Genesis Ordered to Comply with Subpoena in Terraform Labs Case

3AC Liquidators Pursue $1.3 Billion from FoundersLiquidators appointed for Three Arrows Capital (3AC), the failed Singaporean cryptocurrency hedge fund, are seeking to recover $1.3 billion from the fund’s co-founders.That’s according to an unidentified source cited by Bloomberg in a report published on Tuesday. The requested amount represents losses incurred by the founders during the months leading up to the firm’s collapse, according to a source familiar with the liquidators’ claims.Photo by Giorgio Trovato on UnsplashLiability allegationsDuring a meeting with the hedge fund’s creditors on Tuesday, the liquidators discussed the allegations against Three Arrows co-founders Su Zhu and Kyle Davies. The co-founders are accused of causing the hedge fund to accumulate significant leverage between May and June 2022, despite already suffering substantial losses from ill-fated Luna tokens and other investments.The liquidators argue that the firm was insolvent at that time. Consequently, they have taken legal action against Zhu and Davies in a British Virgin Islands court to recover the losses on behalf of the fund’s creditors.Lawyers representing Zhu and Davies have not yet responded to requests for comment. However, in a Twitter post last June, Zhu mentioned that their attempts to cooperate with the liquidators were met with resistance.Crypto failure catalystThe failure of Three Arrows Capital coincided with a downturn in the digital currency market, impacting platforms that had exposure to the hedge fund, including crypto lenders BlockFi and Voyager Digital. These platforms subsequently filed for bankruptcy in the weeks following the liquidation of the hedge fund.The liquidators’ allegations against the co-founders represent an escalation of actions taken against Zhu and Davies, whom they have accused of non-cooperation during the investigation. The liquidators, who are partners at the consulting and advisory firm Teneo, were appointed by a British Virgin Islands court last year to recover funds for Three Arrows Capital’s creditors, who are collectively owed approximately $3.3 billion.Earlier this month, the liquidators urged a New York bankruptcy judge to impose a daily fine of $10,000 on Davies. They argue that this substantial fine is warranted because he has failed to respond to a subpoena requesting business records and other relevant information.While the liquidators do not currently know the whereabouts of Davies or Zhu, court documents from earlier this month referenced a New York Times article reporting that Davies had traveled to Bali after the collapse of Three Arrows Capital.Restraining orderIn May Zhu had secured a restraining order against BitMEX Co-Founder Arthur Hayes in a Singaporean court. Hayes believes that he is owed $6 million by the 3AC co-founders. Despite significant adverse publicity within the crypto space, the 3AC co-founders have proceeded to do business within the industry.They’ve established a crypto claims trading platform, OPNX, and alongside that Dubai-based business, they’ve also established a new venture capital fund, 3AC Ventures.The Dubai regulator, the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), has reprimanded OPNX and the business's founders for operating an unregistered digital assets business within the territory.

Incheon Joins Hands with The Sandbox to Promote City in the MetaverseIncheon Metropolitan City is partnering with global metaverse platform The Sandbox to create innovative marketing content aimed at promoting its urban landscape within the virtual realm and establishing an overseas promotional network. This move makes it the first South Korean public institution to work with a metaverse platform.Photo by Jiho Choi on UnsplashThe Sandbox’s virtual worldBuilt on the Ethereum blockchain, The Sandbox enables users to employ non-fungible tokens (NFTs) for creating play-to-earn (P2E) games that can be monetized. The ecosystem’s utility token, SAND, facilitates this mechanism as it is used for in-game purchases. Currently, the platform boasts one of the highest cumulative NFT collection volumes among virtual world projects on the world’s largest NFT marketplace, OpenSea. It has also formed partnerships with over 400 entities around the world.City marketing strategyThrough this collaboration, Incheon plans to develop and introduce engaging content for users to experience the city virtually, such as a variety of events. Furthermore, the city also intends to utilize its intellectual property (IP) for activities such as NFT donation campaigns and metaverse creator training programs to implement extensive NFT content within The Sandbox’s virtual world.“We plan to continually develop content that enables people around the world to experience Incheon through our collaboration with the global metaverse platform,” said Lee Se-woong, Head of Incheon’s City Branding Division.

Hong Kong court grants trademark injunction against HuobiThe Hong Kong Special Administrative Region High Court has resolved a trademark dispute between X-Spot Global Limited and Huobi Global Limited, ruling in favor of X-Spot.Back in June, X-Spot alleged that Huobi Global infringed on its trademark rights related to the “Huobi” name. In the legal process which followed, the court sided with X-Spot, compelling Huobi Global to cease using the “Huobi” trademark or any similar name or logo in Hong Kong.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashPotential confusionThe court’s official judgment highlighted concerns about potential confusion among the public and industry professionals arising from Huobi Global’s use of the “Huobi” trademarks. It emphasized that such confusion could lead people to believe that X-Spot Global, as the registered trademark owner, is actively engaged in cryptocurrency business associated with the trademark. In response, the court dismissed Huobi Global’s plea to revoke the service order and halt negotiations, also instructing the covering of X-Spot Global’s legal expenses.Post-acquisition conflictThe background to this dispute originates in the acquisition of Huobi Global last year. It’s widely believed that TRON blockchain network founder Justin Sun purchased the exchange for $1 billion although Sun has subsequently suggested that he is just an advisor to the crypto exchange business. The acquisition was made by About Capital Management, an entity associated with the controversial crypto entrepreneur.In May of this year, Sun claimed that Wei Li, a brother of Huobi founder Leon Li, had unjustly profited from the sale of Huobi’s native HT token. The disagreement escalated and as a consequence of that conflict, it became apparent that the acquisition agreement explicitly prohibited the buyer from using the “Huobi’’ trademark.Leon Li accused the cryptocurrency exchange of violating the acquisition agreement’s rules by unauthorized use of the “Huobi” trademark. This legal battle has shed light on the strained relationship between Leon Li and Justin Sun.The court’s decision adds a layer of complexity to Huobi Global’s legal challenges, intensifying existing regulatory issues. Notably, the cryptocurrency exchange is already grappling with a recent order from Malaysian authorities to cease operations in the country due to alleged illegal activities.The ruling comes at a critical juncture for Huobi Global. In September the business rebranded to HTX, signaling aspirations for global expansion amidst a shifting legal landscape. At the time, Justin Sun provided the rationale behind the rebrand. Taking to the X social media platform, he wrote:“It’s very hard for foreigners, Westerners, to pronounce ‘Huobi’… It doesn’t make any sense to them.” Sun went on to explain that the word Huobi means fire and coin in Chinese, adding, “That’s why we rebranded as HTX for international branding.”In light of this trademark infringement injunction decision, it could equally be speculated that the company was acting in advance of an unfavorable ruling in compliance with the terms of the business acquisition agreement.In reaching a decision on the matter, Judge Mimmie Chan J noted the lack of a defense mounted by Huobi against the trademark infringement action.