Forced liquidations may result in substantial litigation, we can examine the margin issues and other aspects of the customer’s investments and potential losses to determine if legal claims can be asserted.
Most claims regarding forced liquidations rely on fiduciary duty standards, covenants of good faith and fair dealing. These claims may allege that the firm benefitted from charging margin interest and reaping increased commissions on larger trades when the market was rising but sold its customer out when the market turned sour.
For example, in these volatile times, a CeFi lending platform may provide a customer with a specific deadline to meet a call, but then observe a further decline in the price or credit-worthiness of the customer’s collateral that requires more immediate action, such as an internal change to the amount of release the platform is willing to give on such collateral, triggering liquidation before the previously-stated deadline.
All DeFi and CeFi platforms have reserved for themselves the contractual right to change requirements at any time, so in terms of litigation, customers have the right to claim based on their reliance on the platform’s prior actions or statements, since they might had more time to meet a call by depositing assets or selling on their own terms.
Some lending platforms have also been exposed its accountholders to numerous “flash crashes” and Distributed Denials of Service (DDoS) that engendered wild valuation swings in several cryptocurrency markets, including the market for Ether coin. Those events triggered forced liquidations of client margin accounts and caused tens of millions of dollars in damage to accountholders who were unable to halt their losses while the platform’s web servers were overburdened to the point that it was virtually impossible for accountholders to login and/or interact with the system using the web front.
These situations constitute fraud, negligence, and false advertising, private individuals and companies can be entitled in most cases for a compensation.
Our cryptocurrency litigation attorneys have the expertise to represent a wide variety of clients both from futures and margin trading. These include borrowers and lenders of cryptocurrencies and lending institutions.
The unsettled legal landscape and regulations associated with cryptocurrencies raise significant risks to anyone getting involved in this field. Best practice is to be proactive and seek qualified legal advice before moving forward. Where litigation does result, consulting experienced counsel as soon as possible can mitigate liability and protect your rights.
Forced account liquidations can be hostile and frustrating , we help with most scenarios of crypto assets liquidation including the following cases:
• CEFI and DEFI asset liquidations
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Out-of-Court Settlements
• Compensation Plans
• DDoS Attacks
• Flash crashes
Case management must begin with a clear understanding between the attorney and the client as to both outcome objectives. The attorney should inform the client whether the attorney believes it is possible to achieve the client’s expectations at a cost acceptable to the client.
Like a well planned trip, litigation should start with a good roadmap, flexible enough to accommodate changes in strategy needed as the case proceeds.
We will review your documents and other available evidence relevant to the matter, and prepare a written preliminary assessment of the ways in which the documents and other evidence might affect the outcome objectives, including the law or laws that most likely would govern the case.
It is the rare case in which a litigated outcome is preferable to a settlement. Unless the client is staunchly opposed to settlement, or there are sound business, personal, or strategic reasons why settlement is not desirable or should not be pursued at this juncture, or both the client and the attorney believe that all reasonable settlement avenues have already been exhausted, the client and attorney should jointly plan and carry out a good faith attempt to settle the matter at the earliest opportunity.
As soon as the Preliminary Case Assessment and Litigation Plan in completed, or even earlier if appropriate, the attorney should suggest ways in which a settlement proposal can be structured or a settlement attempt can be approached to enhance the likelihood of meeting outcome objectives and cost objectives through settlement.