leads Burford’s global corporate intelligence, asset tracing and enforcement business. He is a leading authority on complex asset recovery with well over a decade of industry experience.
Emily Tillett is a Vice President at Burford with responsibility for leading its investment activity and operations in Hong Kong. Prior to joining Burford, she was Of Counsel at Allen & Overy in Hong Kong, where she focused on representing clients in litigation, regulatory investigations and arbitration, including contentious insolvency and fraud matters.
Participants
Rebecca Belgrave is a partner in the dispute resolution department at Mishcon de Reya in London. She specializes in high value, complex and cross-border commercial disputes with a focus on fraud and asset-tracing. She is part of the firm’s cryptocurrency asset recovery service, helping clients track and recover stolen crypto assets.
Richard Beard is a Managing Director in Alvarez & Marsal’s restructuring team and a licensed insolvency practitioner. He has over 25 years’ experience in the London restructuring market with significant experience in the financial services sector and a focus on digital assets.
James Drury is a Director at Interpath Advisory in the British Virgin Islands. He has 15 years’ insolvency experience and has extensive expertise and experience advising clients relating to cryptocurrencies, NFTs and blockchain technology. James has acted as liquidator of a number of regulated crypto funds as well as leading the ChainSwap hacking investigation.
Danielle Haston is Head of Global Asset Management at Chainalysis, the blockchain data platform. Her mission is to help asset investigation and recovery professionals to bring crypto within the scope of their activities and to facilitate crypto asset recovery success.
Rose Kehoe is a managing director in the Restructuring Advisory at Kroll in Singapore. Rose is an experienced finance professional with expertise in restructuring and insolvency. She is a well-known expert in the cryptocurrency space, having led the case management of Torque Group Holdings Limited (BVI), with over 14,000 creditors and estimated claims of USD350 million, and financial advisor to Vauld Group, a Singapore-based cryptocurrency brokerage, trading and lending platform in relation to its restructuring options, which at its peak of operations held over USD800m assets under management.
Emma Thompson is a Director in Alvarez & Marsal’s contentious insolvency team and a licensed insolvency practitioner. She has 18 years’ experience and specializes in global asset tracing, and working through complex, high profile disputes and litigation with a keen interest on the recovery of digital assets for the benefit of creditors of an insolvent estate.