Reed Smith is live in the forum now

AMA Live now

Graduate Recruitment and SQE interns from Reed Smith are here to answer your questions.

Join the live thread →
Willkie Live: How to Write a Successful Vacation Scheme Application

7 Oct 2025 5:30pm (UK) Zoom (registration required)

Learn exactly how to write a successful application to Willkie Farr & Gallagher, with live examples + Q&A with Gemma Baker.

Register on Zoom →

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CharlesT47" data-source="post: 218047" data-attributes="member: 41021">Currently, I am searching for commercial topics that pique my interest. I came across this  summary of an article by the TCLA Academy which I was originally interested in but in my opinion, the author of the article has somewhat misrepresented the gravity of the situation. "A massive cryptocurrency dispute worth over $1 billion is heading to the High Court this week, with two heavyweight law firms Clyde & Co and Quinn Emanuel, squaring off in what could become a landmark case. The battle centres on Tether, which issues “stablecoins” (cryptocurrencies designed to maintain steady values), and deposits it made with investment bank Britannia Financial Group. Arbitral International, represented by Clyde & Co, claims it’s entitled to profits from a Bahamas brokerage (a financial services company in the Bahamas) it sold to Britannia in 2021, arguing the Tether deposits are part of those assets. Britannia, defended by Quinn Emanuel, disputes this completely.But here’s where it gets particularly intriguing - the case involves Julio Herrera Velutini, a Conservative Party donor who recently struck a deal with US authorities over electoral campaign law violations. This adds a layer of political complexity to what’s already a complex legal dispute about cryptocurrency ownership and corporate structures. The fact that major international law firms are deploying senior partners for a four-day commercial court trial shows how seriously the legal industry is taking crypto-related disputes as this asset class matures.This case represents the growing intersection between traditional corporate law and the wild west of cryptocurrency - we’re witnessing the legal system grappling with assets that didn’t exist when most commercial law was written. The outcome could set important precedents for how courts handle cryptocurrency deposits (digital money held by financial institutions), cross-border investment structures (international business arrangements spanning multiple countries), and the rights of parties in complex financial arrangements involving digital assets (legal claims in multi-party cryptocurrency deals). With over $1 billion at stake, this goes beyond just money; indeed, it’s primarily about establishing legal frameworks for an industry that’s often operated in regulatory grey areas."This is the TCLA article. I think the final paragraph oversells how important this case is/ the relevancy of the asset itself. (Cryptocurrency) In the FT, this is how they describe the actual dispute: "According to the filings from both parties, there was an agreement that Britannia Financial would pay an extra sum based on the amount of revenue-generating assets the business held a year after its sale, including those from clients originally introduced by Arbitral or related parties. Arbitral argues it is owed money under that arrangement because Tether’s deposit was made in the 12 months after it sold the business. Britannia Financial denies that it owes any more money, saying that Tether put the funds with its London-based subsidiary Britannia Global Markets rather than the brokerage it bought from Arbitral. Britannia Global Markets operates as an executing broker and securities custodian."To me, this seems to be a factual dispute more than anything. Arbitral Investments claim that they had facilitated Tether's deposit and so is entitled to the commission. Britannia Global Markets claim that they had been introduced to Tether separately and so they are not liable to pay any commission. The fact that the underlying asset is cryptocurrency (which 'didn't exist when most commercial law was written') is entirely irrelevant. Additionally, the fact that 'major international law firms are deploying senior partners' does not show how seriously the legal indsutry is taking 'crypto-related' disputes. Both sides are taking this seriously because the value of the comission is likely huge, considering the deposit itself was $1 billion. Perhaps I haven't read the most up-to-date article as this FT article is from 2 years ago. If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread