Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FTX Bankruptcy Sends Tremors Through Crypto Regulation
It seemed like something out of an old episode of 20/20 from the 1980s: the CEO of a company is just about to be caught doing shady financial deals that bankrupts the company and flees in the middle of the night to a country that has no extradition treaties with the U.S., leaving investors in the lurch. Add in the fact that this latest episode starred the CEO of a leading cryptocurrency company and you have a recipe that could damage the entire industry.
Even those who believe in cryptocurrency and invest in it have to be questioning how safe their crypto really is. Plus, there are enough people left (and admittedly probably those of a certain generation) who remain skeptical about cryptocurrency in general that the bad press resulting from (now former) FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried's "escape" will likely turn those people off to virtual currencies for good.
The sudden and spectacular crash of crypto-exchange FTX will send long-lasting tremors through both the nation's financial regulatory and bankruptcy landscapes, according to partners at international law firm O'Melveny. Regulators — including at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) — will be emboldened to shine a light on everything that touched FTX Sam Bankman-Fried, while using FTX's dramatic demise as justification for expanding federal protection of crypto investors. Bankruptcy courts, meanwhile, will be tied up for years in a closely watched process of untangling FTX's collapse, with billions of dollars in investor funds at stake.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.